12 December 2013

Simon's screwed the pooch. High Court throws out Marriage Equality

| johnboy
Join the conversation
146
high court

As expected the High Court has ruled against Simon Corbell’s gay marriage laws.

Will he have the decency to resign?

More to come.


Shane Rattenbury says it’s up to the Federales now:

ACT Greens Member for Molonglo, Shane Rattenbury has called on the Federal Government to now legislate for an end to marriage discrimination after the High Court has ruled the ACT’s Marriage Equality Bill unlawful.

“Today’s ruling from the High Court was about legal technicalities – it was not about the morality, the common sense or the human importance of ending marriage discrimination,” said Mr Rattenbury.

“Attorney General George Brandis indicated that the Federal Government challenged the ACT’s legislation in the High Court for constitutional reasons rather than moral opposition.

“Now that the High Court has made the constitutional issues clear, the Greens call on the Abbott Government to do what is right both constitutionally and morally, and legislate an end to marriage discrimination, something the majority of Australians want to see.

Fat chance of that from this government but if Labor wants to make too much of it they really should make it party platform.


UPDATE: The High Court’s judgment summary is now available:

Today the High Court decided unanimously that the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013, enacted by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, cannot operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act 1961. The Court held that the federal Parliament has power under the Australian Constitution to legislate with respect to same sex marriage, and that under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the federal Parliament.


FURTHER UPDATE: Simon Corbell is applauding his own leadership and hoping for a warm fuzzy out of the Liberals:

The ACT Government has urged the Federal Government to ensure equality for all Australians, after a disappointing outcome in the High Court, which ruled today that the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 is invalid, Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, said.

Mr Corbell said the Prime Minister should now allow a conscience vote on same sex marriage in the Federal Parliament.

“Now is the time for a national debate on this issue as we witnessed the joy of those couples that have been married since Saturday, when the first weddings took place under the ACT Government’s law.

“The High Court has ruled that the Commonwealth Act is a comprehensive and exhaustive statement of the law of marriage, therefore states and territories are unable to legislate for same sex marriage.”

Mr Corbell said the ACT had shown leadership by passing laws for same sex marriage.


Simon unapologetic for the colossal waste of time, effort and people’s lives:


Andrew Barr talking big:


The Greens are pushing again for a conscience vote:


Perhaps the greatest sin of all, Simon has brought joy to the Australian Christian Lobby:

The Australian Christian Lobby has welcomed the High Court’s decision to reject the ACT’s same-sex marriage laws.

Managing Director Lyle Shelton said the ruling upholds uniformity of marriage laws across the country.

“The ACT’s “marriage” laws were inconsistent with the federal laws and incapable of concurrent operation,” he said.

“This ruling shows it is not the jurisdiction of states to legislate in regards to marriage,” Mr Shelton said.

“It’s important for marriage laws to continue to be administered federally – this is why the Marriage Act was passed in 1961 to have uniform marriage laws,” he said.


In the Canberra Times Crispin Hull is trying to paint it as a win for marriage equality as marriage is now defined as possibly applying beyond the hetero norm.

This correspondent is not convinced any Commonwealth marriage equality laws would ever have faced serious threat on that front, but if it brings someone some joy then that’s something out of this mess.


This from one of those who got married:


Canberra’s Labor members are calling on Tony Abbott to think again:

We are very disappointed with the decision by the High Court to strike out the territory’s same-sex marriage law.

This is a grim day for those same-sex couples that took advantage of the ACT’s ground-breaking legislation and tied the knot since Saturday.

We commend ACT Labor on its efforts to advance the cause of equality.

We also respect the decision of the High Court.

The Prime Minister must now deliver on his pledge that the Liberal Party room will revisit the question of whether to have a conscience vote on same-sex marriage.

The Abbott Government chose to mount this legal challenge at a cost to taxpayers when this is an inherently political decision that should be decided in the Federal Parliament.

[Photo by Josh]

Join the conversation

146
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

IrishPete said :

vet111 said :

I am a lawyer, and you are so far off the mark it’s not funny. My eyes hurt from reading that absolutely appalling interpretation of the Constitution, with complete disregard for anything other than the literal interpretation of a single provision. Please, allow me to educate you.

s51 lists the matters which the Commonwealth parliament may legislate for. The states have legislative authority for anything that is not listed in s51.

The scope of matters in s51 has been interpreted quite broadly by the High Court. In addition, in some matters the states may agree to the Commonwealth becoming involved in certain matters, and the Commonwealth may pass model legislation for adoption by the states. In other matters, as the Commonwealth has responsibility for distributing funding for matters for which the state has authority, it may choose to set conditions on that funding, which may take the form of legislation.

s109 provides that where a state passes a law that is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, that state law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. As per the above, the Commonwealth cannot pass a law that it does not have the legislative authority for, as granted under s51. This preserves the Commonwealth’s power under the Constitution.

s122 provides that the Commonwealth may make laws for the territories. Each territory is established under a Commonwealth Act (known as a self-government act). The Commonwealth is not limited to making laws for the territories only for those matters listed in s51. In addition, self-government acts generally include a safety mechanism to prevent the states doing things it doesn’t agree with, and the self-government act will allow for the Governor-General to disallow a territory law that has been passed.

IP, you come on here and claim superiority over comment on mental health matters because you are qualified in that field. Allow me to do the same here, and humbly suggest that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should refrain from posting. It’s irresponsible and it makes you look silly.

I stopped reading when your third para said “interpreted”, since presumably everything after that point is an interpretation.

Actually, you used the term “interpretation” in the first paragraph (twice), so I should have stopped there.

Any law that needs to be interpreted is poorly written. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that. In fact you probably have to not be a lawyer to know that. Badly written law lines lawyers’ pockets, yet it was written by lawyers. Go figure.

IP

Funnily enough, the rest of my email was telling you what the Constitution provides for – no interpretation necessary.

I think it’s very sad that you would rather remain ignorant than at least attempting to use this opportunity to educate yourself. I’m not going to cover why interpretation is so important – many others have done so in this thread in a much more eloquent manner.

Just because you disagree with the way something works, doesn’t mean it doesn’t actually work that way. But please, feel free to remain with your head in the sand and tell us all why you’re right, without listening to why you’re so wrong.

IrishPete said :

You’re kidding? An Act to tell you how to interpret other Acts?

S15AA says: “In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other interpretation.”

And we needed an Act to tell us that? Is there another telling us to move our feet sequentially rather than simultaneously when walking?

No. There isn’t. But let’s imagine there was such a law.

How would that Act work for people with one leg? Or no legs? What if you had two legs but one didn’t work? Or you were born with two working legs but later lost one in an accident? Or for religious reasons you could only use your left leg on Tuesdays? What about a prosthetic limb…does that constitute a ‘leg’ by definition of this Act?

No law can cover all circumstances and they all may need interpretation at some time.

I’m sure you are an expert in some field (mental health I think someone said earlier). I’m sure you expect people to believe you in that area.

How about you defer to the experts in this field.

Blen_Carmichael10:14 pm 16 Dec 13

LadyxBec said :

I agree that if she waited just to avoid embarrassing Julia Gillard that’s poor form. However I don’t believe that our fearless leaders (of any stripe) value the constitution as much as you seem to think they do.

I don’t recall saying that. I do recall saying that the Commonwealth Attorney-General has a duty to see to it that state/territory laws in breach of section 109 of the Constitution are repudiated to the extent of the inconsistency. The motivation in any federal government taking action along those lines usually has little to do with ideology and a lot to do with patch protection.

LadyxBec said :

There are numerous examples of unconstitutional laws and actions by all levels of government.

Examples please?

LadyxBec said :

In this, as in all other things I am inclined to believe they do what they think will best help them get re-elected.

You don’t say?

LadyxBec said :

There’s no reason they couldn’t have let someone else take it up, if other groups objected.

That’s all very nice. In the Machiavellian world of politics, however, that sort of happy-go-lucky approach will quickly invite contempt and encroachment. Over the years the Federal and State governments have frequently litigated against the other over s109 disputes and claims that the Federal Parliament was enacting legislation ultra vires. If the Federal Government didn’t take action over such a blindingly obvious breach of s109, it would simply encourage other jurisdictions to muscle in on this and other heads of power within s51. In this matter the Federal Government had a choice between appearing like ruthless bastards or appearing pathetically weak. Can’t blame them for choosing the former.

c_c™ said :

Mysteryman said :

It’s too bad you didn’t stop posting after you stopped reading.

The constitution was designed to be open to interpretation – a “living document” that can be amended and interpreted as times change and successive generations comes and go. Interpretation is the role of the High Court. And it works pretty well.

Definitely, not to mention he’s obviously unaware that the law requires the interpretation of legislation, specifically it requires an interpretation that best achieves the purpose of the act.

Someone get this old codger a copy of the Acts Interpretation Act of 1901 and highlight s15AA.

You’re kidding? An Act to tell you how to interpret other Acts?

S15AA says: “In interpreting a provision of an Act, the interpretation that would best achieve the purpose or object of the Act (whether or not that purpose or object is expressly stated in the Act) is to be preferred to each other interpretation.”

And we needed an Act to tell us that? Is there another telling us to move our feet sequentially rather than simultaneously when walking?

Surely the Acts Interpretation Act of 1901 is satire, injected into AUSTLII by The Chaser? I was blissfully unaware of its existence, and my faith in humanity (or politicians and lawyers) has not been increased by the bursting of that particular bubble of naivety.

Did it never cross anyone’s mind, in 1901 or since, to actually write legislation that says what it means and means what it says, rather than requiring endless interpretations and fine legal argument (and yes I mean “fine” in the sense as wine – expensive)? It isn’t rocket science. It really isn’t.

IP

c_c™ said :

IrishPete said :

I stopped reading when your third para said “interpreted”, since presumably everything after that point is an interpretation.

Actually, you used the term “interpretation” in the first paragraph (twice), so I should have stopped there.

Any law that needs to be interpreted is poorly written. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that. In fact you probably have to not be a lawyer to know that. Badly written law lines lawyers’ pockets, yet it was written by lawyers. Go figure.

IP

oh christ, all this time I thought you were just uninformed about law, but you’re really just trolling.

Funnily enough, no, I am not trolling. One should not need to consult a lawyer to know whether it is legal to cross a road at a particular place and time. Laws are written, generally, for observance by non-lawyers, therefore they need to be comprehensible by non-lawyers. A radical concept perhaps, but a sensible one nonetheless. Examine the qualifications of MPs, and then stop wondering about why such a sensible concept would not be pursued by politicians.

IP

Mysteryman said :

It’s too bad you didn’t stop posting after you stopped reading.

The constitution was designed to be open to interpretation – a “living document” that can be amended and interpreted as times change and successive generations comes and go. Interpretation is the role of the High Court. And it works pretty well.

Definitely, not to mention he’s obviously unaware that the law requires the interpretation of legislation, specifically it requires an interpretation that best achieves the purpose of the act.

Someone get this old codger a copy of the Acts Interpretation Act of 1901 and highlight s15AA.

Mysteryman said :

It’s too bad you didn’t stop posting after you stopped reading.

The constitution was designed to be open to interpretation – a “living document” that can be amended and interpreted as times change and successive generations comes and go. Interpretation is the role of the High Court. And it works pretty well.

Can you provide a reference, please, for that statement about the Constitution being designed to be open to interpretation?

I’ll ignore the “it works pretty well” statement as simply an opinion. S127 probably hung around for rather too long…

IP

IrishPete said :

vet111 said :

I am a lawyer, and you are so far off the mark it’s not funny. My eyes hurt from reading that absolutely appalling interpretation of the Constitution, with complete disregard for anything other than the literal interpretation of a single provision. Please, allow me to educate you.

s51 lists the matters which the Commonwealth parliament may legislate for. The states have legislative authority for anything that is not listed in s51.

The scope of matters in s51 has been interpreted quite broadly by the High Court. In addition, in some matters the states may agree to the Commonwealth becoming involved in certain matters, and the Commonwealth may pass model legislation for adoption by the states. In other matters, as the Commonwealth has responsibility for distributing funding for matters for which the state has authority, it may choose to set conditions on that funding, which may take the form of legislation.

s109 provides that where a state passes a law that is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, that state law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. As per the above, the Commonwealth cannot pass a law that it does not have the legislative authority for, as granted under s51. This preserves the Commonwealth’s power under the Constitution.

s122 provides that the Commonwealth may make laws for the territories. Each territory is established under a Commonwealth Act (known as a self-government act). The Commonwealth is not limited to making laws for the territories only for those matters listed in s51. In addition, self-government acts generally include a safety mechanism to prevent the states doing things it doesn’t agree with, and the self-government act will allow for the Governor-General to disallow a territory law that has been passed.

IP, you come on here and claim superiority over comment on mental health matters because you are qualified in that field. Allow me to do the same here, and humbly suggest that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should refrain from posting. It’s irresponsible and it makes you look silly.

I stopped reading when your third para said “interpreted”, since presumably everything after that point is an interpretation.

Actually, you used the term “interpretation” in the first paragraph (twice), so I should have stopped there.

Any law that needs to be interpreted is poorly written. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that. In fact you probably have to not be a lawyer to know that. Badly written law lines lawyers’ pockets, yet it was written by lawyers. Go figure.

IP

It’s too bad you didn’t stop posting after you stopped reading.

The constitution was designed to be open to interpretation – a “living document” that can be amended and interpreted as times change and successive generations comes and go. Interpretation is the role of the High Court. And it works pretty well.

IrishPete said :

I stopped reading when your third para said “interpreted”, since presumably everything after that point is an interpretation.

Actually, you used the term “interpretation” in the first paragraph (twice), so I should have stopped there.

Any law that needs to be interpreted is poorly written. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that. In fact you probably have to not be a lawyer to know that. Badly written law lines lawyers’ pockets, yet it was written by lawyers. Go figure.

IP

oh christ, all this time I thought you were just uninformed about law, but you’re really just trolling.

vet111 said :

poetix said :

vet111 said :

poetix said :

vet111 said :

I am a lawyer…

And there thinking that your user name meant that you were in a useful profession. (-:

🙂

I have no comeback to that….

You should have teased me for stuffing up the sentence!

You are too reasonable.

Ah, but you’re a poet! I would hate to correct one so practiced in the art of prose…

Oh get a room, guys, or gals, or whatever you are…

IP

vet111 said :

I am a lawyer, and you are so far off the mark it’s not funny. My eyes hurt from reading that absolutely appalling interpretation of the Constitution, with complete disregard for anything other than the literal interpretation of a single provision. Please, allow me to educate you.

s51 lists the matters which the Commonwealth parliament may legislate for. The states have legislative authority for anything that is not listed in s51.

The scope of matters in s51 has been interpreted quite broadly by the High Court. In addition, in some matters the states may agree to the Commonwealth becoming involved in certain matters, and the Commonwealth may pass model legislation for adoption by the states. In other matters, as the Commonwealth has responsibility for distributing funding for matters for which the state has authority, it may choose to set conditions on that funding, which may take the form of legislation.

s109 provides that where a state passes a law that is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, that state law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. As per the above, the Commonwealth cannot pass a law that it does not have the legislative authority for, as granted under s51. This preserves the Commonwealth’s power under the Constitution.

s122 provides that the Commonwealth may make laws for the territories. Each territory is established under a Commonwealth Act (known as a self-government act). The Commonwealth is not limited to making laws for the territories only for those matters listed in s51. In addition, self-government acts generally include a safety mechanism to prevent the states doing things it doesn’t agree with, and the self-government act will allow for the Governor-General to disallow a territory law that has been passed.

IP, you come on here and claim superiority over comment on mental health matters because you are qualified in that field. Allow me to do the same here, and humbly suggest that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should refrain from posting. It’s irresponsible and it makes you look silly.

I stopped reading when your third para said “interpreted”, since presumably everything after that point is an interpretation.

Actually, you used the term “interpretation” in the first paragraph (twice), so I should have stopped there.

Any law that needs to be interpreted is poorly written. You don’t have to be a lawyer to know that. In fact you probably have to not be a lawyer to know that. Badly written law lines lawyers’ pockets, yet it was written by lawyers. Go figure.

IP

Same sex cyclists should have a right to use the road and get married with same sex motorists! Yarr!

LadyxBec said :

There are numerous examples of unconstitutional laws…

Do tell?

Mysteryman said :

LadyxBec said :

neanderthalsis said :

LadyxBec said :

It would be nice to see someone attacking the Abbot government for wasting money trying to prevent equal marriage, which is just as wastful as the ACT trying to legalise it.

Honestly, I think it was worth a crack and saying the people who got married have been taken advantage of is a bit of a stretch, they knew this was a possibility and I suspect they were happy to be “used” in the name of the cause.

This is not at all about Tony Abbott, this is about the ACT Government trying to legislate that which is not permissible under the Australian constitution. If this ACT legislation has been proposed two years ago under the Gillard Government, the outcome would have been exactly the same as it was today.

I disagree. It’s only an issue because the law was struck down – which was a direct consequence of Abbott taking it to the high court. Before the court ruled it was unconstitutional it was totally ok. I’m not sure the outcome would have been the same, as I’m not convinced that Gillard would have gone to the court over it.

I agree with Barcham, the bad person here (if we must find one and in all internet debates it seems we must) is Tony Abbott. He could have let the legislation stand and chose not to. The end.

Then you’re as clueless as Barcham is regarding the legal system in this country. Do yourself a favour and learn about the constitution and how it works. Then read about the Attorney General and his/her role. Then go and read about the ACT Civil Partnerships Act 2008 that the RUDD GOVERNMENT threatened to overturn unless it was made clear that the Act in no way mimicked marriage.

You and the others blaming the “evil Tony Abbott” would do well to invest a little time, and a little brain power, researching this issue.

I didn’t say he was evil, only the bad guy. I find Rudd’s actions equally repellent (in fact, my dislike of the man is quite legendary). I’m well aware of how the Constitution works and the role of the A-G. I’m equally well aware that governments cheerfully disregard both when it suites them/they think they can get away with it.

Blen_Carmichael said :

LadyxBec said :

neanderthalsis said :

LadyxBec said :

It would be nice to see someone attacking the Abbot government for wasting money trying to prevent equal marriage, which is just as wastful as the ACT trying to legalise it.

Honestly, I think it was worth a crack and saying the people who got married have been taken advantage of is a bit of a stretch, they knew this was a possibility and I suspect they were happy to be “used” in the name of the cause.

This is not at all about Tony Abbott, this is about the ACT Government trying to legislate that which is not permissible under the Australian constitution. If this ACT legislation has been proposed two years ago under the Gillard Government, the outcome would have been exactly the same as it was today.

I disagree. It’s only an issue because the law was struck down – which was a direct consequence of Abbott taking it to the high court. Before the court ruled it was unconstitutional it was totally ok. I’m not sure the outcome would have been the same, as I’m not convinced that Gillard would have gone to the court over it.

I agree with Barcham, the bad person here (if we must find one and in all internet debates it seems we must) is Tony Abbott. He could have let the legislation stand and chose not to. The end.

I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as that.

The Commonwealth Attorney-General is the first law officer of the Crown and has a duty, whether implied or otherwise, to take action to see that any state/territory law breaching section 109 of the Constitution is repudiated to the extent of the inconsistency. To pretend otherwise and look the other way i.e. nudge, nudge, wink, wink, it’s the vibe, it’s Mabo, it’s justice is simply an abrogation.

Did Abbott and Brandis take this action with a heavy heart? Not on your nelly. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that some interest group, Christian, or conservative, etc would have brought the issue before the High Court, whether it be by mandamus or otherwise.

The other issue one should consider when finding someone to “blame” is why Gallagher – who assumed her office more than two and a half years ago – waited until now to initiate this legislation. She would have been in a stronger position then to do so, given the number of Greens in the Legislative Assembly. Could it be that she didn’t want to embarrass Julia Gillard, who was an opponent of gay marriage? If so that’s hardly a consistent adherence to principle, and pretty piss poor.

I agree that if she waited just to avoid embarrassing Julia Gillard that’s poor form.
However I don’t believe that our fearless leaders (of any stripe) value the constitution as much as you seem to think they do. There are numerous examples of unconstitutional laws and actions by all levels of government. In this, as in all other things I am inclined to believe they do what they think will best help them get re-elected.
There’s no reason they couldn’t have let someone else take it up, if other groups objected.

Darkfalz said :

LadyxBec said :

I agree with Barcham, the bad person here (if we must find one and in all internet debates it seems we must) is Tony Abbott. He could have let the legislation stand and chose not to. The end.

Oh yes. Evil Tony Abbott, who didn’t allow an absurd situation where people’s marriages would be valid or invalid going in and out of the ACT. Would be fun for people who lived in Queanbeyan and worked in the ACT, they’d have a marriage anniversary every week day.

The ACT govt knew this would fail a high court challenge. The people who got “married” on the weekend knew their marriages would be annulled. It was all a pathetically transparent stunt to try to point to Abbott as an evil bigot, something they were unable to do with Gillard for the last 3 years because she was on their side of politics despite having the same beliefs.

Just as absurd as those that trod off to NZ to get hitched, only to return home and discover it was all meaningless. Honestly, as far as arguments against marriage equality go “because it won’t be recognised somewhere else” is pretty weak. Which is really saying something.

I don’t know if the ulterior motives everyone points to exist or not and I don’t care all that much. For me, marriage equality is the right thing to do, therefore the pursit of it should be applauded.

justin heywood3:59 pm 16 Dec 13

vet111 said :

….and humbly suggest that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should refrain from posting. It’s irresponsible and it makes you look silly.

This is the RiotAct. THAT be crazy talk!

poetix said :

shy and retiring
antipodean Rudolph
seasonal blushes

Not nearly enough people write haiku anymore, I’m impressed.

Postalgeek said :

vet111 said :

poetix said :

vet111 said :

poetix said :

vet111 said :

I am a lawyer…

And there thinking that your user name meant that you were in a useful profession. (-:

🙂

I have no comeback to that….

You should have teased me for stuffing up the sentence!

You are too reasonable.

Ah, but you’re a poet!…

In which case it would’ve looked more like this (but more clevererer):

And there thinking that
your user name might have meant
useful profession

So, ’tis the season for open season on Poetix’s prose.

shy and retiring
antipodean Rudolph
seasonal blushes

Well, I’m sure my nose will be glowing, anyway, but probably not from embarrassment. Cheers.

tuco said :

vet111 said :

IrishPete said :

c_c™ said :

IP, you come on here and claim superiority over comment on mental health matters because you are qualified in that field. Allow me to do the same here, and humbly suggest that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should refrain from posting. It’s irresponsible and it makes you look silly.

Whoa whoa, steady on there. That’s the kinda talk that will lead to people making rational comments about subjects they actually know sumpfin’ about. Not on my watch, buddy.

Just to note I didn’t say that and remain mystified by how WordPress’ quoting hierarchy is still beyond some users.

vet111 said :

IrishPete said :

c_c™ said :

1) It doesn’t give the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation

2) It doesn’t give the Commonwealth power to withdraw the authority from any state on any topic

3) A referendum has nothing to do with ‘confirming’ a transfer of power, unless a change to the Constitution is required to do so.

4) And quoting a single provision of the Constitution by itself is useless, as it is with most law. A body of interpretation and precedent applies, without which that above provision on it’s own is useless.

I guess neither of us is a lawyer.

1) it says it does.
2) through 1) yes it does
3) you are responding to a question I asked, not a statement
4) that’s the Section I was referred to by someone else, and it’s what the Constitution says. The Constitution is the most powerful legislation, and other legislation is interpreted in the light of what it says, not the other way around. Yes, it itself is interpreted by the courts, (because politicians and government lawyers are too incompetent to write clear and unambiguous legislation), and those interpretations have some legal standing on their own. But those interpretations are also subject to change over time, with the changing of the guard in the High Court. No-one questioned direct federal funding of local governments until a couple of years ago when a High Court decision appeared to threaten its legality, hence the revival of the campaign for constitutional recognition of local government, the referendum for which was kyboshed by Kevin Rudd’s rush to end his Prime Ministership.

IP

I am a lawyer, and you are so far off the mark it’s not funny. My eyes hurt from reading that absolutely appalling interpretation of the Constitution, with complete disregard for anything other than the literal interpretation of a single provision. Please, allow me to educate you.

s51 lists the matters which the Commonwealth parliament may legislate for. The states have legislative authority for anything that is not listed in s51.

The scope of matters in s51 has been interpreted quite broadly by the High Court. In addition, in some matters the states may agree to the Commonwealth becoming involved in certain matters, and the Commonwealth may pass model legislation for adoption by the states. In other matters, as the Commonwealth has responsibility for distributing funding for matters for which the state has authority, it may choose to set conditions on that funding, which may take the form of legislation.

s109 provides that where a state passes a law that is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, that state law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. As per the above, the Commonwealth cannot pass a law that it does not have the legislative authority for, as granted under s51. This preserves the Commonwealth’s power under the Constitution.

s122 provides that the Commonwealth may make laws for the territories. Each territory is established under a Commonwealth Act (known as a self-government act). The Commonwealth is not limited to making laws for the territories only for those matters listed in s51. In addition, self-government acts generally include a safety mechanism to prevent the states doing things it doesn’t agree with, and the self-government act will allow for the Governor-General to disallow a territory law that has been passed.

IP, you come on here and claim superiority over comment on mental health matters because you are qualified in that field. Allow me to do the same here, and humbly suggest that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should refrain from posting. It’s irresponsible and it makes you look silly.

Yep, that’s a good explanation, and good advertisement for the fact lawyers are capable of speaking in plain, understandable english too.

vet111 said :

poetix said :

vet111 said :

poetix said :

vet111 said :

I am a lawyer…

And there thinking that your user name meant that you were in a useful profession. (-:

🙂

I have no comeback to that….

You should have teased me for stuffing up the sentence!

You are too reasonable.

Ah, but you’re a poet!…

In which case it would’ve looked more like this (but more clevererer):

And there thinking that
your user name might have meant
useful profession

So, ’tis the season for open season on Poetix’s prose.

poetix said :

vet111 said :

poetix said :

vet111 said :

I am a lawyer…

And there thinking that your user name meant that you were in a useful profession. (-:

🙂

I have no comeback to that….

You should have teased me for stuffing up the sentence!

You are too reasonable.

Ah, but you’re a poet! I would hate to correct one so practiced in the art of prose…

vet111 said :

poetix said :

vet111 said :

I am a lawyer…

And there thinking that your user name meant that you were in a useful profession. (-:

🙂

I have no comeback to that….

You should have teased me for stuffing up the sentence! You are too reasonable.

poetix said :

vet111 said :

I am a lawyer…

And there thinking that your user name meant that you were in a useful profession. (-:

🙂

I have no comeback to that….

vet111 said :

I am a lawyer…

And there thinking that your user name meant that you were in a useful profession. (-:

vet111 said :

IrishPete said :

c_c™ said :

IP, you come on here and claim superiority over comment on mental health matters because you are qualified in that field. Allow me to do the same here, and humbly suggest that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should refrain from posting. It’s irresponsible and it makes you look silly.

Whoa whoa, steady on there. That’s the kinda talk that will lead to people making rational comments about subjects they actually know sumpfin’ about. Not on my watch, buddy.

Ghettosmurf879:41 am 16 Dec 13

PantsMan said :

Did Andrew Barr get hitched to his life partner? No? Maybe his sound relationship is not so sound as to want to make it permanent.

Or did he know this was doomed to fail and preferred to let other gays and lesbians go through the heartache (read, sign up for the stunt) of getting married and then promptly unmarried by the High Court?

Of course! Because It couldn’t be possible to believe in equal rights or to ask for people to have a right to do something without availing yourself of it?

I can’t believe all those straight people out there who are in long-term relationships who haven’t gotten married yet? What do they fear? They have the right to, so why haven’t they? Maybe they’re fearful that the impending introduction of same-sex marriage sometime in the future will render such a marriage worthless? Or maybe they just don’t want to get married!?

There are plenty of people out there who have de facto relationships and never see the need to get married, but they have the right to. What a horrid argument that Barr must have been part of a great big conspiracy because he didn’t get married with the ACT’s new law even though he was advocating for some people to have that right.

Every single person on this forum knows you hate homosexuals PantsMan, so don’t pull out the sympathy card of “heartache” for those who got married and then annulled. We all know you don’t think they should have the right to get married at all, ever.

IrishPete said :

c_c™ said :

1) It doesn’t give the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation

2) It doesn’t give the Commonwealth power to withdraw the authority from any state on any topic

3) A referendum has nothing to do with ‘confirming’ a transfer of power, unless a change to the Constitution is required to do so.

4) And quoting a single provision of the Constitution by itself is useless, as it is with most law. A body of interpretation and precedent applies, without which that above provision on it’s own is useless.

I guess neither of us is a lawyer.

1) it says it does.
2) through 1) yes it does
3) you are responding to a question I asked, not a statement
4) that’s the Section I was referred to by someone else, and it’s what the Constitution says. The Constitution is the most powerful legislation, and other legislation is interpreted in the light of what it says, not the other way around. Yes, it itself is interpreted by the courts, (because politicians and government lawyers are too incompetent to write clear and unambiguous legislation), and those interpretations have some legal standing on their own. But those interpretations are also subject to change over time, with the changing of the guard in the High Court. No-one questioned direct federal funding of local governments until a couple of years ago when a High Court decision appeared to threaten its legality, hence the revival of the campaign for constitutional recognition of local government, the referendum for which was kyboshed by Kevin Rudd’s rush to end his Prime Ministership.

IP

I am a lawyer, and you are so far off the mark it’s not funny. My eyes hurt from reading that absolutely appalling interpretation of the Constitution, with complete disregard for anything other than the literal interpretation of a single provision. Please, allow me to educate you.

s51 lists the matters which the Commonwealth parliament may legislate for. The states have legislative authority for anything that is not listed in s51.

The scope of matters in s51 has been interpreted quite broadly by the High Court. In addition, in some matters the states may agree to the Commonwealth becoming involved in certain matters, and the Commonwealth may pass model legislation for adoption by the states. In other matters, as the Commonwealth has responsibility for distributing funding for matters for which the state has authority, it may choose to set conditions on that funding, which may take the form of legislation.

s109 provides that where a state passes a law that is inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, that state law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency. As per the above, the Commonwealth cannot pass a law that it does not have the legislative authority for, as granted under s51. This preserves the Commonwealth’s power under the Constitution.

s122 provides that the Commonwealth may make laws for the territories. Each territory is established under a Commonwealth Act (known as a self-government act). The Commonwealth is not limited to making laws for the territories only for those matters listed in s51. In addition, self-government acts generally include a safety mechanism to prevent the states doing things it doesn’t agree with, and the self-government act will allow for the Governor-General to disallow a territory law that has been passed.

IP, you come on here and claim superiority over comment on mental health matters because you are qualified in that field. Allow me to do the same here, and humbly suggest that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should refrain from posting. It’s irresponsible and it makes you look silly.

Did Andrew Barr get hitched to his life partner? No? Maybe his sound relationship is not so sound as to want to make it permanent.

Or did he know this was doomed to fail and preferred to let other gays and lesbians go through the heartache (read, sign up for the stunt) of getting married and then promptly unmarried by the High Court?

Blen_Carmichael5:15 pm 15 Dec 13

IrishPete said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

Could someone please take the resident bush lawyer aside and explain to him that section 109 of the Constitution does not give “the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation”. A good start would be referring him to section 51.

But can you explain the absence from S51 of a whole range of issues that the Commonwealth does legislate on? I couldn’t find any mention of schools or education in S51, but there are several Commonwealth Acts which specifically relate to those. That’s just one topic chosen virtually at random.

Yes, there is Commonwealth legislation that relates to State matters such as education and health. But this legislation is usually based upon the Commonwealth’s prerogative under s.96 to provide financial assistance to the states e.g. s.4 Australian Education Act 2013. A State can choose to accept those funds, which means it also must accept the terms and conditions of how they are spent. That said, it is free to reject them.

IrishPete said :

Like the funding of local government I referred to earlier, perhaps there are lots of areas where the Feds are sticking their oars in and shouldn’t be. If they stick their oars in, and their oar conflicts with State legislation, which prevails? And if they are doing that, why shouldn’t the ACT challenge in the other direction?

Some fairly wide questions there. However:

1) States have the option of asking the High Court to declare invalid Commonwealth legislation that is inconsistent with State legislation. In the event the court ruled in the plaintiff’s favour (i.e. the Commonwealth did not enact the legislation under a valid head of power) the state legislation would probably prevail.

2) Unlike the states’ reserved powers, s.122 of the Constitution allows the Commonwealth to legislate for a Territory.

3) On the subject of sticking one’s oar in, you’ll find the states have many legislative acts that bind the Commonwealth and that relate to matters pertaining to s51 of the Constitution. This does not necessarily make them invalid – after all co-existance is as much a part of s.109 as is consistency. But it does illustrate that the areas of Commonwealth and State laws are not mutually exclusive.

IrishPete said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

Could someone please take the resident bush lawyer aside and explain to him that section 109 of the Constitution does not give “the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation”. A good start would be referring him to section 51.

Well, actually it does, but what you are saying is that it is qualified by another section. Fair point, and I guess this represents another inconsistency in the Constitution (if it was well-written, S109 would refer back to S51).

But can you explain the absence from S51 of a whole range of issues that the Commonwealth does legislate on? I couldn’t find any mention of schools or education in S51, but there are several Commonwealth Acts which specifically relate to those. That’s just one topic chosen virtually at random.

Like the funding of local government I referred to earlier, perhaps there are lots of areas where the Feds are sticking their oars in and shouldn’t be. If they stick their oars in, and their oar conflicts with State legislation, which prevails? And if they are doing that, why shouldn’t the ACT challenge in the other direction?

IP

IP

It’s not an inconsistency, you just don’t know how to read or use legal provisions.

At a very basic level, there are three tests for inconsistency, plus a prohibition on the Commonwealth specifically legislating to remove a power the State validly exercises but which the Commonwealth shares under s51 (as distinct from the Commonwealth legislating to use the power itself).

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd4:10 pm 15 Dec 13

milkman said :

Ben_Dover said :

Simon’s screwed the pooch.

Oh well, at least he didn’t try to marry it….

Maybe the Raiders will take him.

LOL

Mark of Sydney2:31 pm 15 Dec 13

Blen_Carmichael said :

Could someone please take the resident bush lawyer aside and explain to him that section 109 of the Constitution does not give “the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation”. A good start would be referring him to section 51.

For what it’s worth, this is what Wikipedia says:

‘Section 51 of the Constitution of Australia grants legislative powers to the Australian (Commonwealth) Parliament only when subject to the constitution. When the six Australian colonies joined together in Federation in 1901, they became the original States and ceded some of their powers to the new Commonwealth Parliament. There are 39 subsections to section 51, each of which describes a “head of power” under which the Parliament has the power to make laws.

The Commonwealth legislative power is limited to that granted in the Constitution. Powers not included in section 51 are considered “residual powers”, and remain the domain of the states, unless there is another grant of constitutional power (e.g. Section 52 and Section 90 prescribe additional powers). Matters covered in section 51 may be legislated on by the states, but the legislation will be ineffective if inconsistent with or in a field ‘covered by’ Commonwealth legislation (by virtue of s109 inconsistency provision).’

milkman said :

Ben_Dover said :

Simon’s screwed the pooch.

Oh well, at least he didn’t try to marry it….

Maybe the Raiders will take him.

Or the ABC.
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/dogdf_thumb.jpg

Blen_Carmichael said :

Could someone please take the resident bush lawyer aside and explain to him that section 109 of the Constitution does not give “the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation”. A good start would be referring him to section 51.

Well, actually it does, but what you are saying is that it is qualified by another section. Fair point, and I guess this represents another inconsistency in the Constitution (if it was well-written, S109 would refer back to S51).

But can you explain the absence from S51 of a whole range of issues that the Commonwealth does legislate on? I couldn’t find any mention of schools or education in S51, but there are several Commonwealth Acts which specifically relate to those. That’s just one topic chosen virtually at random.

Like the funding of local government I referred to earlier, perhaps there are lots of areas where the Feds are sticking their oars in and shouldn’t be. If they stick their oars in, and their oar conflicts with State legislation, which prevails? And if they are doing that, why shouldn’t the ACT challenge in the other direction?

IP

IP

milkman said :

Ben_Dover said :

Simon’s screwed the pooch.

Oh well, at least he didn’t try to marry it….

Maybe the Raiders will take him.

Where’s Dogman when you need him?

Ben_Dover said :

Simon’s screwed the pooch.

Oh well, at least he didn’t try to marry it….

Maybe the Raiders will take him.

Blen_Carmichael10:51 am 15 Dec 13

Could someone please take the resident bush lawyer aside and explain to him that section 109 of the Constitution does not give “the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation”. A good start would be referring him to section 51.

Simon’s screwed the pooch.

Oh well, at least he didn’t try to marry it….

c_c™ said :

1) It doesn’t give the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation

2) It doesn’t give the Commonwealth power to withdraw the authority from any state on any topic

3) A referendum has nothing to do with ‘confirming’ a transfer of power, unless a change to the Constitution is required to do so.

4) And quoting a single provision of the Constitution by itself is useless, as it is with most law. A body of interpretation and precedent applies, without which that above provision on it’s own is useless.

I guess neither of us is a lawyer.

1) it says it does.
2) through 1) yes it does
3) you are responding to a question I asked, not a statement
4) that’s the Section I was referred to by someone else, and it’s what the Constitution says. The Constitution is the most powerful legislation, and other legislation is interpreted in the light of what it says, not the other way around. Yes, it itself is interpreted by the courts, (because politicians and government lawyers are too incompetent to write clear and unambiguous legislation), and those interpretations have some legal standing on their own. But those interpretations are also subject to change over time, with the changing of the guard in the High Court. No-one questioned direct federal funding of local governments until a couple of years ago when a High Court decision appeared to threaten its legality, hence the revival of the campaign for constitutional recognition of local government, the referendum for which was kyboshed by Kevin Rudd’s rush to end his Prime Ministership.

IP

IrishPete said :

c_c™ said :

IrishPete said :

Well it may seem sensible, but it actually gives the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation, which may be a good thing, or it may not. There should probably be constitutional restrictions on what the C’wealth can legislate on, so it can’t just withdraw authority from any State on any topic whenever it feels like it.

That may not apply in this case, as the States gave authority to the Feds in the 1960s on this topic, but that was 50 years ago and perhaps the States should have the right to take the power back? Was there a referendum to confirm that transfer of power?

Interesting that S109 refers to States and not Territories, but who am I to quibble?

IP

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I defer to Justice c_c™’s superior knowledge. Despite the evidence to the contrary, e.g. “COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 109 – Inconsistency of laws – When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”

IP

It doesn’t give the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation

It doesn’t give the Commonwealth power to withdraw the authority from any state on any topic

A referendum has nothing to do with ‘confirming’ a transfer of power, unless a change to the Constitution is required to do so.

And quoting a single provision of the Constitution by itself is useless, as it is with most law. A body of interpretation and precedent applies, without which that above provision on it’s own is useless.

c_c™ said :

IrishPete said :

Well it may seem sensible, but it actually gives the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation, which may be a good thing, or it may not. There should probably be constitutional restrictions on what the C’wealth can legislate on, so it can’t just withdraw authority from any State on any topic whenever it feels like it.

That may not apply in this case, as the States gave authority to the Feds in the 1960s on this topic, but that was 50 years ago and perhaps the States should have the right to take the power back? Was there a referendum to confirm that transfer of power?

Interesting that S109 refers to States and not Territories, but who am I to quibble?

IP

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

I defer to Justice c_c™’s superior knowledge. Despite the evidence to the contrary, e.g. “COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 109 – Inconsistency of laws – When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”

IP

IrishPete said :

Well it may seem sensible, but it actually gives the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation, which may be a good thing, or it may not. There should probably be constitutional restrictions on what the C’wealth can legislate on, so it can’t just withdraw authority from any State on any topic whenever it feels like it.

That may not apply in this case, as the States gave authority to the Feds in the 1960s on this topic, but that was 50 years ago and perhaps the States should have the right to take the power back? Was there a referendum to confirm that transfer of power?

Interesting that S109 refers to States and not Territories, but who am I to quibble?

IP

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

chewy14 said :

Do you honestly think there’s a problem with the part of the constitution referenced in this case though? The federal government can change this situation through legislation easily if they wished.

There may be things wrong with the constitution but s109 isn’t one of them.

Well it may seem sensible, but it actually gives the Commonwealth the power to over-ride any State legislation, which may be a good thing, or it may not. There should probably be constitutional restrictions on what the C’wealth can legislate on, so it can’t just withdraw authority from any State on any topic whenever it feels like it.

That may not apply in this case, as the States gave authority to the Feds in the 1960s on this topic, but that was 50 years ago and perhaps the States should have the right to take the power back? Was there a referendum to confirm that transfer of power?

Interesting that S109 refers to States and not Territories, but who am I to quibble?

IP

IrishPete said :

LSWCHP said :

Yep. Abbott’s fault no doubt.

I mean he introduced a half arsed bill against legal advice and pig headedly refused to listen to anyone even though pretty much anyone with a clue suggested it would be crushed by the, oh, what was that, constitution? I mean, only the binding legal document of this country. Only the reason why all our states co-operate with each other.

Oh wait…

Yeah. Much as I hate to not be bagging Tony Abbott, I think our local dimwits appear to have gone into battle with wet powder, rusty muskets and blunt bayonets.

They have only themselves to blame.

Fairly appropriate weaponry given the age of the Constitution. It shouldn’t be so hard for society to progress. There’s a whole lot wrong with the Constitution.

IP

Do you honestly think there’s a problem with the part of the constitution referenced in this case though? The federal government can change this situation through legislation easily if they wished.

There may be things wrong with the constitution but s109 isn’t one of them.

LSWCHP said :

Yep. Abbott’s fault no doubt.

I mean he introduced a half arsed bill against legal advice and pig headedly refused to listen to anyone even though pretty much anyone with a clue suggested it would be crushed by the, oh, what was that, constitution? I mean, only the binding legal document of this country. Only the reason why all our states co-operate with each other.

Oh wait…

Yeah. Much as I hate to not be bagging Tony Abbott, I think our local dimwits appear to have gone into battle with wet powder, rusty muskets and blunt bayonets.

They have only themselves to blame.

Fairly appropriate weaponry given the age of the Constitution. It shouldn’t be so hard for society to progress. There’s a whole lot wrong with the Constitution.

IP

rigseismic67 said :

Simon Corbell the ACTs Nelson Mandela

mmmm in his case it’s “Robbin’ Island” though! How much per capita will Corbell’s folly cost us in court costs?

So, thrashed 6-0 in the High Court (which almost everyone not directly involved predicted) and now taxpayers are up for not just our, but also the Commonwealth’s costs.

And it’s all Tony Abbott’s fault, apparently.

Gesture politics at somebody else’s expense is Barr & co.’s speciality.

neanderthalsis9:23 am 14 Dec 13

rigseismic67 said :

Simon Corbell the ACTs Nelson Mandela

Except he is white, alive, never been to jail for fighting for what he believes in and cares more about politics than individual rights.

LSWCHP said :

Yep. Abbott’s fault no doubt.

I mean he introduced a half arsed bill against legal advice and pig headedly refused to listen to anyone even though pretty much anyone with a clue suggested it would be crushed by the, oh, what was that, constitution? I mean, only the binding legal document of this country. Only the reason why all our states co-operate with each other.

Oh wait…

Yeah. Much as I hate to not be bagging Tony Abbott, I think our local dimwits appear to have gone into battle with wet powder, rusty muskets and blunt bayonets.

They have only themselves to blame.

…and *we*, the ratepayer, are paying for this incompetent and pointless action by the worthless morons who run the ACT government.

Blen_Carmichael7:48 am 14 Dec 13

Darkfalz said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

I agree with Krome – this was simply a political stunt, particularly given that Gallagher waited until the LNP assumed government, so as not to embarrass Gillard, who opposed same sex marriage. If Gallagher really wants to realise gay marriage, she should start with her own party. Ostensibly the ALP is favour of gay marriage, but its stance effectively means nothing when the party will not go to the next level of ensuring a binding vote. Pretty piss-weak, really.

If the ALP insisted on a yes vote within their party, would make a bit of a mockery of them insisting the coalition should offer a conscience vote, wouldn’t it? So that’s not going to happen (not that it should).

Is it not a mockery if Labor on one hand bring in a policy of legalising same sex marriage and then on the other says mealy mouthed that they’re going to allow a conscience vote? Why not just insist on a binding vote? Quite simple, really. The reality is some in the ALP would oppose it, which would lead to some ugly in-fighting. Tough. You don’t effect changes on these issues without angst. But our Chief Minister doesn’t believe strongly enough in same sex marriage to upset her federal fellow Fabians.

Yep. Abbott’s fault no doubt.

I mean he introduced a half arsed bill against legal advice and pig headedly refused to listen to anyone even though pretty much anyone with a clue suggested it would be crushed by the, oh, what was that, constitution? I mean, only the binding legal document of this country. Only the reason why all our states co-operate with each other.

Oh wait…

Yeah. Much as I hate to not be bagging Tony Abbott, I think our local dimwits appear to have gone into battle with wet powder, rusty muskets and blunt bayonets.

They have only themselves to blame.

Blen_Carmichael9:16 pm 13 Dec 13

Gungahlin Al said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

Watson said :

Stuffed up the quotes.

Not just the quotes.

Watson said :

I’m not the one demanding that someone gets sacked for wasting taxpayers’ money without knowing how much was spent.

I’m not either. I do, however, think it appropriate that someone be held accountable. There is a difference.

Yes: Tony Abbott!

Let me get this straight:

1. Marriage is a Commonwealth head of power as per the Constitution of Australia.

2. Section 5 of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

3. Notwithstanding this, the ACT Government takes it upon itself to legislate for same sex marriage, in contravention of the the Commonwealth’s Marriage Act 1961.

4. The High Court, the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, declares the ACT’s legislation invalid as per section 109 of the Constitution.

5. It’s all Tony Abbott’s fault.

Thanks for clarifying this. It’s proved invaluable.

rigseismic677:47 pm 13 Dec 13

Simon Corbell the ACTs Nelson Mandela

Blen_Carmichael said :

I agree with Krome – this was simply a political stunt, particularly given that Gallagher waited until the LNP assumed government, so as not to embarrass Gillard, who opposed same sex marriage. If Gallagher really wants to realise gay marriage, she should start with her own party. Ostensibly the ALP is favour of gay marriage, but its stance effectively means nothing when the party will not go to the next level of ensuring a binding vote. Pretty piss-weak, really.

If the ALP insisted on a yes vote within their party, would make a bit of a mockery of them insisting the coalition should offer a conscience vote, wouldn’t it? So that’s not going to happen (not that it should).

A conscience vote would be closer than the vote last year, but still lose at least 60-40. The problem as I see it with a conscience vote is the predictable vicious hounding of individual sitting members (at least on the LNP side) the gay lobby and GetUp! type groups that would encourage. There’s already a website which ostensibly lists each sitting federal members personal opinion on gay marriage. When you’re publicly calling people names for not changing their votes, that’s not democracy.

Gungahlin Al said :

I’m not either. I do, however, think it appropriate that someone be held accountable. There is a difference.

Yes: Tony Abbott!

Hold him accountable then, don’t vote for members of his party in the next territory and federal election.

Although I suspect you probably already didn’t…. hint though. Lots of people did.

Gungahlin Al said :

It was the choice of Tony Abbott and his Attorney General to pursue the case that brought this about.

Had they not taken this move, the ACT legislation would have stood, the marriages remained valid, and we could finally have moved on from this issue that has been dominating (understandably and justifiably) public discourse for years.

You can’t seriously believe that any attempt to legislate for gay marriage (whether by a State, Territory or even the Commonwealth ) would not have been brought before the High Court by some group? No matter what it was always going to end up there.

At least now the Court has ruled on two very important points:
– Marriage is something the Commonweallth has the sole power to legislate on
And (more importantly)
– there is no impediment in the Constitution to same-sex marriage should the Commonwealth decide to amend the Marriage Act.

So a number of future High Court challenges have already been decided if(when) the Commonwealth catches up with community sentiment and changes the Marriage act.

shauno said :

What a pathetic waste of tax payers money and who are the Lawyers advising the ACT government. It was so obvious that the ACT had no right to grant same sex marriage that I would advise every body that under no circumstance use the services of the lawyers involved in this case.

No, it wasn’t clear. The Constitution is abstract, and of the three tests developed for inconsistency between state/territory and Commonwealth legislation, this fell into the third which is heavily reliant on statutory interpretation. Did the Commonwealth intend to cover the field? Only the High Court can determine that. And they did, in the positive. And they went a step further in placing all unions between natural people within the Constitutional marriage power for the Commonwealth.

This is precisely how the Constitution develops, and this area of the law is now settled at least in terms of the Constitution. Now it’s for the legislatures to use the powers as now defined in the best public interest.

Ben_Dover said :

Our town council should stick to making sure our bins are emptied, and that potholes in the road are filled in promptly. We have a national government for things of import.

So education, health care, law enforcement, etc… aren’t important then.

As for the legal costs, the teams were in house and the High Court’s fees are akin to what law firms would require merely as an initial deposit for commencing work on a commercial litigation. Throw in the QCs and larger scale of work a Constitutional case would ordinarily require and it’s a bargain by comparison.

Blen_Carmichael said :

Watson said :

Stuffed up the quotes.

Not just the quotes.

Watson said :

I’m not the one demanding that someone gets sacked for wasting taxpayers’ money without knowing how much was spent.

I’m not either. I do, however, think it appropriate that someone be held accountable. There is a difference.

Held accountable how? Or rather, how this differ from any other government expenditure?

I am happy to give him credit for the win for equal marriage rights though. I must admit that I don’t often feel pride in being a Canberran. This week I do. It’s a strange feeling…

Gungahlin Al2:40 pm 13 Dec 13

Blen_Carmichael said :

Watson said :

Stuffed up the quotes.

Not just the quotes.

Watson said :

I’m not the one demanding that someone gets sacked for wasting taxpayers’ money without knowing how much was spent.

I’m not either. I do, however, think it appropriate that someone be held accountable. There is a difference.

Yes: Tony Abbott!

Blen_Carmichael2:08 pm 13 Dec 13

Watson said :

Stuffed up the quotes.

Not just the quotes.

Watson said :

I’m not the one demanding that someone gets sacked for wasting taxpayers’ money without knowing how much was spent.

I’m not either. I do, however, think it appropriate that someone be held accountable. There is a difference.

I’m not even going to bother to trawl through the 84 (and rising) prior comments on this issue.

But suffice to say that if every Commonwealth, State or Territory Minister resigned whose legislation was found wanting by the High Court, there wouldn’t be many left. Immigration loses them daily, it seems.

And how far should we stretch this performance management? If a Minister’s legislation fails to pass an upper house, should they go? Or if it gets immediately overturned by the next government, should they go?

Personally I think Corbell is millstone for Canberra ACT Labor, and as a Minister he’s a millstone for the ACT community, but this case is hardly his worst sin.

I am more curious as to why this case was heard so quickly, while an insignificant little issue like the election of Senators for Western Australia is being talked about potentially taking more than another 6 months. Yes, the Federales asked the High court to hear this one quickly, but no the High Court should not have just jumped when asked/told to. Separation of Powers anyone?

IP

Stuffed up the quotes. And in any case, a few comments ago I should’ve just stuck to the 8th commandment of logic: Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him that is questioning the claim.

I’m not the one demanding that someone gets sacked for wasting taxpayers’ money without knowing how much was spent.

Blen_Carmichael said :

Watson said :

>>Legal costs are nowhere near has high as some seem to think.”>>

Okay, how high were they then? I note your assertion that there was pro bono work done. Great. Can we take it as a given that none of the ACT government lawyers were paid by taxpayers? I doubt it. Incidentally, I see that the court ordered the ACT Government to pay the Commonwealth’s legal costs along with the cost of proceeding. Do you still think these expenses are insignificant, as you imply?

>> It wasn’t 100% sure that this would be thrown out.<> And in any case, to not take something to court because it costs too much or because it seems likely that you won’t win would make courts useless and turn us into a nation of bullies.<<

Mmm. On the subject of bullying, just ask a few Weston Creek residents what they thought of Jon Stanhope when he tried to have Maria Doogan removed from the 2003 Canberra fires inquest. A few words come to mind, but that’s another matter.

I agree with Krome – this was simply a political stunt, particularly given that Gallagher waited until the LNP assumed government, so as not to embarrass Gillard, who opposed same sex marriage. If Gallagher really wants to realise gay marriage, she should start with her own party. Ostensibly the ALP is favour of gay marriage, but its stance effectively means nothing when the party will not go to the next level of ensuring a binding vote. Pretty piss-weak, really.

I don’t know what the legal costs were and neither do those shouting about how outrageously high they were.

The ACT Govt already employs a permanent legal team, so there was little need for them to pay extra for lawyers.

Court costs: http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/registry/fees/Fee_Table-Filing-Hearing13.pdf

I don’t speak legal speak, but even if they paid the highest rate, court costs would’ve till been less than $20,000.

No idea what the other legal costs might be. I’m assuming these will be published at some stage.

But I still think my guestimate of “not that much” is way closer to the facts than yours of “not insignificant” from a government budge perspective.

Blen_Carmichael12:59 pm 13 Dec 13

Watson said :

shauno said :

What a pathetic waste of tax payers money and who are the Lawyers advising the ACT government. It was so obvious that the ACT had no right to grant same sex marriage that I would advise every body that under no circumstance use the services of the lawyers involved in this case.

1. Lots of the work done by the lawyers was done pro bono. Legal costs are nowhere near as high as some seem to think.
2. The courts are there to test legal disputes. It wasn’t 100% sure that this would be thrown out. And it was still worth doing because the court now stated that the Federal Govt can change the Marriage Act to include same sex couple without the need for a referendum. That is no small win for the cause.

And in any case, to not take something to court because it costs too much or because it seems likely that you won’t win would make courts useless and turn us into a nation of bullies.

>>Legal costs are nowhere near has high as some seem to think.”>>

Okay, how high were they then? I note your assertion that there was pro bono work done. Great. Can we take it as a given that none of the ACT government lawyers were paid by taxpayers? I doubt it. Incidentally, I see that the court ordered the ACT Government to pay the Commonwealth’s legal costs along with the cost of proceeding. Do you still think these expenses are insignificant, as you imply?

>> It wasn’t 100% sure that this would be thrown out.<> And in any case, to not take something to court because it costs too much or because it seems likely that you won’t win would make courts useless and turn us into a nation of bullies.<<

Mmm. On the subject of bullying, just ask a few Weston Creek residents what they thought of Jon Stanhope when he tried to have Maria Doogan removed from the 2003 Canberra fires inquest. A few words come to mind, but that’s another matter.

I agree with Krome – this was simply a political stunt, particularly given that Gallagher waited until the LNP assumed government, so as not to embarrass Gillard, who opposed same sex marriage. If Gallagher really wants to realise gay marriage, she should start with her own party. Ostensibly the ALP is favour of gay marriage, but its stance effectively means nothing when the party will not go to the next level of ensuring a binding vote. Pretty piss-weak, really.

HiddenDragon12:50 pm 13 Dec 13

So, with PJK briefly back in town this week for a fabulous caucus cameo apearance, was the pooch a cocker spaniel?

Johnnyjetski said :

The only winners of this debacle is the legal profession. How can tax payers of the A.C.T. be happy with their tax dollars wasted by a legislative assemby, that just wanted to grand stand itself in front of the rest of Australia.
Johnboy your comments are spot on. Simon Corbell should resign, for the absolute waste of taxpayers funds for this ill concieved legislation. A 6-0 decision demands it.

John (Bribie Island Queensland)

So if it would have been a 4-2 decision, he could have stayed? What a load of bullocks. This isn’t Australian Idol.

How much money did the ACT Govt spend on this then? (And what’s it to you anyway, it’s not even your money.) How much did the Federal Govt spend? The ACT Govt didn’t initiate this court case. The Federal Govt did. And they are using your tax dollars.

Gungahlin Al11:03 am 13 Dec 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

lostinbias said :

WTC, while I will admit that I generally do read your posts, I suspect that to many, they are a classic case of tl;dr. Splitting that into a few paragraphs would probably help you engage more in discussion and present your argument better. People don’t want to read a wall of text.

In more relevant news, I don’t buy the argument that the couples who got married will consider themselves victims of Simon Corbell’s political maneuvering. This was always a strong possibility and I think that the couples realised this, and were willing to undertake the risk in order to commit to each other. It’s a shame that these will all now be annulled in legal terms, but it will hopefully send a message to those in power who are still on the fence about the issue, and contribute one day to federal legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

I had the privilege of attending one of the weddings, and I must say that it was a wonderful sight to see, and every bit as meaningful as a “traditional marriage”. The optimistic part of me thinks that if detractors were able to see these marriages, and the legitimate bond of so many same-sex couples, then they might change their view.

Sorry lostinbias, I’m a bit confused by your bv[]$h!+, particularly the “tl;dr”. I am sorry but I don’t read shorthand interspeak and haven’t got a clue what you meant. Remember, I am part of the “older” generation who doesn’t have an i-phone or photo-voltaic vehicle.
For anyone who doesn’t follow I will simplify.
Making riding unregistered bikes in state forests made something I liked to do [didn’t hurt anyone] illegal. Decreasing the amount of fish I caught [if any at all] regardless how I caught them, didn’t hurt anyone, except my belly. Shutting four-wheel drive trails in national parks didn’t hurt or affect anyone except for those of us who now have to travel a lot further to get to where we want to [if we are allowed to go there at all], via tar instead of on those nice off road trails, where you get to experience the wilds of nature. I cannot share the experience of hunting vermin such as foxes and rabbits with my son, as I used to do with my father, because modern thinking made it too hard to get the relevant permissions. This didn’t necessarily hurt or affect me, but our society as a whole, when our national parks are overrun and destroyed by feral animals.
To sum up, this little feud over one person’s “right” to marry another, which affects nobody else but themselves, has made front page whilst hundreds of laws have been passed over the years that affect not only the ones opposed, but our whole nation as well.
Honestly, there is more focus on what a few thousand or tens of thousands may or may not benefit from due to a little wealth sharing, than has been expressed over a national, if not global issue in relation to carbon and the apparent eventual extinction of the planet.
Get over it you twits, concentrate on something worthwhile to our survival!

tl:dr. Too long: didn’t read. Very easy to Google.

It’s an issue that affects about 10% of the world population, so some 700 million people. And this little ACT action is one small facet of shifting this nation, and helping along the growing global shift towards acceptance.

So I’d say that makes it both global and worthwhile.
And we can “walk and chew gum at the same time”…as the cliche goes.

Johnnyjetski10:57 am 13 Dec 13

The only winners of this debacle is the legal profession. How can tax payers of the A.C.T. be happy with their tax dollars wasted by a legislative assemby, that just wanted to grand stand itself in front of the rest of Australia.
Johnboy your comments are spot on. Simon Corbell should resign, for the absolute waste of taxpayers funds for this ill concieved legislation. A 6-0 decision demands it.

John (Bribie Island Queensland)

Gungahlin Al10:56 am 13 Dec 13

Masquara said :

Barcham said :

The Australian Government actively and intentionally decided to take away the rights of a specific group of Australians.

Can someone give Barcham a quick lesson in the separation of the powers?

Wrong. You are the one needing the lesson.

The court only decides on matters brought before it. It does not initiate anything.

It was the choice of Tony Abbott and his Attorney General to pursue the case that brought this about.

Had they not taken this move, the ACT legislation would have stood, the marriages remained valid, and we could finally have moved on from this issue that has been dominating (understandably and justifiably) public discourse for years.

wildturkeycanoe said :

lostinbias said :

WTC, while I will admit that I generally do read your posts, I suspect that to many, they are a classic case of tl;dr. Splitting that into a few paragraphs would probably help you engage more in discussion and present your argument better. People don’t want to read a wall of text.

In more relevant news, I don’t buy the argument that the couples who got married will consider themselves victims of Simon Corbell’s political maneuvering. This was always a strong possibility and I think that the couples realised this, and were willing to undertake the risk in order to commit to each other. It’s a shame that these will all now be annulled in legal terms, but it will hopefully send a message to those in power who are still on the fence about the issue, and contribute one day to federal legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

I had the privilege of attending one of the weddings, and I must say that it was a wonderful sight to see, and every bit as meaningful as a “traditional marriage”. The optimistic part of me thinks that if detractors were able to see these marriages, and the legitimate bond of so many same-sex couples, then they might change their view.

Sorry lostinbias, I’m a bit confused by your bv[]$h!+, particularly the “tl;dr”. I am sorry but I don’t read shorthand interspeak and haven’t got a clue what you meant. Remember, I am part of the “older” generation who doesn’t have an i-phone or photo-voltaic vehicle.
For anyone who doesn’t follow I will simplify.
Making riding unregistered bikes in state forests made something I liked to do [didn’t hurt anyone] illegal. Decreasing the amount of fish I caught [if any at all] regardless how I caught them, didn’t hurt anyone, except my belly. Shutting four-wheel drive trails in national parks didn’t hurt or affect anyone except for those of us who now have to travel a lot further to get to where we want to [if we are allowed to go there at all], via tar instead of on those nice off road trails, where you get to experience the wilds of nature. I cannot share the experience of hunting vermin such as foxes and rabbits with my son, as I used to do with my father, because modern thinking made it too hard to get the relevant permissions. This didn’t necessarily hurt or affect me, but our society as a whole, when our national parks are overrun and destroyed by feral animals.
To sum up, this little feud over one person’s “right” to marry another, which affects nobody else but themselves, has made front page whilst hundreds of laws have been passed over the years that affect not only the ones opposed, but our whole nation as well.
Honestly, there is more focus on what a few thousand or tens of thousands may or may not benefit from due to a little wealth sharing, than has been expressed over a national, if not global issue in relation to carbon and the apparent eventual extinction of the planet.
Get over it you twits, concentrate on something worthwhile to our survival!

I just read this as one long winded way of saying “Don’t concentrate on things that don’t affect me, concentrate on things I care about.”

On first reading of this articles headline I was worried that Cory Bernadi’s “gay marriage is a slippery slope” argument had been realised.

Personally I would like it if my ability to get married were 1) not used as a political stunt by the ACT government, 2) sorted out at a federal level as it should be.

shauno said :

What a pathetic waste of tax payers money and who are the Lawyers advising the ACT government. It was so obvious that the ACT had no right to grant same sex marriage that I would advise every body that under no circumstance use the services of the lawyers involved in this case.

1. Lots of the work done by the lawyers was done pro bono. Legal costs are nowhere near as high as some seem to think.
2. The courts are there to test legal disputes. It wasn’t 100% sure that this would be thrown out. And it was still worth doing because the court now stated that the Federal Govt can change the Marriage Act to include same sex couple without the need for a referendum. That is no small win for the cause.

And in any case, to not take something to court because it costs too much or because it seems likely that you won’t win would make courts useless and turn us into a nation of bullies.

wildturkeycanoe said :

[For anyone who doesn’t follow I will simplify.
Making riding unregistered bikes in state forests made something I liked to do [didn’t hurt anyone] illegal. Decreasing the amount of fish I caught [if any at all] regardless how I caught them, didn’t hurt anyone, except my belly. Shutting four-wheel drive trails in national parks didn’t hurt or affect anyone except for those of us who now have to travel a lot further to get to where we want to [if we are allowed to go there at all], via tar instead of on those nice off road trails, where you get to experience the wilds of nature.

Nice rant, but by saying ‘doesnt hurt anyone’ you are

a. ignoring the animals
b. ignoring the environment
c. ignoring issues like breeding stock and population regeneration (esp for fish)
d. ignoring that potentially you may hurt someone (unlike gay marriage which cannot possibly hurt someone else)
e. ignoring that some laws are, unfortunately, necessary because people other than you take things to extreme (fishing with dynamite, fishing with mulitple set lines)

So your argument hardly stack up in any way.

Complaining that someone other than you is allowed to do something they want when you dont get to do what you want to do is pretty much what I spend much of my day refereeing. Between my young children.

Our town council should stick to making sure our bins are emptied, and that potholes in the road are filled in promptly. We have a national government for things of import.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:20 am 13 Dec 13

Darkfalz said :

LadyxBec said :

I agree with Barcham, the bad person here (if we must find one and in all internet debates it seems we must) is Tony Abbott. He could have let the legislation stand and chose not to. The end.

Oh yes. Evil Tony Abbott, who didn’t allow an absurd situation where people’s marriages would be valid or invalid going in and out of the ACT. Would be fun for people who lived in Queanbeyan and worked in the ACT, they’d have a marriage anniversary every week day.

The ACT govt knew this would fail a high court challenge. The people who got “married” on the weekend knew their marriages would be annulled. It was all a pathetically transparent stunt to try to point to Abbott as an evil bigot, something they were unable to do with Gillard for the last 3 years because she was on their side of politics despite having the same beliefs.

No stunts needed. Everyone already knows Abbott is a evil bigot.

wildturkeycanoe11:30 pm 12 Dec 13

lostinbias said :

WTC, while I will admit that I generally do read your posts, I suspect that to many, they are a classic case of tl;dr. Splitting that into a few paragraphs would probably help you engage more in discussion and present your argument better. People don’t want to read a wall of text.

In more relevant news, I don’t buy the argument that the couples who got married will consider themselves victims of Simon Corbell’s political maneuvering. This was always a strong possibility and I think that the couples realised this, and were willing to undertake the risk in order to commit to each other. It’s a shame that these will all now be annulled in legal terms, but it will hopefully send a message to those in power who are still on the fence about the issue, and contribute one day to federal legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

I had the privilege of attending one of the weddings, and I must say that it was a wonderful sight to see, and every bit as meaningful as a “traditional marriage”. The optimistic part of me thinks that if detractors were able to see these marriages, and the legitimate bond of so many same-sex couples, then they might change their view.

Sorry lostinbias, I’m a bit confused by your bv[]$h!+, particularly the “tl;dr”. I am sorry but I don’t read shorthand interspeak and haven’t got a clue what you meant. Remember, I am part of the “older” generation who doesn’t have an i-phone or photo-voltaic vehicle.
For anyone who doesn’t follow I will simplify.
Making riding unregistered bikes in state forests made something I liked to do [didn’t hurt anyone] illegal. Decreasing the amount of fish I caught [if any at all] regardless how I caught them, didn’t hurt anyone, except my belly. Shutting four-wheel drive trails in national parks didn’t hurt or affect anyone except for those of us who now have to travel a lot further to get to where we want to [if we are allowed to go there at all], via tar instead of on those nice off road trails, where you get to experience the wilds of nature. I cannot share the experience of hunting vermin such as foxes and rabbits with my son, as I used to do with my father, because modern thinking made it too hard to get the relevant permissions. This didn’t necessarily hurt or affect me, but our society as a whole, when our national parks are overrun and destroyed by feral animals.
To sum up, this little feud over one person’s “right” to marry another, which affects nobody else but themselves, has made front page whilst hundreds of laws have been passed over the years that affect not only the ones opposed, but our whole nation as well.
Honestly, there is more focus on what a few thousand or tens of thousands may or may not benefit from due to a little wealth sharing, than has been expressed over a national, if not global issue in relation to carbon and the apparent eventual extinction of the planet.
Get over it you twits, concentrate on something worthwhile to our survival!

Barcham said :

He tried to do something right by people, he risked his own career and reputation to do the right thing, and came oh so close to succeeding. If not for the evil of others he would have made our country a better place.

Should he resign? No.

Should he be given a medal? Yes.

Should those who try to stop social progress and deny people equal rights resign? Yes.

Tell us again how you are not a far left ideologue.

Gungahlin Al said :

Oh joy. Courtesy of Canberra Times sharing my tweet, MrGillespie has found me on Twitter, and was nice enough to SHOUT his homophobia at me.
Blockity block block.

Well said Barcham! Kudos to Simon and Shane working together to try get this through. No matter what people think about the handling of the legisilation, it was Tony Abbott who made the decision to take this to the High Court. If the Liberals hadn’t challenged it, then the ACT law would have stood.

It was a total act of bastardry by Abbott and his crew, and I am disgusted.

I’m sure someone else could have worked out how to get standing to challenge the law if the Federal Government had declined to challenge it.

LadyxBec said :

neanderthalsis said :

LadyxBec said :

It would be nice to see someone attacking the Abbot government for wasting money trying to prevent equal marriage, which is just as wastful as the ACT trying to legalise it.

Honestly, I think it was worth a crack and saying the people who got married have been taken advantage of is a bit of a stretch, they knew this was a possibility and I suspect they were happy to be “used” in the name of the cause.

This is not at all about Tony Abbott, this is about the ACT Government trying to legislate that which is not permissible under the Australian constitution. If this ACT legislation has been proposed two years ago under the Gillard Government, the outcome would have been exactly the same as it was today.

I disagree. It’s only an issue because the law was struck down – which was a direct consequence of Abbott taking it to the high court. Before the court ruled it was unconstitutional it was totally ok. I’m not sure the outcome would have been the same, as I’m not convinced that Gillard would have gone to the court over it.

I agree with Barcham, the bad person here (if we must find one and in all internet debates it seems we must) is Tony Abbott. He could have let the legislation stand and chose not to. The end.

Then you’re as clueless as Barcham is regarding the legal system in this country. Do yourself a favour and learn about the constitution and how it works. Then read about the Attorney General and his/her role. Then go and read about the ACT Civil Partnerships Act 2008 that the RUDD GOVERNMENT threatened to overturn unless it was made clear that the Act in no way mimicked marriage.

You and the others blaming the “evil Tony Abbott” would do well to invest a little time, and a little brain power, researching this issue.

What a pathetic waste of tax payers money and who are the Lawyers advising the ACT government. It was so obvious that the ACT had no right to grant same sex marriage that I would advise every body that under no circumstance use the services of the lawyers involved in this case.

Darkfalz said :

bigfeet said :

Darkfalz said :

Deref said :

Merry xmas, homophobes.

Not being lock-step with the demands of the gay lobby does not make one a “homophobe”.

But you have a Merry Christmas too.

Quite correct.

But your consistent comment do make you one.

So, only people who actually voice their disagreement with the gay lobby are homophobes.

Gotcha.

No, but it is a canary in the coal mine and combined with other evidence is a dead give away.

bigfeet said :

Darkfalz said :

Deref said :

Merry xmas, homophobes.

Not being lock-step with the demands of the gay lobby does not make one a “homophobe”.

But you have a Merry Christmas too.

Quite correct.

But your consistent comment do make you one.

So, only people who actually voice their disagreement with the gay lobby are homophobes.

Gotcha.

Barcham said :

The Australian Government actively and intentionally decided to take away the rights of a specific group of Australians.

Can someone give Barcham a quick lesson in the separation of the powers?

The ACT government expended vast sums of ratepayers’ money on a COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT piece of legislation.

They should all resign.

And our Canberra Town council should concentrate on trying to get education and health back on track.

Darkfalz said :

Deref said :

Merry xmas, homophobes.

Not being lock-step with the demands of the gay lobby does not make one a “homophobe”.

But you have a Merry Christmas too.

Quite correct.

But your consistent comment do make you one.

PantsMan said :

PantsMan said :

Is Barr quoting Trotsky?

Correction, it’s Martin Luther King.

I see Barr thinks he’s as oppressed as slaves.

The taxpayers are the ones oppressed.

barr ought to cite his sources: or here’s an idea – be original..? we slaves demand it.

what do we want? originality.
when do we want… i’ll go now.

Deref said :

Merry xmas, homophobes.

Not being lock-step with the demands of the gay lobby does not make one a “homophobe”.

But you have a Merry Christmas too.

We got what we voted for; we are paying for whom we voted. Shouldn’t we all be happy?

howeph said :

chewy14 said :

Since when has same sex marriage been a human right? If you’re going to try and make s*** up, at least be accurate.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Note: It does not define marriage as between a man and a woman only; nor is it sensible to expect that a document agreed to in 1948 would tackle discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

However:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

etc.

I don’t know if you’re getting the general gist… but a large part of human rights are about equality, fairness and the removal of discrimination.

It is in this sense that Barcham was claiming that you are “vilifying the guy who fought for human rights”.

I was noting that it is on the public record, with respect to asylum seekers, that you feel that rights provided to asylum seekers should be ignored for what you see as our national interest:

chewy14 said :

My personal opinion is that we should remove ourselves as signatories to the [refugee] convention. It is outdated and was written when international travel was extremely difficult…

… I would rather a few hundred/possibly thousand suffer in the short term so we can help many, many multiples of that number in the long term.

I.e. you are “not a big supporter of human rights”.

Trying to cite the HDR in support of marriage equality is just waffle unfortunately.

And trying to invoke the Commonwealth Anti-discrimination law (which you didn’t, but is relevant) would also be of no help.

That’s why neither was invoked in the case.

LadyxBec said :

I agree with Barcham, the bad person here (if we must find one and in all internet debates it seems we must) is Tony Abbott. He could have let the legislation stand and chose not to. The end.

Oh yes. Evil Tony Abbott, who didn’t allow an absurd situation where people’s marriages would be valid or invalid going in and out of the ACT. Would be fun for people who lived in Queanbeyan and worked in the ACT, they’d have a marriage anniversary every week day.

The ACT govt knew this would fail a high court challenge. The people who got “married” on the weekend knew their marriages would be annulled. It was all a pathetically transparent stunt to try to point to Abbott as an evil bigot, something they were unable to do with Gillard for the last 3 years because she was on their side of politics despite having the same beliefs.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Ivan – “So. We’re legally de-married. Here’s an exclusive: we’re as married in our hearts as we ever were.”
Nice touch there, pity it doesn’t really do much for the argument for gay marriage then, as you are already quite content.
I am so wondering how much money has been spent in the defense and support of this trivial matter that affects exactly what proportion of our country???
I had the right to go four wheel driving in national parks, but that’s been taken away. I had the right to catch fish a certain way, but thanks to modern thinking I lost that too. Trail bike riding has become increasingly difficult due to laws getting stricter, camping becomes more of a money machine for the government and hunting is near impossible because of one certain crazy individual in Tasmania. Gays think they are missing out because of backward thinking conservatives, but I say to them “Look at what modern thinking has destroyed for me!”. I was happier twenty years ago than now because of modern thinking hippie-green-do gooding-“what about the future”, “protect the planet”, “you can’t do that anymore” types. And to think all this current publicity has come from a group that is probably smaller than some who’ve stood up in the past against changes to our laws that affect more people as a whole.
Blah..I’m over it. Bring on the UN sanctions until they get their precious cermonies, I don’t care, ‘cept it’s using up our apparent future surplus in the process.

WTC, while I will admit that I generally do read your posts, I suspect that to many, they are a classic case of tl;dr. Splitting that into a few paragraphs would probably help you engage more in discussion and present your argument better. People don’t want to read a wall of text.

In more relevant news, I don’t buy the argument that the couples who got married will consider themselves victims of Simon Corbell’s political maneuvering. This was always a strong possibility and I think that the couples realised this, and were willing to undertake the risk in order to commit to each other. It’s a shame that these will all now be annulled in legal terms, but it will hopefully send a message to those in power who are still on the fence about the issue, and contribute one day to federal legislation allowing same-sex marriage.

I had the privilege of attending one of the weddings, and I must say that it was a wonderful sight to see, and every bit as meaningful as a “traditional marriage”. The optimistic part of me thinks that if detractors were able to see these marriages, and the legitimate bond of so many same-sex couples, then they might change their view.

PS. Someone ought to tell the Greens that a conscience vote would have the same outcome as the last vote.

Sanity prevails. Shame on Corbell, Gallagher and the ACT government for this base, transparent political stunt. “The Abbott Government chose to mount this legal challenge” – hilarious. The Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government would have been forced to mount the same challenge, with the same result, and the blame for the money wasted on both sides lies entirely at the feet of Corbell and his cronies.

As for the people whose less than a week old “marriages” are annulled, they were part of the stunt, not victims, so I don’t particularly feel bad for them. They knew exactly what they were going in for.

If only the gay marriage loving media would stop framing this debate in the terms of the gay marriage proponents (by using the nonsensical “marriage equality” euphemism).

Blen_Carmichael5:43 pm 12 Dec 13

LadyxBec said :

neanderthalsis said :

LadyxBec said :

It would be nice to see someone attacking the Abbot government for wasting money trying to prevent equal marriage, which is just as wastful as the ACT trying to legalise it.

Honestly, I think it was worth a crack and saying the people who got married have been taken advantage of is a bit of a stretch, they knew this was a possibility and I suspect they were happy to be “used” in the name of the cause.

This is not at all about Tony Abbott, this is about the ACT Government trying to legislate that which is not permissible under the Australian constitution. If this ACT legislation has been proposed two years ago under the Gillard Government, the outcome would have been exactly the same as it was today.

I disagree. It’s only an issue because the law was struck down – which was a direct consequence of Abbott taking it to the high court. Before the court ruled it was unconstitutional it was totally ok. I’m not sure the outcome would have been the same, as I’m not convinced that Gillard would have gone to the court over it.

I agree with Barcham, the bad person here (if we must find one and in all internet debates it seems we must) is Tony Abbott. He could have let the legislation stand and chose not to. The end.

I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as that.

The Commonwealth Attorney-General is the first law officer of the Crown and has a duty, whether implied or otherwise, to take action to see that any state/territory law breaching section 109 of the Constitution is repudiated to the extent of the inconsistency. To pretend otherwise and look the other way i.e. nudge, nudge, wink, wink, it’s the vibe, it’s Mabo, it’s justice is simply an abrogation.

Did Abbott and Brandis take this action with a heavy heart? Not on your nelly. However, you can bet your bottom dollar that some interest group, Christian, or conservative, etc would have brought the issue before the High Court, whether it be by mandamus or otherwise.

The other issue one should consider when finding someone to “blame” is why Gallagher – who assumed her office more than two and a half years ago – waited until now to initiate this legislation. She would have been in a stronger position then to do so, given the number of Greens in the Legislative Assembly. Could it be that she didn’t want to embarrass Julia Gillard, who was an opponent of gay marriage? If so that’s hardly a consistent adherence to principle, and pretty piss poor.

howeph said :

chewy14 said :

Since when has same sex marriage been a human right? If you’re going to try and make s*** up, at least be accurate.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Note: It does not define marriage as between a man and a woman only; nor is it sensible to expect that a document agreed to in 1948 would tackle discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

However:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

etc.

I don’t know if you’re getting the general gist… but a large part of human rights are about equality, fairness and the removal of discrimination.

It is in this sense that Barcham was claiming that you are “vilifying the guy who fought for human rights”.

I was noting that it is on the public record, with respect to asylum seekers, that you feel that rights provided to asylum seekers should be ignored for what you see as our national interest:

chewy14 said :

My personal opinion is that we should remove ourselves as signatories to the [refugee] convention. It is outdated and was written when international travel was extremely difficult…

… I would rather a few hundred/possibly thousand suffer in the short term so we can help many, many multiples of that number in the long term.

I.e. you are “not a big supporter of human rights”.

Howeph,
Yes the declaration of human rights doesn’t include same sex marriage. Although I’m not a supporter of state sanctioned marriage at all so yes you can say I don’t support that right.

But my disagreeing with the refugee convention and its outdated use by certain individuals was all about equality and fairness. I could argue the reverse, that by wanting to accept asylum seekers by boat, it is you who is not supporting the human rights of those who are stuck in overseas refugees camps without the means to escape.

Unless you’re ridiculously claiming that we can help everyone, in which case I would regard your utopian view as completely unrealistic.

Under the schemes supported by both of us, thousands/millions will have their human rights violated by countries, I’m just honest about it.

chewy14 said :

Since when has same sex marriage been a human right? If you’re going to try and make s*** up, at least be accurate.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Note: It does not define marriage as between a man and a woman only; nor is it sensible to expect that a document agreed to in 1948 would tackle discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

However:

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

etc.

I don’t know if you’re getting the general gist… but a large part of human rights are about equality, fairness and the removal of discrimination.

It is in this sense that Barcham was claiming that you are “vilifying the guy who fought for human rights”.

I was noting that it is on the public record, with respect to asylum seekers, that you feel that rights provided to asylum seekers should be ignored for what you see as our national interest:

chewy14 said :

My personal opinion is that we should remove ourselves as signatories to the [refugee] convention. It is outdated and was written when international travel was extremely difficult…

… I would rather a few hundred/possibly thousand suffer in the short term so we can help many, many multiples of that number in the long term.

I.e. you are “not a big supporter of human rights”.

chewy14 said :

Sorry, error in my last. It should say, since when has same sex marriage been a human right.

Well, if hetero marriage is a right (when freely chosen), then as marriage means ‘union of natural persons’, it follows that SSM is a right. Just one that isnt available at this stage.

Noting that ‘marriage’ and ‘civil unions’ should be the same thing

wildturkeycanoe said :

Ivan – “So. We’re legally de-married. Here’s an exclusive: we’re as married in our hearts as we ever were.”
Nice touch there, pity it doesn’t really do much for the argument for gay marriage then, as you are already quite content.
I am so wondering how much money has been spent in the defense and support of this trivial matter that affects exactly what proportion of our country???
I had the right to go four wheel driving in national parks, but that’s been taken away. I had the right to catch fish a certain way, but thanks to modern thinking I lost that too. Trail bike riding has become increasingly difficult due to laws getting stricter, camping becomes more of a money machine for the government and hunting is near impossible because of one certain crazy individual in Tasmania. Gays think they are missing out because of backward thinking conservatives, but I say to them “Look at what modern thinking has destroyed for me!”. I was happier twenty years ago than now because of modern thinking hippie-green-do gooding-“what about the future”, “protect the planet”, “you can’t do that anymore” types. And to think all this current publicity has come from a group that is probably smaller than some who’ve stood up in the past against changes to our laws that affect more people as a whole.
Blah..I’m over it. Bring on the UN sanctions until they get their precious cermonies, I don’t care, ‘cept it’s using up our apparent future surplus in the process.

Yes because preventing species from going extinct and preserving natural environments for future generations is so totally the same as preventing people from getting married.

Logic is so overrated.

neanderthalsis said :

LadyxBec said :

It would be nice to see someone attacking the Abbot government for wasting money trying to prevent equal marriage, which is just as wastful as the ACT trying to legalise it.

Honestly, I think it was worth a crack and saying the people who got married have been taken advantage of is a bit of a stretch, they knew this was a possibility and I suspect they were happy to be “used” in the name of the cause.

This is not at all about Tony Abbott, this is about the ACT Government trying to legislate that which is not permissible under the Australian constitution. If this ACT legislation has been proposed two years ago under the Gillard Government, the outcome would have been exactly the same as it was today.

I disagree. It’s only an issue because the law was struck down – which was a direct consequence of Abbott taking it to the high court. Before the court ruled it was unconstitutional it was totally ok. I’m not sure the outcome would have been the same, as I’m not convinced that Gillard would have gone to the court over it.

I agree with Barcham, the bad person here (if we must find one and in all internet debates it seems we must) is Tony Abbott. He could have let the legislation stand and chose not to. The end.

caf said :

chewy14 said :

Oh FFS, for the millionth time on this site, I’m not against same sex marriage. I’m against the government needing to solemnise anybody’s relationship. The government has zero business in recognising anyone’s love. Straight, gay, bi whatever. It should be civil unions for all. You want a fancy ceremony, do it on your own time any way you want. The government shouldn’t be involved.

Fine, read it as opponents of same-sex marriage and partisan opponents of Simon Corbell, then.

I actually tend to agree – the Government shouldn’t need to be involved in solemnising anyone’s relationship. However, while I wish you all the support in the world in your Quixotic quest to achieve this, I also recognise that it’s not going to happen anytime soon, and in the meantime we should be extending the recognition that already exists.

chewy14 said :

And yes, these people were used as pawns. Of course most of them knew what the deal was but Corbell should never have used them in this way. He should have delayed the implementation of the laws until the challenge had been decided. Nah, grandstanding is far more important.

This is a load of cobblers. Corbell didn’t force anyone to get married – they freely availed themselves of the opportunity, knowing what the risks were. “Pawn” implies a lack of agency, and that simply was not the case here. There’s no need for weasel-wording either: there is no reason to suppose that every single one of those couples getting married under the ACT’s law didn’t know that it was at risk of being overturned – it was all over the national media!

I’ve no doubts that my preferred system will never be law. No votes in it and too many people with illogical historic hangups. Doesn’t mean I’m going to change my mind.

The people getting married may have been aware that it could get overturned but were they as informed as Corbell. I dont think so.

wildturkeycanoe4:28 pm 12 Dec 13

Ivan – “So. We’re legally de-married. Here’s an exclusive: we’re as married in our hearts as we ever were.”
Nice touch there, pity it doesn’t really do much for the argument for gay marriage then, as you are already quite content.
I am so wondering how much money has been spent in the defense and support of this trivial matter that affects exactly what proportion of our country???
I had the right to go four wheel driving in national parks, but that’s been taken away. I had the right to catch fish a certain way, but thanks to modern thinking I lost that too. Trail bike riding has become increasingly difficult due to laws getting stricter, camping becomes more of a money machine for the government and hunting is near impossible because of one certain crazy individual in Tasmania. Gays think they are missing out because of backward thinking conservatives, but I say to them “Look at what modern thinking has destroyed for me!”. I was happier twenty years ago than now because of modern thinking hippie-green-do gooding-“what about the future”, “protect the planet”, “you can’t do that anymore” types. And to think all this current publicity has come from a group that is probably smaller than some who’ve stood up in the past against changes to our laws that affect more people as a whole.
Blah..I’m over it. Bring on the UN sanctions until they get their precious cermonies, I don’t care, ‘cept it’s using up our apparent future surplus in the process.

Same-sex marriage protestors have won a battle, but they haven’t won the war. They’ve just lost any constitutional challenge based on the definition of marriage:

The Court held that “marriage” in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution refers to a consensual union formed
between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirements which is not only a
union the law recognises as intended to endure and be terminable only in accordance with law but
also a union to which the law accords a status affecting and defining mutual rights and obligations.
“Marriage” in s 51(xxi) includes a marriage between persons of the same sex.

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca55-2013-12-12.pdf

chewy14 said :

caf said :

chewy14 said :

…and using ordinary citizens as pawns because you personally agree with him.

The slimiest thing in this thread is opponents of same-sex marriage crying crocodile tears for the couples who married on the weekend under this legislation. Is anyone seriously claiming that they didn’t go into this with their eyes wide open, fully appreciating that today’s outcome was a significant possibility? Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells!

Oh FFS, for the millionth time on this site, I’m not against same sex marriage. I’m against the government needing to solemnise anybody’s relationship. The government has zero business in recognising anyone’s love. Straight, gay, bi whatever. It should be civil unions for all. You want a fancy ceremony, do it on your own time any way you want. The government shouldn’t be involved.

Fine, read it as opponents of same-sex marriage and partisan opponents of Simon Corbell, then.

I actually tend to agree – the Government shouldn’t need to be involved in solemnising anyone’s relationship. However, while I wish you all the support in the world in your Quixotic quest to achieve this, I also recognise that it’s not going to happen anytime soon, and in the meantime we should be extending the recognition that already exists.

chewy14 said :

And yes, these people were used as pawns. Of course most of them knew what the deal was but Corbell should never have used them in this way. He should have delayed the implementation of the laws until the challenge had been decided. Nah, grandstanding is far more important.

This is a load of cobblers. Corbell didn’t force anyone to get married – they freely availed themselves of the opportunity, knowing what the risks were. “Pawn” implies a lack of agency, and that simply was not the case here. There’s no need for weasel-wording either: there is no reason to suppose that every single one of those couples getting married under the ACT’s law didn’t know that it was at risk of being overturned – it was all over the national media!

CrocodileGandhi4:09 pm 12 Dec 13

Jim Jones said :

CrocodileGandhi said :

Deref said :

CrocodileGandhi said :

Unfortunately we have far too many people in Parliament who are on the wrong side of 50 and the wrong side of history.

Jezuz I’m sick of this ageist bullshit.

Once again: age does not make you a homophobic bigot and youth doesn’t protect you from being one.

I am well aware of this. However, surveys show that older people are more likely to oppose gay marriage, while younger people are more likely to support it. When you consider the average age of our parliamentarians, it’s not surprising that any conscience vote would likely be struck down.

Wyatt Roy is 23. Malcolm Turnbull is 59.

Yes, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

Gay people were able to be married for a few days, and guess what? No heterosexual marriage was lessened in significance, and the family as an institution didn’t cease to exist.

I pray that next time it will be for the whole of Australia, and incontrovertible.

Sorry, error in my last. It should say, since when has same sex marriage been a human right.

caf said :

chewy14 said :

…and using ordinary citizens as pawns because you personally agree with him.

The slimiest thing in this thread is opponents of same-sex marriage crying crocodile tears for the couples who married on the weekend under this legislation. Is anyone seriously claiming that they didn’t go into this with their eyes wide open, fully appreciating that today’s outcome was a significant possibility? Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells!

Oh FFS, for the millionth time on this site, I’m not against same sex marriage. I’m against the government needing to solemnise anybody’s relationship. The government has zero business in recognising anyone’s love. Straight, gay, bi whatever. It should be civil unions for all. You want a fancy ceremony, do it on your own time any way you want. The government shouldn’t be involved.

And yes, these people were used as pawns. Of course most of them knew what the deal was but Corbell should never have used them in this way. He should have delayed the implementation of the laws until the challenge had been decided. Nah, grandstanding is far more important.

Oh and talking about slimy things:

howeph said :

In reference to Chewy14:

Barcham said :

You’re vilifying the guy who fought for human rights.

What you haven’t reckoned on is that Chewy14 isn’t a big supporter of human rights.

Since when has marriage been a human right? If you’re going to try and make s*** up, at least be accurate.

Gungahlin Al said :

Oh joy. Courtesy of Canberra Times sharing my tweet, MrGillespie has found me on Twitter, and was nice enough to SHOUT his homophobia at me.
Blockity block block.

“Overturned. BAD LUCK, POOFTERS!!!!!”

The stalker doth protest too much, methinks. He’s all over it like a fat kid on a cake.

CrocodileGandhi said :

Deref said :

CrocodileGandhi said :

Unfortunately we have far too many people in Parliament who are on the wrong side of 50 and the wrong side of history.

Jezuz I’m sick of this ageist bullshit.

Once again: age does not make you a homophobic bigot and youth doesn’t protect you from being one.

I am well aware of this. However, surveys show that older people are more likely to oppose gay marriage, while younger people are more likely to support it. When you consider the average age of our parliamentarians, it’s not surprising that any conscience vote would likely be struck down.

Wyatt Roy is 23. Malcolm Turnbull is 59.

Gungahlin Al3:37 pm 12 Dec 13

c_c™ said :

johnboy said :

6 judges to none ruled that it was no business of the ACT Attorney-General to make laws on this issue.

Actually they rules that the ACT legislature passed a law that was inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, to such an extent that it should not operate for the time and to the extent that that inconsistency exists.

johnboy said :

6 judges to none ruled…

Not quite, only six judges heard the case.The seventh removed himself from the case because in 2009, he, presumably a lawyer well versed in the law to have earned a seat on the High Court bench, concluded the ACT could legislate for same-sex marriage.

johnboy said :

If he didn’t know that was going to happen he should have.

The Constitution is a living and quite abstract document; intended to be interpreted by the High Court over time, and reinterpreted as prevailing social norms change. The only way to interpret it is to seek the decision of the High Court. Two parties engaged in vigorous debate of history and law before the court, their representatives acting in accordance with their duty to the court to present robust and complete facts to assist the court interpret the Constitution, an the Court has as a result made a decision.

The system worked, the processes were followed the the question settled, a process working as it was meant to.

Law is not black and white, it is not the words on the page, but how they are interpreted and executed. That is true of any law, and particularly true of the Constitution.

johnboy said :

If it wasn’t just cheap partisan point scoring maybe he would have done it while his own side were in the house on the hill.

Not partisan, but definitely cheap and at your own expense ultimately.

Good response CC

CrocodileGandhi3:32 pm 12 Dec 13

Deref said :

CrocodileGandhi said :

Unfortunately we have far too many people in Parliament who are on the wrong side of 50 and the wrong side of history.

Jezuz I’m sick of this ageist bullshit.

Once again: age does not make you a homophobic bigot and youth doesn’t protect you from being one.

I am well aware of this. However, surveys show that older people are more likely to oppose gay marriage, while younger people are more likely to support it. When you consider the average age of our parliamentarians, it’s not surprising that any conscience vote would likely be struck down.

In reference to Chewy14:

Barcham said :

You’re vilifying the guy who fought for human rights.

What you haven’t reckoned on is that Chewy14 isn’t a big supporter of human rights.

johnboy said :

6 judges to none ruled that it was no business of the ACT Attorney-General to make laws on this issue.

Actually they rules that the ACT legislature passed a law that was inconsistent with a Commonwealth law, to such an extent that it should not operate for the time and to the extent that that inconsistency exists.

johnboy said :

6 judges to none ruled…

Not quite, only six judges heard the case.The seventh removed himself from the case because in 2009, he, presumably a lawyer well versed in the law to have earned a seat on the High Court bench, concluded the ACT could legislate for same-sex marriage.

johnboy said :

If he didn’t know that was going to happen he should have.

The Constitution is a living and quite abstract document; intended to be interpreted by the High Court over time, and reinterpreted as prevailing social norms change. The only way to interpret it is to seek the decision of the High Court. Two parties engaged in vigorous debate of history and law before the court, their representatives acting in accordance with their duty to the court to present robust and complete facts to assist the court interpret the Constitution, an the Court has as a result made a decision.

The system worked, the processes were followed the the question settled, a process working as it was meant to.

Law is not black and white, it is not the words on the page, but how they are interpreted and executed. That is true of any law, and particularly true of the Constitution.

johnboy said :

If it wasn’t just cheap partisan point scoring maybe he would have done it while his own side were in the house on the hill.

Not partisan, but definitely cheap and at your own expense ultimately.

CrocodileGandhi said :

Unfortunately we have far too many people in Parliament who are on the wrong side of 50 and the wrong side of history.

Jezuz I’m sick of this ageist bullshit.

Once again: age does not make you a homophobic bigot and youth doesn’t protect you from being one.

chewy14 said :

…and using ordinary citizens as pawns because you personally agree with him.

The slimiest thing in this thread is opponents of same-sex marriage crying crocodile tears for the couples who married on the weekend under this legislation. Is anyone seriously claiming that they didn’t go into this with their eyes wide open, fully appreciating that today’s outcome was a significant possibility? Pull the other one, it plays jingle bells!

Barcham said :

He tried to do something right by people, he risked his own career and reputation to do the right thing, and came oh so close to succeeding. If not for the evil of others he would have made our country a better place.

Should he resign? No.

Should he be given a medal? Yes.

Should those who try to stop social progress and deny people equal rights resign? Yes.

+1

Merry xmas, homophobes.

Gungahlin Al3:19 pm 12 Dec 13

Oh joy. Courtesy of Canberra Times sharing my tweet, MrGillespie has found me on Twitter, and was nice enough to SHOUT his homophobia at me.
Blockity block block.

Well said Barcham! Kudos to Simon and Shane working together to try get this through. No matter what people think about the handling of the legisilation, it was Tony Abbott who made the decision to take this to the High Court. If the Liberals hadn’t challenged it, then the ACT law would have stood.

It was a total act of bastardry by Abbott and his crew, and I am disgusted.

neanderthalsis3:14 pm 12 Dec 13

LadyxBec said :

It would be nice to see someone attacking the Abbot government for wasting money trying to prevent equal marriage, which is just as wastful as the ACT trying to legalise it.

Honestly, I think it was worth a crack and saying the people who got married have been taken advantage of is a bit of a stretch, they knew this was a possibility and I suspect they were happy to be “used” in the name of the cause.

This is not at all about Tony Abbott, this is about the ACT Government trying to legislate that which is not permissible under the Australian constitution. If this ACT legislation has been proposed two years ago under the Gillard Government, the outcome would have been exactly the same as it was today.

neanderthalsis3:09 pm 12 Dec 13

Barcham said :

He tried to do something right by people, he risked his own career and reputation to do the right thing, and came oh so close to succeeding. If not for the evil of others he would have made our country a better place.

Should he resign? No.

Should he be given a medal? Yes.

Should those who try to stop social progress and deny people equal rights resign? Yes.

Were they told it would not pass the High Court due? Yes.

Did they tighten the legislation in line with recommendation from Constitutional lawyers to get it past the High Court? No.

Were they more interested in plating a political game to embarrass the new Coalition Government than supporting marriage equality? Yes.

Did their foolish game quash the dreams of many same sex couples in Australia due to their incompetence and/or pigheadedness? Yes.

Should Simon resign? No, but he should hang his head in shame.

Should Barcham, as a contributing journalist on the RiotACT, be a little less biased and a lot more objective in his commentary? Yes.

I see this as a very simple series of events.

One party went out of it’s way to give an oppressed minority a small sample of the rights everyone else enjoys, which was the morally right thing to do.

One party went out of it’s way to take those rights away after they had been given, which was the morally wrong thing to do.

The Australian Government actively and intentionally decided to take away the rights of a specific group of Australians.

Any argument, idea, definition of roles, discussion of boundaries, defence of a process, etc, that attempts to justify the actions of the second party, and/or condemn the actions of the first, is an argument that promotes the idea of human rights being stripped from minorities.

I’m sure you think the situation is more complex than this, but those layers of complexity don’t change the fact that you’re saying that oppression is OK so long as it is done by the book.

By saying that Simon wasted everyone’s time and money, you’re saying that the fight for social equality is a waste of time and money.

By saying that they shouldn’t have bothered knowing how unlikely it was to go through, you’re saying that the value of an action or believe is determined by how likely it is to succeed, rather than by how much good it can do in the world.

I disagree entirely with you.

You’re vilifying the guy who fought for human rights.

I’m going to say that again.

You’re vilifying the guy who fought for human rights.

6 judges to none ruled that it was no business of the ACT Attorney-General to make laws on this issue.

If he didn’t know that was going to happen he should have.

If it wasn’t just cheap partisan point scoring maybe he would have done it while his own side were in the house on the hill.

Barcham said :

DUB said :

Barcham said :

He tried to do something right by people, he risked his own career and reputation to do the right thing, and came oh so close to succeeding.

Should he resign? No.

Should he be given a medal? Yes.

Should those who try to stop social progress and deny people equal rights resign? Yes.

Nothing stops you from going to NZ to get married, Barcham.

Ha! I get it, you’re calling me gay.

How hilarious! Like being gay would be some sort of insult, because obviously I’d take offence to the idea of being gay because like ewww right? Because it’s bad to be gay I guess?

Or is it that you think that the only possible reason someone could care about equal rights is if they themselves are in an oppressed minority? Because compassion and empathy don’t exist right? Or at least they obviously don’t in your world view.

Some well timed homophobia, nicely done there.

Really waving your bigot banner there right when Canberra needs to see it the most.

Way to verbal someone, that’s far too many strawmen for one comment you should have split it into two.
Whatever DUB meant, he certainly didn’t say anything like what youve implied, at worst he called you gay. Wow, he’s obviously original.

As for your first comment, you’ve basically implied that Corbell should be applauded for exceeding his brief, wasting our money and using ordinary citizens as pawns because you personally agree with him. I’m sure you’d be less than effusive about him if it was about an issue you didn’t agree with.

HiddenDragon2:40 pm 12 Dec 13

“Fat chance of that from this government but if Labor wants to make too much of it they really should make it party platform.” – yes, but a visibly emotional PM, who spoke of Obama’s “splendid panegyric” for Nelson Mandela, in remarks at the beginning of today’s Question Time, may yet surprise us. With big Budget deficits for the forseeable future, both major parties may be looking for low (financial) cost issues to talk about by the time of the next election.

Affirmative Action Man2:32 pm 12 Dec 13

JimiBostock said :

You are so full of crap JohnBoy … actually you bore me to tears with your stupidity.

Why would Corbell or anyone else resign over this … yes, the laws were inconsistent but they have ushered in the inevitability of the end of this infantile inequality.

Where do you stand JohnBoy … do you stand for inequality? Fess up mate. Would be good to know … long suspected you as a tory … would be good to clear the air on that

I don’t generally have a problem with Gay Marriage but if fascists like you support it then I’m against.

There is not much difference between the Extreme Christian Right & venom spitting extremist elements of the gay lobby.

Corbell should stick to sewerage & rubbish collection & leave these issues to the grown ups.

I think the gay marriage train has been on the wrong tracks long enough, and this just derailed it.

The problem with its lack of success is that they tend to recruit Left wing activism for their cause, where it really is the mainstream they need to appeal to.

In this instance, they should have directed their efforts Federally, not with a local council.

It would be nice to see someone attacking the Abbot government for wasting money trying to prevent equal marriage, which is just as wastful as the ACT trying to legalise it.

Honestly, I think it was worth a crack and saying the people who got married have been taken advantage of is a bit of a stretch, they knew this was a possibility and I suspect they were happy to be “used” in the name of the cause.

Simon is a Labor Dullard masquerading as an Attorney-General. He does not even know what the ACT Government is actually responsible for.

That is a sackable offence.

Full. Stop.

chewy14 said :

What a farce, well done ACT government.

You’ve wasted money, crushed normal people’s desires and generally stuffed up just to feed your own sense of importance.

Should always have been left as a federal issue.

Actually…until the High Court ruling there was no guarantee that the Federal parliament actually had the power to legislate in respect of same sex marriages

ie: had the High Court said ‘when the Constitution was drafted the word ‘marriage’ mean hetero marriage, therefore the states, in giving this power to the Federal Parliament, could only have intended to give power in respect of hetero marriage’.

Not an inarguable proposition. I mean, the US Supreme Court is heavily ‘originalist’ and several judges would have come to that conclusion.

Note, as mentioned above, that when Democratic Labor Party Senator John Madigan says
“Marriage has always been between a man and a woman and should always remain between one man and one woman.” (quoted in the linked CT article) he is now constitutionally incorrect. The High Court has defined marriage as “a consensual union formed between natural persons” (persons, not man and woman). A phrase I am sure you will hear many times over the coming years, up until someone Federally has the guts to make a change.

CrocodileGandhi2:16 pm 12 Dec 13

Barcham said :

DUB said :

Barcham said :

He tried to do something right by people, he risked his own career and reputation to do the right thing, and came oh so close to succeeding.

Should he resign? No.

Should he be given a medal? Yes.

Should those who try to stop social progress and deny people equal rights resign? Yes.

Nothing stops you from going to NZ to get married, Barcham.

Ha! I get it, you’re calling me gay.

How hilarious! Like being gay would be some sort of insult, because obviously I’d take offence to the idea of being gay because like ewww right? Because it’s bad to be gay I guess?

Or is it that you think that the only possible reason someone could care about equal rights is if they themselves are in an oppressed minority? Because compassion and empathy don’t exist right? Or at least they obviously don’t in your world view.

Some well timed homophobia, nicely done there.

Really waving your bigot banner there right when Canberra needs to see it the most.

And if you did get married to a bloke in NZ, it wouldn’t be recognised here due to yet another ridiculous law.

DUB said :

Barcham said :

He tried to do something right by people, he risked his own career and reputation to do the right thing, and came oh so close to succeeding.

Should he resign? No.

Should he be given a medal? Yes.

Should those who try to stop social progress and deny people equal rights resign? Yes.

Nothing stops you from going to NZ to get married, Barcham.

Ha! I get it, you’re calling me gay.

How hilarious! Like being gay would be some sort of insult, because obviously I’d take offence to the idea of being gay because like ewww right? Because it’s bad to be gay I guess?

Or is it that you think that the only possible reason someone could care about equal rights is if they themselves are in an oppressed minority? Because compassion and empathy don’t exist right? Or at least they obviously don’t in your world view.

Some well timed homophobia, nicely done there.

Really waving your bigot banner there right when Canberra needs to see it the most.

Oh Johnboy, you’re smarter than that. No, he shouldn’t resign, and it’s a dome question frankly.

The High Court has come up with a clever blend of originalist reason and living document application to expand Commonwealth power and cover the field, leaving a void now that can only be remedied by the legislature. One interpretation may be that the court felt uncomfortable with a possible perception that it was legislating for social change, and reading between the lines, feels that the legislature must give such things its democratic legitimacy.

The Court’s reasoning is not incorrect, but certainly the High Court has found no problem with allowing concurrent regulation of other issues in the past with far greater practical reifications than this issue. So it feels artificially restrictive. Certainly there’s more to it than what is in the judgement, the full text of which is now online (so I hope people stop citing the damn media release as law!)

chewy14 said :

What a farce, well done ACT government.

You’ve wasted money, crushed normal people’s desires and generally stuffed up just to feed your own sense of importance.

Should always have been left as a federal issue.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

PantsMan said :

Is Barr quoting Trotsky?

Correction, it’s Martin Luther King.

I see Barr thinks he’s as oppressed as slaves.

The taxpayers are the ones oppressed.

It most certainly wasn’t a complete waste of time – the High Court has clarified that when the Constitution says “marriage”, it includes same-sex marriage:

The Court held that the federal Parliament has power under the Australian Constitution to legislate with respect to same sex marriage,…

Opponents of same-sex marriage have in the past argued that the Constitution doesn’t give the Federal Parliament the power to legislate for same-sex marriage even if it wanted to, relying on the idea that “marriage”, at least as referred to in the Constitution, excludes this case. The High Court has knocked that particular idea on the head, which isn’t without value.

Barcham said :

He tried to do something right by people, he risked his own career and reputation to do the right thing, and came oh so close to succeeding.

Should he resign? No.

Should he be given a medal? Yes.

Should those who try to stop social progress and deny people equal rights resign? Yes.

Nothing stops you from going to NZ to get married, Barcham.

Hooray!
Hara-kiri time for Simon. Oh wait, he does not have any honour. Just jump into LBG instead. All your possessions (add Katy’s and Barr’s as well) shall be sold at the public auction to repay whatever taxpayers’ money were spent (wasted) on this High Court challenge). Effwits!

Barcham said :

He tried to do something right by people, he risked his own career and reputation to do the right thing, and came oh so close to succeeding. If not for the evil of others he would have made our country a better place.

Should he resign? No.

Should he be given a medal? Yes.

Should those who try to stop social progress and deny people equal rights resign? Yes.

Hang on a second, before we beatify the Attorney General…
He was told by the expert he got to look at the amendment to the ACT that it would fail without changes, and refused to change it.
He knew that the amendment to the ACT would fail, but pushed ahead anyway.

The gov allowed 30 couples to get married, knowing that this was likely to happen.
That’s pretty shameful.

So – an alternative? I’m not against the outcome proposed, but this requires a lot more support before change will happen – we’ve come a long way since homosexuality was illegal, but we have a long way to go.

So to the honourable Simon: propose a referendum; seek consensus at COAG; get allies; really make a difference…

You are so full of crap JohnBoy … actually you bore me to tears with your stupidity.

Why would Corbell or anyone else resign over this … yes, the laws were inconsistent but they have ushered in the inevitability of the end of this infantile inequality.

Where do you stand JohnBoy … do you stand for inequality? Fess up mate. Would be good to know … long suspected you as a tory … would be good to clear the air on that

Wow Jimi,

Do you want to get into character assassinations with me in a public forum?

I support marriage equality.

I also want an attorney-general competent enough to legislate constitutionally.

I want an ACT Government devoting its time and energy to its responsibilities.

And I don’t want a government grandstanding pointlessly to national applause while sacrificing 27 couples relationships to garner headlines.

But you go ahead and suspect me of anything you want.

Is Barr quoting Trotsky?

Barcham said :

and came oh so close to succeeding.

6-0 is close? Really?

CrocodileGandhi12:49 pm 12 Dec 13

Sadly, even if we do get a vote in Federal Parliament, and even if every Labor member voted for it, it still woudn’t get through. Unfortunately we have far too many people in Parliament who are on the wrong side of 50 and the wrong side of history. I wonder how they’ll feel 30 years from now when gay marriage is legal in most democracies around the world. Probably similar to those who stood against women voting, interracial marriages, blacks voting, aboriginals being considered human under law etc.

He tried to do something right by people, he risked his own career and reputation to do the right thing, and came oh so close to succeeding. If not for the evil of others he would have made our country a better place.

Should he resign? No.

Should he be given a medal? Yes.

Should those who try to stop social progress and deny people equal rights resign? Yes.

A 6 to nil decision that was so straight forward they could write it in a week. A bloodbath in legal terms.

Simon should WALK for so incompetently playing with the lives and relationships of gays and lesbians in this way for his own petty political agenda.

What a farce, well done ACT government.

You’ve wasted money, crushed normal people’s desires and generally stuffed up just to feed your own sense of importance.

Should always have been left as a federal issue.

No. But I wouldn’t suggest he resign over that. Maybe over incompetence in other areas, but why that this one thing?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.