From Protests to Proposals: Reflecting on the Political Effectiveness of The Marriage Equality Movement Down Under (2004-2017)

From Protests to Proposals: Reflecting on the Political Effectiveness of The Marriage Equality Movement Down Under  (2004-2017)

Australia’s progression towards equality echoed through decades of social movements, often evolving from violent outbursts advocating for radical change to collective efforts aimed at fostering long-term social cohesion (Scalmer, 2017). The Australian Marriage Equality (AME) movement stands as a notable example of this evolution, whose gradual mobilisation processes culminated in the landmark legalisation of same-sex marriage in 2017 (Thomas et al., 2019). Moreover, its impact, as empirically measured by an ANU Social Research Centre survey, found that a strong 30% of respondents ranked it as the most significant event affecting modern Australian history (Precel, 2018). While this striking statistic underscores the movement’s profound impact on Australian values, it also invites us to reflect on the movement’s enduring path to its timeless victory. Hence, following an early historical overview, the following extended-response is centred on critically reflecting on the effectiveness of the Australian Marriage Equality (AME) movement amidst a backdrop of contemporary political frameworks and their implications.

The Early Historical Foundations & Overview of Australian Marriage Equality

Australia’s journey towards marriage equality is deeply embedded within the broader context of post-colonial industrialised nations battling decades of homophobia instilled through a legacy of British laws that criminalised homosexuality (Bernstein, 2018). In Australia, early forms of LGBTQ+ political activism were unproductive in challenging these laws until the 1970s during which advocacy groups like Campaign-Against-Moral-Persecution (CAMP) were successful in lobbying state governments to decriminalise homosexuality starting with South Australia in 1975. As the states gradually repealed these laws and queer culture began to flourish, the vision for marriage equality in Australia became increasingly visible. This vision was particularly strong following the landmark 2003 rulings by the Canadian Courts of Appeal in Ontario and British Columbia who declared the unconstitutionality of prohibiting same-sex marriages (Herden, 2018).

However, this vision for marriage equality was soon dismantled in August 2004, during which the Howard Government deliberately amended the Marriage Act (1961) to explicitly define marriage as the “union of man and woman”. Subsequently, it galvanised LGBTQ+ and left-wing activists in forming Australian Marriage Equality (AME), the organisation that occupied the epicentre of this social movement and gained gradual traction following endorsements by progressive political parties and advocacy groups (Winter, 2004). Within just 13 years, AME’s relentless activism propelled public support for marriage equality from a modest 38% in 2004 to an impressive 61.6% by the 2017 Marriage Law plebiscite, a historic vote that saw a remarkable 79.5% participation rate. (ABS, 2017). Consequently, Same-sex marriage was legalised on December 7, 2017, after the Liberal-National Coalition government, led by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, passed the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 that redefined marriage as “the union of two people”. It thereby marked the culmination of the social movement, as the nation celebrated the unions of approximately 3,000 same-sex couples shortly thereafter—a resounding affirmation that love ultimately triumphed over all (Richardson-Self et al., 2020; Riseman, 2019).

Australian Marriage Equality: The Power of Worthiness, Numbers, Unity & Commitment

Charles Tilly’s seminal work delves deeply into the dynamic intersection between sociology and political science, offering critical insights into global phenomena. Among his many contributions, the WUNC framework stands out as a powerful paradigm, highlighting that a movement’s success hinges on its ability to effectively project four key elements: Worthiness, Unity, Numbers, and Commitment. Concisely, this insinuates that in addition to strong solidarity, sizeable turnouts and dedicated efforts, a movement must effectively shape its perceived credibility through dignified behaviour and moral appeal (Lloyd, 2024). Implicitly, these elements are tied to framing referring to the movement’s strategically capability to construct narratives that successfully shifts negative sentiments within the public sphere (Wouters & Walgrave, 2017).  

One of AME’s salient strengths rested in its ability to leverage strategic framing in relaying the movement’s intrinsic worthiness to attract party endorsements. Initially this began by contextualising the movement’s purpose through classical liberal epistemes like the fundamental human right of marriage (Equal Rights) and the superiority of love over gender (Equal love) which closely aligned with the doctrines of political parties like the Greens thereby expediting their 2004 endorsement (Herden, 2018). Consequently, through successfully framing the movement’s ideological congruency with progressive parties, AME bolstered its credible visibility that enhanced grassroots mobilisation by capturing the constituencies of such political parties. As time progressed, the movement also demonstrated an adept usage of social media with effective campaigns such as the #YesEquality hashtag that played an effective role in attracting the traction of younger audiences through an engaging atmosphere that regularly framed the beauty of equality within love. The effectiveness of these tactics was directly reflected in the increasing public support for same-sex marriage from 38% in 2004 to 53% in 2010 (Essentials Research, 2010).

Furthermore, the movement also demonstrated its competence through its ability to counter-frame narratives that sought to undermine its external worthiness. This was notable in 2017 when conservative lobby groups like the Coalition for Marriage launched fear-centric campaigns portraying children being coerced into same-sex marriage (Moraro, 2023). In response, the AME counter-framed these narratives through its YES Campaign which featured everyday Australian delivering personal anecdotes regarding the humanistic and empathetic foundations of marriage thus repositioning the inherent morality behind marriage equality (Bernstein et al., 2017). The effectiveness of these counter-framing tactics was demonstrated through statistically-significant survey evidence underscoring that a majority of supportive participants in 2017 plebiscite were committed to equality and diversity (76%) among which heterosexual participants (35%) reported AME’s campaigning efforts as most influential in their voting (Wallace et al., 2021). Collectively, these insights underscore that AME’s ability to counter-frame the social conservative rhetoric through empathetic arguments remained crucial to sustaining their worthiness and expanding their supporter base over the years.

Beyond solidified worthiness, the movement also demonstrated strong solidarity despite this being unclear at certain points during its trajectory. As revealed through empirical research, the movement was composed of two specific conflicting currents: “Assimilationists” who advocated for same-sex marriage as means to infuse LGBTQ+ populations into heteronormative structures and “Transgressors” who challenged traditional institutions like marriage in favour of more diverse and inclusive relationship structures (Hermans, 2016). This factionalism was captured through interview evidence gathered from the movement’s participants between 2012 and 2015, which discovered more positive, assimilationist responses like “Gay marriage is a wonderful thing” and relatively negative, transgressive perspectives like “Marriage is an outdated institution that doesn’t reflect my values” (Reynold and Robinsons, 2023).  These responses capture the inner factionalism within the movement, suggesting that while the quest for legal recognition has unified some, it has also exposed deep-seated ideological rifts that would have hindered collective progress.  While assimilationist perspectives ultimately triumphed over transgressive ones, as directly evidenced by the 2017 legalisation of same-sex marriage, this insight also frames social movements as battles between divergent forces, where only one side can capture the utilitarian good of society.

Internal factionalism did not in any way undermine AME’s ability to mobilise the necessary numbers needed to secure a majority vote during the 2017 plebiscite. One of the key tactics employed to rally diverse segments of Australian society was appealing to their private marginal benefits, as exemplified by the support garnered from Australian corporations. In March 2011, AME published a research report that articulated, through economic modelling, that prohibiting same-sex marriage resulted in a significant drain on the Australian economy, with billions of dollars in foregone economic gains and missed revenue opportunities from marriage tourism Subsequently, this report reframed marriage equality as not just a social issue but an economic issue, thereby appealing to the interests of major Australian corporations, like Qantas and ANZ (Baird, 2018). Thereafter, through attracting endorsements and sponsorships towards AME events from corporations, AME strengthened its ability to expand its numbers through heightened visibility at reduced acquisition costs. Moreover, their technique articulated the importance of mobilising diverse groups within society in order to advance a social movement by often reframing the issues through their private interests.    

Lastly, when it comes to the final pillar of Commitment, the movement demonstrates a compromising narrative characterised by well-organised rallies and unmet objectives.  Despite the imminent risk of counter attacks, AME’s dedication towards achieving marriage equality is evidenced through the extensive investments it undertook in organising at least 30 national rallies between 2014 and 2017 (Moraro, 2023).  However, this singular commitment towards marriage equality often meant compromising its secondary goals with regards to addressing nuanced issues of LGBTQ+ discrimination within broader Australian society. This led to internal critique within the movement, especially amongst people of colour and transgender people, who perceived that AME’s intense focus on marriage equality as marginalising and ignorant (Bernstein et al., 2017). This narrative highlights the importance of inclusivity, by factoring the objectives of all constituents within a social movement when approaching a broader goal that requires legislative change.  Nevertheless, this did not overshadow its commitment towards its primary goal and despite the opportunity costs associated with uncommitted goals, AME’s commitment towards marriage equality alongside other previously discussed factors illustrate a well-coordinated WUNC to underscore the movement’s success. 

AME’s Strategic Adaptability: The Art of Exploiting Evolving Political Conditions

Beyond displaying a well-coordinated WUNC, it is equally crucial to examine how Australia’s evolving political landscape helped shape the movement’s trajectory. Political Opportunity Structures (POS), another one of Tilly’s insightful theories, offers a nuanced understanding of how external political dimensions like constitutionalism, the public sector and stability of executive governments can constrain or empower collective action (Giugni, 2009). The theory posits that shifts in these dimensions engender both opportunities and threats that movements must astutely navigate or exploit in order to advance their cause and prevent repression (Giugni, 2009; Lloyd, 2024).

In its formative years, AME faced substantial challenges having emerged within a socially-conservative political landscape characterised by the Howard Government’s 2004 Amendments to the Marriage Act (1961). These amendments, however, brewed a growing divide between the political and administrative executive evidenced by their 2007 report submission titled Same Sex Same Entitlements, identifying 58 federal laws that denied equal rights to same-sex couples (Witzleb, 2011). AME seized the bureaucratic conflict and report insights as a rallying point highlighting Australia’s inaction on equality as a violation of its core values. Eventually, these rallies were successful in influencing Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock to formally acknowledge the report in June, 2007 (Willet, 2010). This strategic approach of exploiting the divide between the political and administrative executive and framing the report’s findings as a national issue highlights AME’s effectiveness in transforming the fragmented political landscape as an opportunity to mobilise the public support needed for same-sex equality to be legally recognised.

Following this initial success, AME advanced it strategy to forge alliances with ideologically-flexible politicians within the Liberal Party such as Warren Entsch whose private bills to legalise same-sex marriage testified AME’s effectiveness in this strategy (Willet, 2010).  Although, socially-conservatist forces eventually dismissed these bills, it demonstrated AME’s targeting capabilities and salience to influence the federal political landscape. Simultaneously it utilised insider-lobbying strategies on Labor-dominant state governments to pursue marriage equality often leading to mixed outcomes. For instance, in 2012, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) legally recognised same-sex relationships but lacked the federal support needed to secure marriage equality (Brickell and Bennett, 2021). This indicates that while AME’s strategies initially appeared effective, the fragmented approach ultimately hindered the quest for consistent federal support to legalise same-sex marriage within states.

Meanwhile, in the lead-up to the 2016 federal election, AME’s public mobilisation efforts effectively repositioned marriage equality as a pressing federal issue within the public sphere demonstrated by polling data illustrating that 69% of Labour and 72% of Coalition voters supported a plebiscite (Essential Research, 2015). Consequently, the plebiscite became a key priority of the victorious Coalition party over a conscience vote which prompted AME to directly oppose it as being detrimental to the progression of marriage equality as evidenced by a 2016 petition signed by 55,000 participants to support a free parliamentary vote over the plebiscite (Karp, 2016).  While, this opposition was not sufficient to secure a conscience vote, it was a strategic choice that together with further insider lobbying helped shape the perspectives of undecided Coalition representative leading to successful parliamentary votes within both houses to amend the Marriage Act (1961) to accommodate same-sex marriage. Ultimately, AME’s cause had being achieved and as its history demonstrates, the movement was successful in navigating and influencing the political environment to advance change (Vries-Jordan, 2018).

CONCLUSION

Within Australia’s turbulent journey towards achieving equality and liberating from its colonial past, the Australian Marriage Equality (AME) movement stands out as one of the nation’s most transformative forces whose proactive activistic efforts effectively culminated in the 2017 legalisation of same-sex marriage. This extended-response aimed to critically reflect on the movement’s effective trajectory through the perspective of Tilly’s multi-dimensional theories such as WUNC and Political Opportunities.

In the process, it was discovered that alongside committing to grassroots mobilisation the movement effectively leveraged strategic framing through advertisements and statements in not just positioning the worthiness of its cause but to counteract with negative conservative rhetoric and raise appeal to diverse audiences. Despite being succumbed to internal factionalism in the form of assimilationists and transgressors, the movement did not digress from its primary goal and committed itself to national rallies and other initiatives that helped reshape approval towards same-sex marriage within the public sphere. Similarly, through the analysis of Political Opportunities Structures, the movement’s effectiveness was also underscored by its ability to navigate fragmented political environments in advancing its cause. Some of AME’s key strategic highlights included forging relationships with Liberal-Party politicians, lobbying state governments to pursue same-sex protection or strategically opposing the plebiscite to push undecided MPs to vote in favour. Ultimately, the movements efforts paid off through a successful plebiscite accentuated by the overwhelming participation rate and the fact that the same party that once opposed marriage equality was the same part to redefine marriage as the union of two people.

AME’s story is one that insinuates the people power of collective action in transforming the pubic sphere and bringing about legislative changes.  It’s resilience, clever techniques and solidarity is awe-inspiring tale of what it truly means to be a social movement that genuinely endorses the utilitarian good of society. While the movement has concluded, it’s impact on Australian values remains enduring and is a viable reminder to the empathetic need for society to embrace fundamental human rights and freedoms beyond the superficialities of gender, race and nationality.  The movement nevertheless still signified Australia’s broader need to embrace diverse perspectives in ensuring that the rights of marginalised communities remain at the forefront of its social progress.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2017. 1800.0 – Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, 2017 . Abs.gov.au. c=AU; o=Commonwealth of Australia; ou=Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/1800.0.

Baird, Barbara. 2018. “Twenty-First Century LGBTI Activism in Australia: The Limits of Equality.” Australian Historical Studies 49 (4): 475–92. doi:10.1080/1031461X.2018.1519836.

Bernstein, Mary. 2018. The Movement towards Marriage Equality in Advanced Industrialized Countries. Handbook on Gender and Social Policy, September, 307–323. doi:https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367168.00024.

Bernstein, Mary, Brenna Harvey, and Nancy A. Naples. 2017. Marriage, the Final Frontier? Same-Sex Marriage and the Future of the Lesbian and Gay Movement. Sociological Forum 33 (1):30–52. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12392.

Brickell, Chris, and James Bennett. 2021. Marriage Equality in Australia and New Zealand: A Trans‐Tasman Politics of Difference. Australian Journal of Politics & History 67 (2). doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12752.

Essentials Research. 2010. Same Sex Marriage Archives – Page 4 of 4 – the Essential Report Archive. The Essential Report Archive. https://essentialvision.com.au/tag/same-sex-marriage/page/4.

Essential Research. 2017. Same Sex Marriage – the Essential Report Archive. The Essential Report Archive. https://essentialvision.com.au/same-sex-marriage-20.

Giugni, Marco. 2009. Political Opportunities: From Tilly to Tilly. Swiss Political Science Review 15 (2):361–367. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1662-6370.2009.tb00136.x.

Herden, R. J. (2018). Intimacy and Power: Approaching Agency and Marriage Equality in Australia. Humanity. Retrieved from https://novaojs.newcastle.edu.au/hass/index.php/humanity/article/view/62

Hermans, Vanamali. 2016. From Mardis Gras to Marriage Equality: Resisting Assimilation and Embracing Transgression. Cross-Sections, January. ANU Press.

Karp, Paul. 2016. Marriage Equality Activists Collect 55,000-Signature Petition for Free Vote. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/sep/12/marriage-equality-activists-collect-55000-signature-petition-for-free-vote.

Lloyd, J. 2024. Social Movements. Australian Politics & Policy: Senior Edition. University of Sydney Press.

Moraro, Piero. 2023. “The civility of the privileged: Assessing the narrative around Australia’s marriage equality campaign.” In Gender, Feminist and Queer Studies, pp. 203-215. Routledge, 

Precel, Nicole. 2018. Same-Sex Marriage Ranked Australia’s Most Historic Event. The Age. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/same-sex-marriage-ranked-australia-s-most-historic-event-20180123-p4yyrx.html.

Reynolds, Robert, and Shirleene Robinson. 2019. Marriage as a Marker of Secular Inclusion? Oral History and Lesbian and Gay Narratives on Marriage in Contemporary Australia. Journal of Religious History 43 (2):269–284. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9809.12591.

Richardson-Self, Louise; Fielder, Bronwyn & Ezzy, Douglas. 2020. «The aftermath of marriage equality in Australia: Religious freedom and LGBTQ+ non-discrimination». University of Tasmania. https://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/516644.

Riseman, Noah. 2019. Australia’s History of LGBTI Politics and Rights. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, November. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1260.

Scalmer, Sean. 2017. The History of Social Movements in Australia. The History of Social Movements in Global Perspective, 325–352. doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-30427-8_12.

St. John, Jane. 2019. The Marriage Equality Campaign Inspired Australians to Get out the Vote and Say “Yes.” NationBuilder. https://nationbuilder.com/australian_marriage_equality.

Thomas, Amy, Hannah McCann, and Geraldine Fela. 2019. “In This House We Believe in Fairness and Kindness”: Post-Liberation Politics in Australia’s Same-Sex Marriage Postal Survey. Sexualities 23 (4):136346071983034. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460719830347.

Vries-Jordan, Helma G. E. de. 2018. Marriage Equality Policy Diffusion. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, July. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1343.

Wallace, Lee, Victoria Rawlings, Paul Kelaita, and Anika Gauja. 2021. Marriage Equality Blues: Method and Mess around the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. Australian Feminist Studies 36 (109):1–18. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2021.2004538.

Willett, Graham. 2010. “Howard and the Homos.” Social Movement Studies 9 (2): 187–99. doi:10.1080/14742831003603323.

Winter, Bronwyn. 2014. “The Ties That Bind Us”: The Hidden Knots of Gay Marriage. PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies 11 (1). doi:https://doi.org/10.5130/portal.v11i1.3296.

Witzleb, Normann. 2011. Marriage as the “Last Frontier”? Same-Sex Relationship Recognition in Australia. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 25 (2):135–164. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebr007.

Wouters, Ruud, and Stefaan Walgrave. 2017. What Makes Protest Powerful? Reintroducing and Elaborating Charles Tilly’s WUNC Concept. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2909740.