Australia’s parliament has voted to allow same-sex marriage.
The decision follows a bitter debate settled by a much-criticised government survey of voters that strongly endorsed change.
The public gallery in the House of Representatives erupted with applause when the bill passed.
It changes the definition of marriage from solely between a man and a woman to “a union of two people” excluding all others.
The legislation passed with a majority that was not challenged, although five politicians registered their opposition. The Senate passed the same legislation last week 43 votes to 12.
After royal assent and other formalities, the law is likely to take effect in about a month, with the first weddings expected about a month later.
Champagne and tears of flowed in the halls of Parliament House as gay celebrities, including Olympic champion swimmer Ian Thorpe and actress Magda Szubanski, hugged politicians and ordinary people in a party atmosphere.
“What an amazing day, I’m a little bit delirious, it’s extraordinary,” said Szubanski, who sat in the public gallery during yesterday’s debate.
Thorpe thanked “our straight brothers and sisters” for strongly backing marriage equality in the postal survey.
“Quite literally without them voting for us, this would never have happened,” Thorpe said. “It means that we’ve created an Australia that is more equitable, it’s more fair, it’s more just.”
Amendments meant to safeguard freedoms of speech and religion for gay-marriage opponents were all rejected, though those issues may be considered later.
The government has appointed a panel to examine how to safeguard religious freedoms once gay marriage comes in.
Politicians advocating marriage equality had argued the national postal survey mandated a change of the marriage definition alone, so changing the law should not be delayed by other considerations.
Gay marriage was endorsed by 62 per cent of voters who responded to the postal ballot.
“It is now our job as members of parliament to pass a fair bill that does not extend or create any new discriminations,” an emotional MP Warren Entsch, who helped draft the bill, said.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel