Not us, not here, not now

If an important reform is blocked at one level it can be progressed at another.

This is why the framers of the constitution gave the states and the Commonwealth a wide range of shared powers, including the power to make laws for marriage.

The history of laws governing personal relationships illustrates the role of federalism in progressing reform.

Heterosexual marriages were solemnised under state laws until the federal Marriage Act in 1961.

Heterosexual and same-sex de facto relationships were recognised first at a state level before being recognised in federal law.

Civil partnerships also spread state-by-state until their recognition in federal law just a few years ago.

I don't recall "national consistency" or "true equality" being deployed as excuses for opposing the states' legal recognition of these personal relationships.

Why should the recognition of same-sex marriages be any different?

In the cases I've cited, reform at a state level helped legitimise reform at a national level, not just culturally but also constitutionally.

For example, in the case of de facto marriages the power of the Commonwealth to legislate arose from referrals of power from the states.

Given there is a question mark over the Commonwealth's constitutional capacity to legislate for same-sex marriages, a referral from the states would also be useful to confirm its power in this area.

As well as national consistency in marriage law, O'Farrell says he is concerned about consistency in divorce law.