Marriage Equality: Taking the Liberal out of Liberalism

The same sex marriage debate in Australia is deeply strange. On the one hand, advocates of 'traditional marriage' paint marriage equality as a radical departure from morality. On the other hand, those in support of same sex marriage argue that 'love has no boundaries'. Neither of these positions grapple with the rationale for the law's involvement in certifying relationships. Arguments on both sides of the debate could probably be satisfied by removing the certification of intimate unions from the law altogether. This need not interfere with religious or personal observances, otherwise known as 'marriage'. This is a radical solution outside the framework of the current debate. But it does highlight the inherent conservatism of both sides of the issue - where the legal institution of marriage has universal support. This can be seen in the arguments by both parties in the US Supreme Court decision of Obergefell v Hodges.


Accepting that the law's involvement in marriage will remain, this post seeks to unravel the different aspects of the marriage equality debate through the lens of liberalism. It has been the rather extraordinary process of the Federal coalition joint party meeting on 11 August that raises a lot of questions in my mind. In particular, I wonder about what this debate says about the law and political process, and what it says about liberty and the operation of government control over personal actions.

Queensland to reintroduce gendered statutory language

On 19 March, the Queensland Attorney-General, Jarrod Bleijie, introduced the Crime and Misconduct and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 to Parliament. The Bill is designed to respond to two inquiries into the working of Queensland's Crime and Misconduct Commission. The Bill has been roundly criticised - not least by Tony Fitzgerald QC, who has described it as 'a gross abuse of power'.

In this post however, I will examine the legitimacy of a lower profile change proposed by the Bill: the renaming of the head of the CMC from 'chairperson' to 'chairman'. See eg clause 35:

35 Amendment of s 224 (Qualifications for appointment as the chairperson)

(1) Section 224, heading, ‘as the chairperson’—
omit, insert—

chairman and deputy chairman

(2) Section 224, ‘chairperson if’—
omit, insert—
chairman or deputy chairman if

Why is Breastfeeding Scary?

Breastfeeding: it's good enough for the Saviour, why not for all?*

Daily morning TV presenter David Koch today told his audience that breastfeeding is something that should be done away from a public area – that women breastfeeding in ‘high traffic areas’ should be a ‘bit discreeter’. He made these comments in response to a report that a woman breastfeeding at a public swimming pool in Queensland was told that she could not do so, and that she should move to another secluded area or leave. 

This request is clearly in breach of s7AA(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (added to the Act in 2011), in that this woman was treated:

less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat someone who is not breastfeeding.

This set of circumstances raises three related questions: why the woman may have been asked to leave; why ‘Kochie’ would have agreed that this was appropriate; and why breastfeeding would ever require such legal protection.