Lawrence v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland

The High Court of Australia considered the case of *Lawrence v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland*. The dispute concerned the validity of a marriage celebrated in Queensland between two men, Mr. Lawrence and his partner. The Attorney-General for Queensland sought a declaration that the marriage was void.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the *Marriage Act 1961* (Cth) validly prohibited the marriage of two persons of the same sex. Specifically, the court had to determine if the definition of marriage within the *Marriage Act* was intended to exclude same-sex unions and, if so, whether such a prohibition was constitutionally valid.

The High Court held that the *Marriage Act* did not prohibit the marriage of two persons of the same sex. French CJ and Kiefel J reasoned that the Act, as it stood, did not contain an express prohibition against same-sex marriage. They found that the common law definition of marriage, which had historically been understood as between a man and a woman, was not determinative in the face of federal legislative power. The court concluded that the *Marriage Act* did not exclude same-sex marriages and therefore the marriage celebrated between Mr. Lawrence and his partner was valid.