[JURIST] An Australian judge ruled [judgment] Thursday that the nation’s ban on same-sex marriage [JURIST news archive] does not amount to gender discrimination, dismissing a challenge to the law. The ruling upholds the decision of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) [official website] to terminate the complaint of sex discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984 [text] on the grounds that it was “misconceived and/or lacking in substance.” Justice Jayne Jagot of the Federal Court of Australia [official website] held that there was no gender discrimination in this policy, because men and women were both equally denied the right to marry a person of the same sex:

The inescapable fact is that s 5 [of the Sex Discrimination Act] defines sex discrimination in a manner which depends on a comparison between the treatment of the person of one sex with the treatment of a person of the opposite sex. In the present case, the alleged discriminatory treatment results from the fact that the relevant agencies of the State can register a “marriage” which is defined by s 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 [text], … as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. It follows that the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life, is not a “marriage” as defined in the Marriage Act and cannot be registered by the State agencies as a marriage. In the terms of s 5 there cannot be discrimination by reason of the sex of a person because in all cases the treatment of the person of the opposite sex is the same. Hence, a man cannot enter into the state of marriage as defined with another man just as a woman cannot enter into the state of marriage with another woman as defined. … The redress for these circumstances lies in the political and not the legal arena because what would be required is a change to the definition of “marriage” in s 5(1) of the Marriage Act.

Legislation aimed at allowing same-sex marriage was rejected [JURIST report] by the Australian Parliament in September, despite polls [SMH report] showing that most Australians support same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage remains a controversial issue around the world. Earlier this month lawmakers in both France and the UK [JURIST reports] approved bills that would legalize same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is currently recognized in nine US states and the District of Columbia, and lawmakers in Illinois and Rhode Island [JURIST report] have recently given approval to same-sex marriage legislation. In December Uruguay’s lower house of parliament approved a same-sex marriage bill that would make Uruguay only the second Latin American country to allow same-sex marriage, following Argentina [JURIST reports]. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Mexico City since 2009, and last year the Supreme Court of Mexico struck down [JURIST reports] Oaxaca’s same-sex marriage ban, which could pave the way for legalization across the country.