It could go either way, hence why it's such a good contender for the High Court. If you want clarification please ask I can happily write an essay on any of these points for you.
In essence, the Cth has a limited set of legislative powers, while the states can legislate on everything.
Cth has power of marriages, but that's limited to marriage as defined between a man and a woman.
State laws can't be inconsistent with Commonwealth laws but they can compliment, etc.
States say that since it's a narrow bit of legislation, they are free to legislate on the bit that they didn't legislate on, namely not a marriage between a man and a woman.
Commonwealth will say that their legislation covers the field, an annoying constitutional precedent which means that if they can establish that they've covered the field than the States can't legislate on it. Hence its name.
States will say that the legislation is deliberately narrow and therefore doesn't attempt to cover the field. (Doesn't actually outlaw gay marriage but only defines marriage as between a man and a woman). Therefore the States are free to legislate.
Also this is the ACT.....so not a State.....so it can be overruled by primary legislation by the Cth parliament.
It could easily go either way, but my bet is the High Court will side with the Cth on this one and strike it down.
In essence, the Cth has a limited set of legislative powers, while the states can legislate on everything.
Cth has power of marriages, but that's limited to marriage as defined between a man and a woman.
State laws can't be inconsistent with Commonwealth laws but they can compliment, etc.
States say that since it's a narrow bit of legislation, they are free to legislate on the bit that they didn't legislate on, namely not a marriage between a man and a woman.
Commonwealth will say that their legislation covers the field, an annoying constitutional precedent which means that if they can establish that they've covered the field than the States can't legislate on it. Hence its name.
States will say that the legislation is deliberately narrow and therefore doesn't attempt to cover the field. (Doesn't actually outlaw gay marriage but only defines marriage as between a man and a woman). Therefore the States are free to legislate.
Also this is the ACT.....so not a State.....so it can be overruled by primary legislation by the Cth parliament.
It could easily go either way, but my bet is the High Court will side with the Cth on this one and strike it down.