Twenty trends in LGBTIQA+ weddings in Melbourne

As a gay marriage celebrant located in Melbourne, Australia, I’ve now conducted more than 200 LGBTIQA+ marriages, arguably more than any other celebrant in Australia.

In the time since marriage equality became law on 9 December 2017, there have been some trends showing up in the queer couples I’ve married, compared with my straight couples. Here are twelve of those trends.

LGBTIQA+ couples who got married were slightly older than their straight counterparts (Figure 1)

The average age of ‘brides’ in LGBTIQA+ couples is 38.4 years, compared with 38.0 years for brides in straight marriages. The average age of ‘grooms’ in LGBTIQA+ couples is 44.5 years, compared with 42.0 years for grooms in straight marriages.

In straight marriages, grooms are, on average, 4.0 years older than their brides. In LGBTIQA+ couples, the difference is slightly larger, with grooms on average 6.1 years older than brides.

The highest average age is among those using the title ‘partner’ in LGBTIQA+ couples, at 45.7 years. This category is not present among straight couples.

Overall, LGBTIQA+ couples tend to be slightly older at the time of marriage compared with straight couples. This likely reflects the more recent legalisation of marriage equality in Australia in 2017, meaning many couples who had been together for longer periods were able to marry later in life.

The age gap between parties in LGBTIQA+ couples is higher and more evenly distributed than between parties in straight couples (Figure 2)

There is a larger age gap between LGBTIQA+ couples than straight couples, with an average gap of 7.2 years compared with 5.6 years for straight couples. The median gap is also higher (5 years for LGBTIQA+ couples versus 3 years for straight couples), indicating that this difference is consistent across the dataset, not just driven by outliers.

Looking at larger age differences, just over half of LGBTIQA+ couples (around 51%) have an age gap of more than 4 years, compared with approximately 37% of straight couples. This suggests that wider age gaps are both more common and more typical among LGBTIQA+ couples.

While there is limited formal research explaining this pattern, the data points to more variability in age pairing among LGBTIQA+ couples. Social and cultural factors may play a role, including different relationship pathways and timelines compared with straight couples.

It may also reflect the dynamics of partner selection. LGBTIQA+ individuals often navigate smaller or more dispersed dating pools, which can lead to a broader range of age pairings. As a result, compatibility may be prioritised across a wider age range, contributing to the more even and extended distribution of age gaps seen in the data.

Overall, the data shows that age differences are not only larger on average among LGBTIQA+ couples, but also more widely distributed.

The distribution of the ages of LGBTIQA+ couples is markedly wider (Figure 3)

The age distribution of LGBTIQA+ couples is more evenly spread across a broad range (approximately 25 to 70), whereas straight couples are more concentrated within a narrower age band, primarily between 26 and 44.

While straight couples tend to cluster around typical “marrying ages,” LGBTIQA+ couples show a more uniform distribution, with people marrying at a wider variety of life stages—including later in life.

This pattern may reflect differing social expectations. Straight couples are often influenced by more traditional timelines around marriage and family formation, which can lead to a concentration in certain age ranges.

In contrast, LGBTIQA+ couples may follow more varied life paths, with fewer uniform expectations around when to marry—resulting in a broader spread of ages at marriage.

87% of my LGBTIQA+ clients had never been married before (Figure 4)

A large majority of LGBTIQA+ clients (87.9%) had never been married prior to their wedding, compared with 77.6% of straight clients. This indicates that first marriages are more common among LGBTIQA+ couples in this dataset.

A smaller proportion of LGBTIQA+ clients had previously been married and divorced (11.9%), compared with a higher proportion among straight clients (21.0%). This suggests that second marriages are more common among straight couples than among LGBTIQA+ couples.

Very few LGBTIQA+ clients were widowed (0.2%), making this category negligible in comparison to the other groups.

Overall, the data shows that LGBTIQA+ couples are more likely to be entering marriage for the first time, whereas straight couples have a higher representation of individuals who have previously been married

LGBTIQA+ couples are just as likely as straight couples to have lived together before marriage (Figure 5)

LGBTIQA+ couples are just as likely as straight couples to have lived together before marriage, with both groups sitting at just over 80% (approximately 83–84%). This suggests that, regardless of couple type, living together prior to marriage is now the norm rather than the exception.

For many LGBTIQA+ couples, however, cohabitation has historically carried additional meaning. Particularly in earlier years—and still today in some contexts—home has often functioned as a place of safety and authenticity in a world that has not always been accepting. Living together has sometimes meant navigating visibility carefully, with couples presenting as ‘friends’ or ‘housemates’ to others while maintaining a committed relationship privately.

This is also relevant for LGBTIQA+ people from countries where being openly queer remains unsafe or criminalised. In these contexts, living together can be both a practical and protective arrangement.

Overall, while the data shows similar rates of cohabitation across all couples, the lived experience behind those numbers can be quite different for LGBTIQA+ couples—shaped by both historical and ongoing social contexts.

LGBTIQA+ couples like their weddings in the hotter months (Figure 6)

LGBTIQA+ couples are slightly more likely than straight couples to hold their weddings in the earlier months of the year, particularly from January through to April. March appears to be the most popular month for both LGBTIQA+ and straight couples.

For straight couples, there is also a noticeable second peak later in the year, particularly in November and December, which is less pronounced among LGBTIQA+ couples.

Across the mid-year months (May to August), both groups show a dip in weddings, although LGBTIQA+ weddings remain relatively more evenly distributed throughout the year compared with straight weddings.

Overall, while both groups share similar seasonal preferences, LGBTIQA+ couples show a slightly more balanced spread across the calendar, whereas straight couples display more pronounced peaks at specific times of the year.

Most LGBTIQA+ couples opt for a Short and Sweet (legals-only) ceremony package – the opposite of straight couples (Figure 7)

Among straight couples, the majority choose either the “Legals Only Wedding” package (49.7%) or the “Superior Wedding” package (41.4%), with “Micro weddings” making up a much smaller share (9.0%). This indicates a fairly even split between couples seeking a simple, legal ceremony and those opting for a more traditional, full-service experience.

For LGBTIQA+ couples, there is a much stronger preference for the “Short & Sweet Wedding” package, which accounts for approximately 74% of all weddings. The “Big Gay Wedding” package represents a smaller proportion (19.2%), while the “Not so big gay wedding” package is used least frequently (6.8%).

Overall, LGBTIQA+ couples show a clear preference for shorter, simpler ceremonies, whereas straight couples are more evenly divided between minimal and more elaborate wedding formats.

These patterns may reflect different relationship journeys and priorities. For some LGBTIQA+ couples—particularly those who were previously unable to legally marry or who are travelling from overseas—the focus may be on formalising the relationship in a meaningful but streamlined way. In contrast, straight couples appear more likely to either follow traditional ceremony structures or opt for purely legal proceedings, resulting in a more balanced distribution across package types.

LGBTIQA+ couples are coming from foreign countries to get married (Figure 8)

Just over half (52.9%) of all wedding parties were born in Australia, with the remaining 47.1% born overseas. This indicates a highly international client base.

Among those born outside Australia, there is a wide spread of countries represented rather than a concentration in any single location. The largest overseas groups include the Philippines (7.7%), Singapore (3.6%), Malaysia (3.2%), India (2.7%), China (2.1%), New Zealand (1.9%), Vietnam (1.8%), and smaller proportions from countries such as the USA and England (both 1.6%).

Overall, while Australia remains the single largest country of origin, nearly half of all wedding parties come from overseas, highlighting the diversity of clients and the global reach of the service.

There is greater diversity in the country of birth for LGBTIQA+ couples than for straight couples (Figure 9)

Among straight wedding parties born outside Australia, there is a broad and diverse spread of countries of origin, with no single country overwhelmingly dominant, although some countries are more prominent than others.

India represents the largest group (14.2%), followed by the Philippines (7.5%) and New Zealand (5.7%). Other notable countries include England (4.7%) and the UK (4.7%), with smaller but consistent representation from countries such as Ireland, China, Lebanon, Turkey, Colombia, South Africa, Iran, and others (generally around 2–3% each).

Overall, the distribution reflects a mix of Asia-Pacific, European, Middle Eastern, African, and South American origins, indicating a highly international and multicultural client base.

Several factors likely contribute to these patterns. Migration trends play a key role, with countries such as India, the Philippines, and the UK representing some of Australia’s largest migrant communities. This increases the likelihood that individuals born in these countries are now living in Australia and choosing to marry locally.

Geographic proximity also appears relevant, particularly for countries in the Asia-Pacific region such as New Zealand and the Philippines, where travel to Australia is relatively accessible.

In addition, cultural and historical ties—especially with countries like the UK and Ireland—may contribute to Australia being a natural or familiar place to marry, whether for residents or those combining travel with significant life events.

The wide distribution across many countries suggests that straight couples in this dataset are not concentrated in just a few international markets, but rather reflect Australia’s broader multicultural population and migration patterns.

Among LGBTIQA+ wedding parties born outside Australia, there is a highly diverse spread of countries of origin, with no single country dominating the cohort.

The largest group is from the Philippines (20.2%), followed by Singapore (9.7%) and Malaysia (9.2%). Other notable countries include China (5.0%), Vietnam (5.0%), the USA (4.2%), Hong Kong (3.8%), Indonesia (3.4%), New Zealand (3.4%), and England (2.9%), with many additional countries contributing smaller proportions.

Overall, the data shows a strong concentration of clients from Asia and the Asia-Pacific region, alongside smaller but meaningful representation from Europe, North America, and Africa.

Several factors likely contribute to these patterns. Geographic proximity and relatively accessible travel routes make Australia an attractive destination for couples from Southeast Asia and nearby regions. In addition, established migration pathways and diaspora communities may increase awareness of Australia as a place to marry.

Legal and social factors may also play a role. Australia’s recognition of same-sex marriage, combined with its reputation as a safe and inclusive environment, may make it a preferred destination for LGBTIQA+ couples from countries where legal recognition or social acceptance is limited.

The particularly high proportion of couples from countries such as the Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia may reflect a combination of cultural ties, travel accessibility, and differing legal or social environments in those countries.

Overall, the data highlights both the international reach of the service and the role of Australia as a destination for LGBTIQA+ couples seeking a legally recognised and supportive environment in which to marry.

The wedding term most commonly used by LGBTIQA+ couples is ‘partner’ (Figure 10)

Among LGBTIQA+ couples, the term “partner” is the most frequently used, accounting for the largest share (217 individuals), followed by “groom” (116) and “bride” (105). This indicates a clear preference for more gender-neutral terminology within LGBTIQA+ weddings, although a substantial number of individuals still choose traditional titles.

In contrast, straight couples overwhelmingly use the traditional terms “bride” (142) and “groom” (143) in almost equal numbers, with the term “partner” used only rarely (5). This highlights a strong alignment with conventional wedding terminology among straight couples.

The data suggests that LGBTIQA+ couples are more diverse in their choice of wedding titles, with a significant shift toward gender-neutral language. At the same time, the continued use of “bride” and “groom” within this group reflects a range of preferences and identities, rather than a single dominant approach.

Overall, while straight couples adhere almost exclusively to traditional titles, LGBTIQA+ couples demonstrate a broader and more varied use of language when defining their roles within a marriage.

Most LGBTIQA+ couples are drawn to non-traditional wedding venues (Figure 11)

Among straight couples, wedding venues are relatively evenly distributed across types.

Around one-third (33.1%) chose traditional wedding venues, 40.0% opted for alternative venues, and 26.9% were married at a residence. This suggests that while traditional venues remain significant, the majority of straight couples (around two-thirds) are now choosing non-traditional settings.

For LGBTIQA+ couples, the pattern is notably different. Only 16.4% chose traditional wedding venues—approximately half the proportion of straight couples—indicating a much lower reliance on conventional wedding settings.

Instead, LGBTIQA+ couples are far more likely to choose non-traditional venues. Nearly half (46.6%) were married at a residence, and a further 37.0% selected alternative venues such as outdoor locations, hospitality venues, or other non-traditional spaces.

In total, approximately 84% of LGBTIQA+ weddings took place outside traditional venues.

While both groups show a shift away from traditional venues, this trend is much more pronounced among LGBTIQA+ couples, who strongly favour more personal or flexible settings.

Overall, the data highlights a clear difference in venue preferences: straight couples maintain a more balanced mix across venue types, whereas LGBTIQA+ couples overwhelmingly choose non-traditional environments, particularly residential settings.

Number of couples who asked me to provide their two legal witnesses (Figure 12)

A significantly higher number of LGBTIQA+ couples (24) asked me to provide their two legal witnesses, compared with just one straight couple. This indicates that the need for witness provision is far more common among LGBTIQA+ clients in this dataset.

This likely reflects practical circumstances rather than preference alone. Many LGBTIQA+ couples—particularly those travelling to Melbourne to marry—may not have local friends or family available to act as witnesses, making this an important service.

In contrast, straight couples almost always provide their own witnesses, with only a single instance where this was requested.

Overall, the data highlights a clear difference in logistical needs, with LGBTIQA+ couples more likely to rely on celebrant-provided witnesses as part of their wedding arrangements.

Seasonal and Package Preference Trends Across Straight and LGBTIQA+ Wedding Couples (Figure 13)

Wedding package preferences vary by both season and couple type, with distinct patterns emerging across the year.

For straight couples, the “Superior Wedding” package shows strong peaks in March and again toward the end of the year (October to December), aligning with overall seasonal popularity. “Legals Only” weddings are more evenly distributed throughout the year, with moderate peaks in February–April and again in the later months, while “Micro weddings” remain consistently low across all months.

For LGBTIQA+ couples, the “Short & Sweet Wedding” package is the most popular across the entire year, with consistently higher volumes than other package types in every month. There are notable peaks early in the year (January–March) and again toward November and December.

The “Big Gay Wedding” package shows comparatively lower and more variable uptake, with some concentration in the earlier months of the year, particularly around March.

The “Not so big gay wedding” package remains the least utilised option and is consistently low across all months.

Overall, LGBTIQA+ couples demonstrate a strong preference for simpler, shorter-format ceremonies throughout the year, while straight couples show more seasonal variation and a stronger uptake of higher-tier packages during peak wedding months.

Evolving Wedding Package Trends: Diverging Preferences Between Straight and LGBTIQA+ Couples Over Time (Figure 14)

Wedding package preferences have shifted over time, with different trends emerging for straight and LGBTIQA+ couples.

For straight couples, the “Superior Wedding” package was highly popular in the earlier years (2016–2018), peaking during that period before declining sharply around 2019–2020. In more recent years, there has been a noticeable shift toward “Legals Only” weddings, which increased significantly from 2021 onwards and became the most common option through to 2024–2025. “Micro weddings” remain a consistently small proportion across all years, with only occasional minor increases.

For LGBTIQA+ couples, the “Short & Sweet Wedding” package is consistently the most popular option across all years. It shows a dip around 2020, followed by a strong peak around 2022–2023, before tapering off again more recently.

The “Big Gay Wedding” package appears at lower but steady levels, with some early uptake around 2018–2019 and smaller fluctuations thereafter. The “Not so big gay wedding” package remains the least used option throughout the period, with only brief increases around 2021–2022.

Overall, the data shows a clear divergence in trends: straight couples have shifted over time from more elaborate ceremonies toward simpler, legal-only options, while LGBTIQA+ couples have consistently preferred shorter, streamlined ceremonies, with less variation across the years.

Balanced Representation of Straight and LGBTIQA+ Couples in Wedding Distribution (Figure 15)

The distribution of wedding couples shows a relatively balanced mix across different couple types, with straight couples representing the largest group (142), followed by gay couples (120) and lesbian couples (86).

While straight couples make up the single largest category, LGBTIQA+ couples (gay and lesbian combined) account for the majority overall, indicating that a significant proportion of weddings officiated are within the LGBTIQA+ community.

The difference between categories is present but not extreme, suggesting a broadly diverse client base rather than a dominance of any one group.

Overall, the data reflects a strong representation of both straight and LGBTIQA+ couples, highlighting a relatively even spread across couple types.

Age Distribution Patterns in Straight Couples by Marital Status (Figure 16)

The age distribution of straight wedding couples varies noticeably depending on marital status.

For individuals who are divorced, ages are spread broadly across a wide range—from the late 20s through to the 70s—with no strong clustering in any single age group. This indicates that remarriage among divorced individuals occurs at many different life stages.

In contrast, individuals who have never been validly married show a more concentrated age distribution. Most are clustered between their late 20s and early 40s, with fewer individuals at older ages. This suggests that first marriages are more likely to occur within a narrower and earlier life stage.

Overall, the data shows that divorced individuals tend to have a more evenly distributed age profile, while those entering their first marriage are more tightly grouped within a typical age range for initial marriage.

Age Distribution Trends in LGBTIQA+ Couples by Marital Status (Figure 17)

The age distribution of LGBTIQA+ wedding couples varies by marital status, showing distinct patterns between those who are divorced and those who have never been married.

For LGBTIQA+ individuals who are divorced, ages are spread broadly across a wide range—from approximately the mid-30s through to the 70s. There is no strong clustering, indicating that remarriage occurs at many different life stages within this group.

In contrast, those who have never been validly married show a more concentrated distribution. Most individuals fall between their late 20s and mid-50s, with a noticeable clustering around the 30s to early 40s. While there are some older individuals, they are less frequent compared with the divorced group.

Overall, the data shows that, similar to straight couples, divorced LGBTIQA+ individuals have a more evenly distributed age profile, whereas first-time marriages are more concentrated within a narrower age range.

Higher Average Marriage Age Among LGBTIQA+ Couples Across Marital Statuses (Figure 18)

Average age varies by marital status for both straight and LGBTIQA+ couples, with LGBTIQA+ individuals consistently older across comparable categories.

Among those who are divorced, the average age is 54 for LGBTIQA+ individuals compared with 50 for straight individuals. A similar pattern appears among those who have never been validly married, with averages of 42 for LGBTIQA+ individuals and 37 for straight individuals.

For widowed individuals, the average age among straight couples is significantly higher at 76. Comparable data is not available for LGBTIQA+ couples in this category.

Overall, the data indicates that, across marital statuses where comparisons can be made, LGBTIQA+ individuals tend to marry at older ages than their straight counterparts.

Global Diversity in Wedding Parties Born Outside Australia (Figure 19)

Among wedding parties born outside Australia, there is a highly diverse distribution of countries of origin, with no single country dominating the cohort.

The largest group is from the Philippines (16.3%), followed by Singapore (7.6%) and Malaysia (6.7%). Other notable countries include India (5.8%), China (4.4%), New Zealand (4.1%), Vietnam (3.8%), England (3.5%), and the USA (3.5%), with many additional countries contributing smaller proportions.

Overall, the data shows a strong representation from Asia-Pacific countries, alongside a meaningful presence from Europe and North America. This indicates that the client base is both regionally and globally diverse.

Several factors may help explain these patterns. Geographic proximity and travel accessibility likely contribute to the higher representation from Asia-Pacific countries such as the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, and India. Established migration pathways and diaspora communities in Australia may also play a role, making Australia a familiar and accessible destination.

In addition, Australia’s legal framework and reputation as a safe and inclusive destination may make it an attractive place for couples—particularly those from countries where marriage laws or social acceptance differ—to formalise their relationships.

The wide spread across many countries also suggests that couples are not coming from just a few specific regions, but rather that there is broad international reach, with individuals from many different cultural backgrounds choosing to marry in Australia.

High International Representation Among LGBTIQA+ Wedding Parties (Figure 20)

Among LGBTIQA+ wedding parties, Australia remains the single largest country of birth (45.8%), although this is notably lower than when looking at all couples combined, indicating a more internationally diverse cohort.

A substantial proportion (54.2%) of LGBTIQA+ clients were born outside Australia, with the largest overseas groups including the Philippines (10.9%), Singapore (5.2%), Malaysia (5.0%), China (2.7%), Vietnam (2.7%), the USA (2.3%), Hong Kong (2.1%), and smaller proportions from countries such as Indonesia, New Zealand, England, Ireland, and South Africa.

Overall, the data shows a strong representation from Asia-Pacific countries, alongside a spread of clients from Europe, North America, and Africa. No single overseas country dominates, suggesting a broad and diverse international client base.

This pattern may reflect a combination of factors, including Australia’s reputation as a safe and inclusive destination for LGBTIQA+ couples, as well as its accessibility from nearby regions. Established migration pathways and diaspora communities may also contribute to couples choosing Australia as a place to marry.

The relatively high proportion of overseas-born LGBTIQA+ clients highlights the global reach of the service and suggests that, for many couples, Australia serves not only as a wedding destination but also as a place where they can formalise their relationship in a supportive legal and social environment.