Dear Kipp,

<<it only becomes a marriage after the church ceremony, when the official marriage register is signed and witnessed.>>

That's hilarious - What happens if at the end of the ceremony the newly-weds refuse to go into the church's back-room and sign the register? would the church treat them as fornicating?

Susie,

One could describe a saucepan as a vehicle for driving to the airport if one wanted to.

I’m not aware that Christians ever stoned adulterers, but if you give me a reference, I will look it up.

Stezza,

I know that “meat” used to mean “food”. “Silly” used to mean “holy”. The argument is not that words cannot change their meaning, but that there is no reason to change the meaning of marriage, especially given that the argument is never presented as one for changing the meaning of a word but rather is presented dishonestly as one of denial of equal rights. Nor does the federal parliament have the power to change the legal meanings of words in such a way as to change its own powers.

Zoe,

The word “marriage” has never described any other relationships in Australian law. All the 2004 amendment did was clarify that fact. Australian law does not recognise polygamy as marriage. That other jurisdictions do is not an argument that it also should. That the Catholic Church used to say long ago that it would marry only Catholics is not a matter of definition, but a matter of access, and that access was not to marriage, which could be performed by non-Catholic ministers or civil servants, but to a service performed by a Catholic priest.

There is no restriction on gays marrying and never has been. Nor is there any restriction on gays who do not want to marry instead forming lifelong exclusive unions with other gays. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the gay community to come up with its own word.

"Surely it is not beyond the wit of the gay community to come up with its own word."

That is universally accepted overseas? I think not. Perhaps religious marriages should be renamed "matrimony" now, to differentiate them from Canadian, Dutch, New Zealand, etc etc etc marriages, if that's what worries you.

Besides which - it's not just about gays. There are many people, some straight, some gay, who, under current law, cannot marry anyone whatsoever.

Dear Zoe,

<<There are many people, some straight, some gay, who, under current law, cannot marry anyone whatsoever.>>

That is so untrue - nothing under current law prevents anyone from marrying anyone. I received legal advice that neither yourself nor the person(s) who conduct your marriage can be prosecuted so long as the word 'legal' (as in 'legally married', 'legal wife', 'legally authorised', etc.) is not mentioned in the wedding ceremony.

(and why would I want to use such a stupid word in my wedding anyway?!)

Although there is no freedom of religion in Australia, so far even its most brutal governments are afraid to confront the churches directly and openly by obstructing a religious ceremony or prosecuting people for conducting a religious sacrament.

"That is so untrue - nothing under current law prevents anyone from marrying anyone."

Current law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the law. Those who are Intersex are excluded.

The leading case is "In the marriage of C and D (falsely called C)".
(1979) FLC ¶90-636 Other publishers' citations: (1979) 35 FLR 340 (1979) 5 FamLR 636 (1979) 28 ALR 524

"Notwithstanding the chromosomal arrangement, the surgery carried out on the husband was such as to confirm the recognition that he was born a male and had been reared as a male.
Shortly after the operation referred to, the husband became engaged to his wife and they went out together for some five years prior to marriage....
I am satisfied on the evidence that the husband was neither man nor woman but was a combination of both, and a marriage in the true sense of the word as within the definition referred to above could not have taken place and does not exist."

"I received legal advice that neither yourself nor the person(s) who conduct your marriage can be prosecuted so long as the word 'legal' (as in 'legally married', 'legal wife', 'legally authorised', etc.) is not mentioned in the wedding ceremony."

Our NSW marriage ceremony, dated 1981 used those words, as was customary at the time.

Can I be prosecuted? Not successfully. I was (mis)diagnosed as an Intersex male in 1985, 4 years after marriage, not before. The correct diagnosis - Intersex female - was only arrived at in 2005, after a rather anomalous female puberty, and as the result of medical advances in the last 20 years. So there was no intent to deceive, no men rea. The case is pretty strong there.

Is the marriage voidable? Probably yes, given the leading case above. The distinctions between the two cases make an even stronger case for voidability, if anything.

Is the marriage possibly voidable? That is 100% certain, and so we would be able to take advantage of this ACT law. It's because of cases like ours that that clause was inserted, the ACT Government received advice on that from the ACT Law Reform Council. Who were in turn informed by an ad-hoc panel of experts in the medical and legal areas from the Australian National University.