Ex-PM’s big call on gay marriage

Former prime minister John Howard has stood by his government’s decision to effectively banned same sex marriages in 2004, stating it reflected societal views at the time, and rejecting views that it was an attempt to “prejudice” the marriage equality debate.

In 2004, the then-parliament was asked to consider reinforcing the definition of marriage through the Marriage Act, following state and territory laws in the ACT, and Western Australia which allowed same-sex couples to adopt children.

Ultimately, the laws were changed to explicitly define marriage as “the union of a man and a woman”, with the move criticised by marriage equality advocates.

It also spurred the creation of high-profile advocacy body Australian Marriage Equality led by Luke Gahan and Geraldine Donoghue, who were influential during the 2017 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, which resulted in Australia legalising same sex marriage.

More than 20 years since the cabinet decision, Mr Howard rejects the decision was made to stymie growing calls for marriage equality.

“It is true that we amended the Marriage Act … to not change the definition of marriage because most people thought it unthinkable that a marriage would be other than a man and woman,” he said.

“The idea we did that to prejudice debate is nonsense.”

Mr Howard said then attorney-general Philip Ruddock had said either the parliament could amend the definition, or it would be defined by a judge, which then would have made it “politically impossible” for the government to alter the act.

“The way to fix it was to get in first, it was to lay down the definition, and the definition we put in reflected the view of the government at the time,” he said.

Cabinet advice given to ministers, released for the first time by the National Archives of Australia on Wednesday, said that the law could be amended “as a statement of the government’s position,” however any change would likely “be controversial”.

Ministers were told amendments could explicitly state overseas marriages of same-sex couples would not be recognised in Australia, or to “reinforce the current legal definition of marriage in Australia”.

Although Mr Howard was not a supporter of same-sex marriage, and lashed the plebiscite as “one of the pieces of great immaturity by this country” because the laws weren’t able to be passed through parliament, he said he accepted the result.

“I voted against it, but I lost. The other side won and that’s how it works. My name is not Trump.”

While the ACT attempted to independently legalise same-sex marriage in 2013, following several failed attempts, this was swiftly overturned in the High Court as it was inconsistent with federal laws.

As a result, the 31 marriages which had been performed in the territory were nullified.