24 October 2013

Well that didn't take long. Challenge to Gay Marriage kicks off tomorrow

| johnboy
Join the conversation
71

The Christian Lobby is celebrating the swift turning wheels of reactionary justice as the High Court takes a directions hearing three days after the ACT Legislative Assembly passed Gay Marriage laws:

The High Court hearing into the ACT’s Marriage Equality Same-Sex Bill is expected to begin tomorrow after the Commonwealth lodged a writ of summons in the High Court challenging the law. The federal government says the bill is inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act and the Family Law Act. It’s requested the High Court to expedite a hearing into the legislation.

ABC News is reporting a judge has listed the matter for hearing tomorrow afternoon. Earlier today The Canberra Times reported on the writ, which includes a proposed timeline for the matter to be heard. It sets out a one or two day hearing of the full court as early as November 26.

“The Commonwealth contends that the proceeding should be heard at the earliest possible date, to reduce or avoid the uncertainty that will hang over the validity of the ACT Marriage ACT,” the writ says. “That uncertainty is exacerbated to the extent that persons may wish to enter into marriages under the ACT Marriage Act before its validity is determined.”

The ACT’s Chief Minister Katy Gallagher and Attorney-General Simon Corbell continue to defend the ACT bill saying it has a high chance of surviving. Legal advice prepared for the ACL suggests the bill is inconsistent with the constitution.

Join the conversation

71
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Isn’t Abbott (cleverly) using Turnbull to shepherd through a conscience vote some time during this term of government? Now that anti-marriage-equality Julia Gillard is out of parliament, I think the legislation stands a much better chance.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/orthodox-rabbi-declares-ban-on-soy-as-it-makes-students-gay/story-fni0xs63-1226751197358

“In the Hebrew religious news website BaOlam Shel Haredim the Israel-based Gur Hasidic sect rabbi Abraham Benjamin Silberberg yesterday declared eating soy-based products would lead to “gay sexual activity” and that even a once-a-week dose would “cause unwanted arousal”.”

So I was going to keep to the legal side of the argument because a) I have no personal interest in the topic, so law is the only thing I really feel able to speak about on it, and b) because the moral arguments always go no where.

But inevitably morality and religion are where this thread has ended up. And it’s worth noting three things about what can be observed of some contributors to this thread:

1. They have a rose coloured view of traditional marriage and societal norms to the point of being delusional. Religion is a terrible moral guide, and it has often been at the heart of conflict and harm to humanity.

2. They also have a distorted view of STI rates in the community, for while there has always been a skew towards HIV in the homosexual community, that can largely be explained by scientific reasons rather than behavioural reasons. On the other hand, rates of STIs such as chlamydia are rising significantly, mainly in heterosexuals in their 40s and later and in younger people, owing to increased risk taking behaviours and lack of awareness.

3. Some people have jack all knowledge of legal history, for the institution of marriage has long changed over time. Women once lacked separate legal personality once they were married, and divorce was once unheard of and often not available at all. Courts and law reform have changed that, arguably eroding the institution of marriage more so than anything proposed now, but doing so rightfully for the previous conception of marriage subjugated women and made them property, not equals.

gooterz said :

By the same logic what does marriage give same sex couples that laws don’t already do?

The same basic human rights that you (assuming that you’re heterosexual) and I have?

Of course I’m extrapolating from such past examples as giving women and Aborigines the vote and allowing black and white people to marry. But I suppose you’re opposed to them, too.

gooterz said :

what does marriage give same sex couples that laws don’t already do?

It makes a statement that the government believes that homosexual people are not a lower class than heterosexual people. As you said, it’s only a statement, but it does give the government an important opportunity to provide leadership rather than the usual followership. Exciting, no?

Darkfalz said :

Minz said :

Further, please do not include any “oh, won’t somebody think of the children?!?” responses. There has been significant research into the topic, and it shows that the kids are just fine

Thanks for telling me what examples I am allowed to include or not, but no. Most promoted studies are cherry picked families from gay literature. The study by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas is probably the most exhaustive and objective, and found that kids were worse off in a wide range of areas. You don’t need a study or statistics to know that in every single instance where a gay couple is raising kids, the kids are missing at least one of their biological parents in their household, and influence from at least one gender. Ignoring any other factors, that in itself is significant.

Legalising marriage is a bit like the legal sale of tobacco. If someone wanted to bring tobacco on the market today, it would never be allowed. But because it’s out there, and people are using , we can’t repeal its sale, not without a large number of people feeling very hard done by. This is why it’s a very serious change and why legislation which is essentially about trying to score political points on their federal opponents is a disgrace.

Have you actually read Regnerus’ study? Had you done so, you likely would’ve noticed that it doesn’t apply to the argument here. Why? Well, his study and conclusions simply don’t relate to this question! Regnerus looked at the adult outcomes of children whose parents had one or more homosexual relationships, not children of homosexual parents in long-term relationships, which what we’re talking about with gay marriage. He didn’t separate these two things or even acknowledge that they are different.

Regnerus also failed to control his outcomes for family socioeconomic status, which is strongly associated with all of the adverse outcomes in children that he described. As such, his results would have to be considered with a very large amount of caution even if they were related to the question of interest! In fact, given that this is such a large omission, characterising Regnerus’ study as either “objective” or “exhaustive” is simply incorrect. He either does not understand his subject area, or he is biased.

So, as I say, you need to be careful in what studies you use – there is a heck of a lot of very poor scholarship out there on this topic!!

Deref said :

ScienceRules said :

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Refresh our memory. Just dot point form will do nicely. Remember, you’re answering the question “How does the implementation of marriage equality actually, measurably and negatively effect my marriage?”

Have at it!

🙂 Yes – please. I look forward to it.

By the same logic what does marriage give same sex couples that laws don’t already do?

Sam sex marriage is a statement about same sex relationships, most see this as an end to same sex discrimination but it won’t.

Darkfalz said :

I’m also of the firm belief that if we can hold out for another decade or so, and we see the impacts on other countries and the statistics behind gay marriage, parenting etc. the fad will pass.

Exactly, now that all the paedophiles are being outed instead of protected and so are no longer able to provide new recruits, within a generation homosexuality should pretty much fade away and we will no longer have to listen to this demented nonsense about men getting married to men.

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Well you’ll have no trouble copy and pasting your response then. Remember, ‘actual tangible impact’ and why overseas gay marriage hasn’t had a supposed tangible impact on you, marriages and society.

😉

There are plenty of case studies about the impacts gay marriage has had on places like Canada and states like Massachusetts. It didn’t end at gay marriage for those places – it was followed up by more and more homosexual propaganda being introduced into school curriculum as well as legal challenges to churches and the like. You can’t stop activists being activists by giving them what they claim to want, because they’ll just move on to something more extreme.

It boils down to the kind of society you want to live in and you want your children to grow up in. Families are, after all, the basis of society. I prefer predictability and structure and I believe children benefit from that. Having a mum and a dad. The hedonistic “anything goes” approach typified by gay marriage puts all of the emphasis on the desires of adults, not the needs of children or the cohesion of community and society at large. And I think kids should learn about it when they are ready to deal with such subjects (ie. late teens) and not by having propaganda rammed down their throats in primary school. School is no place to be promoting the gay agenda under the auspices of “tolerance”.

There’s no legal benefit to marriage. Virtually all rights and responsibilities given by marriage apply equally to de-facto domestic partners, including homosexual ones. Marriage is a structure set up on the basis of (ostensibly) guaranteeing stability to children by two adults signifying an intention to stay together.

There’s a reason, for example, AIDS spread like wildfire through the gay community when it first reared its head, and why infection rates are still higher in the gay community. Every single study on sexuality has found that promiscuity is the norm for homosexuals. Fidelity is virtually unknown in the gay community and is in many instances openly ridiculed.

Gay marriage is therefore entirely political. There’s significant evidence that the majority of gay marriages, even where they are legal, are not faithful, and most are in fact entirely “open” marriages.

Fundamentally changing the institution of marriage, the roles and importance of parents, and the concept of family is not something we should enter into just because one vocal minority group wants to claim victory over these things (and many will, amongst themselves, admit that this is what it’s all about – Masha Gessen for example).

I can, and have, write paragraph after paragraph on the subject. People can believe what they want to believe and I object to the name calling and hyperbole from both sides of the argument. This is real world, practical stuff that impacts the society my kids will grow up in and worth fighting for.

I don’t agree with all of this, but this is a well written response, and represents much better thinking than most of what we’ve seen here from the ‘waaaah yor a biggot’ crowd.

gooterz said :

Religion gives marriage its power…

Which religion is that? The one that says a rapist is obliged to marry their victim? The one that says divorce isn’t allowed? The one set up by the guy who liked chopping women’s heads off because he actually wanted to be able to divorce? The one that defines women as the property of the husband and to not be seen by mean other than their husband?

Darkfalz said :

There are plenty of case studies about the impacts gay marriage has had on places like Canada and states like Massachusetts. It didn’t end at gay marriage for those places – it was followed up by more and more homosexual propaganda being introduced into school curriculum as well as legal challenges to churches and the like. You can’t stop activists being activists by giving them what they claim to want, because they’ll just move on to something more extreme.

It boils down to the kind of society you want to live in and you want your children to grow up in. Families are, after all, the basis of society. I prefer predictability and structure and I believe children benefit from that. Having a mum and a dad. The hedonistic “anything goes” approach typified by gay marriage puts all of the emphasis on the desires of adults, not the needs of children or the cohesion of community and society at large. And I think kids should learn about it when they are ready to deal with such subjects (ie. late teens) and not by having propaganda rammed down their throats in primary school. School is no place to be promoting the gay agenda under the auspices of “tolerance”.

There’s no legal benefit to marriage. Virtually all rights and responsibilities given by marriage apply equally to de-facto domestic partners, including homosexual ones. Marriage is a structure set up on the basis of (ostensibly) guaranteeing stability to children by two adults signifying an intention to stay together.

There’s a reason, for example, AIDS spread like wildfire through the gay community when it first reared its head, and why infection rates are still higher in the gay community. Every single study on sexuality has found that promiscuity is the norm for homosexuals. Fidelity is virtually unknown in the gay community and is in many instances openly ridiculed.

Gay marriage is therefore entirely political. There’s significant evidence that the majority of gay marriages, even where they are legal, are not faithful, and most are in fact entirely “open” marriages.

Fundamentally changing the institution of marriage, the roles and importance of parents, and the concept of family is not something we should enter into just because one vocal minority group wants to claim victory over these things (and many will, amongst themselves, admit that this is what it’s all about – Masha Gessen for example).

I can, and have, write paragraph after paragraph on the subject. People can believe what they want to believe and I object to the name calling and hyperbole from both sides of the argument. This is real world, practical stuff that impacts the society my kids will grow up in and worth fighting for.

This is HILARIOUS! I particularly like the part where you talk about infidelity and fidelity in gay relationships. Does that mean we should ban heterosexual marriage too?

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:09 pm 25 Oct 13

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Well you’ll have no trouble copy and pasting your response then. Remember, ‘actual tangible impact’ and why overseas gay marriage hasn’t had a supposed tangible impact on you, marriages and society.

😉

There are plenty of case studies about the impacts gay marriage has had on places like Canada and states like Massachusetts. It didn’t end at gay marriage for those places – it was followed up by more and more homosexual propaganda being introduced into school curriculum as well as legal challenges to churches and the like. You can’t stop activists being activists by giving them what they claim to want, because they’ll just move on to something more extreme.

It boils down to the kind of society you want to live in and you want your children to grow up in. Families are, after all, the basis of society. I prefer predictability and structure and I believe children benefit from that. Having a mum and a dad. The hedonistic “anything goes” approach typified by gay marriage puts all of the emphasis on the desires of adults, not the needs of children or the cohesion of community and society at large. And I think kids should learn about it when they are ready to deal with such subjects (ie. late teens) and not by having propaganda rammed down their throats in primary school. School is no place to be promoting the gay agenda under the auspices of “tolerance”.

There’s no legal benefit to marriage. Virtually all rights and responsibilities given by marriage apply equally to de-facto domestic partners, including homosexual ones. Marriage is a structure set up on the basis of (ostensibly) guaranteeing stability to children by two adults signifying an intention to stay together.

There’s a reason, for example, AIDS spread like wildfire through the gay community when it first reared its head, and why infection rates are still higher in the gay community. Every single study on sexuality has found that promiscuity is the norm for homosexuals. Fidelity is virtually unknown in the gay community and is in many instances openly ridiculed.

Gay marriage is therefore entirely political. There’s significant evidence that the majority of gay marriages, even where they are legal, are not faithful, and most are in fact entirely “open” marriages.

Fundamentally changing the institution of marriage, the roles and importance of parents, and the concept of family is not something we should enter into just because one vocal minority group wants to claim victory over these things (and many will, amongst themselves, admit that this is what it’s all about – Masha Gessen for example).

I can, and have, write paragraph after paragraph on the subject. People can believe what they want to believe and I object to the name calling and hyperbole from both sides of the argument. This is real world, practical stuff that impacts the society my kids will grow up in and worth fighting for.

Do you have sources for any of that?

Mr Gillespie6:09 pm 25 Oct 13

So, there is a challenge against the “right” for homosexual couples to sign a piece of paper saying that they are “married”, and as for the people who believe in the right for a man and a woman to marry and have children all on their own without the help of artificial insemination from anonymous, secret sources (dodgy means), while homosexuals living together already enjoy the benefits of living together just like heterosexual defacto relationships (like shared bank accounts and shared assets). What more do they want? What’s so special about a piece of paper made under the Marriages Act anyway??

If Mr Abbott’s challenge succeeds, and this latest piece of Corbell/Gallager lunacy is quashed, well all I can say is: STIFF S***!!!

Minz said :

Further, please do not include any “oh, won’t somebody think of the children?!?” responses. There has been significant research into the topic, and it shows that the kids are just fine

Thanks for telling me what examples I am allowed to include or not, but no. Most promoted studies are cherry picked families from gay literature. The study by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas is probably the most exhaustive and objective, and found that kids were worse off in a wide range of areas. You don’t need a study or statistics to know that in every single instance where a gay couple is raising kids, the kids are missing at least one of their biological parents in their household, and influence from at least one gender. Ignoring any other factors, that in itself is significant.

Legalising marriage is a bit like the legal sale of tobacco. If someone wanted to bring tobacco on the market today, it would never be allowed. But because it’s out there, and people are using , we can’t repeal its sale, not without a large number of people feeling very hard done by. This is why it’s a very serious change and why legislation which is essentially about trying to score political points on their federal opponents is a disgrace.

ScienceRules5:20 pm 25 Oct 13

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Well you’ll have no trouble copy and pasting your response then. Remember, ‘actual tangible impact’ and why overseas gay marriage hasn’t had a supposed tangible impact on you, marriages and society.

😉

.

So allow me to summarise the points you thought you were making:

1. Unsubstantiated and unnamed “studies” that my pastor railed on about in Canada and such places say that gays are icky. I heard this at church over and over so it must be true. Once they are allowed to marry it’ll be children, pets and kitchen appliances next.

2. I choose to ignore the wealth of research that shows that long term gay families raise healthy, well balanced children as it is contrary to my ideology

3. Families are good, but allowing more loving committed long term families is bad for some reason that I don’t understand and can’t articulate.

4. Treating gays as actual people instead of objects of hate is “propaganda”

5. Marriage isn’t special anyway. But it still shouldn’t be available to gays.

6. Gays are promiscuous while heteros are not. So they should totally be denied access to the stability of marriage because … oooooh look – shiny!!

7. Setting an example to my children about treating people equally is abhorrent to me and may cause them not to hate the same things I hate. If this happens I would be a failure as a parent.

Mate, you are a sad, bigoted human being. Still, thanks for playing.

ScienceRules said :

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Refresh our memory. Just dot point form will do nicely. Remember, you’re answering the question “How does the implementation of marriage equality actually, measurably and negatively effect my marriage?”

Have at it!

🙂 Yes – please. I look forward to it.

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Well you’ll have no trouble copy and pasting your response then. Remember, ‘actual tangible impact’ and why overseas gay marriage hasn’t had a supposed tangible impact on you, marriages and society.

😉

While we’re at it, please exclude as obviously invalid any responses which equate homosexual people with a) animals or b) people that are unable to consent.

Further, please do not include any “oh, won’t somebody think of the children?!?” responses. There has been significant research into the topic, and it shows that the kids are just fine. That is, anyway, once you exclude the research that is obviously biased (eg. anything from Paul Cameron) and that research which doesn’t concern the actual question – I’m talking only about research regarding children with homosexual parents in long-term relationships, ‘cos that’s what marriage is (or is meant to be 😛 )

Solidarity said :

Man… so much effort by these people and for what?

This isn’t a carbon tax. It can’t just be repealed. Once it’s done and people are being married, changing the law back will be virtually impossible.

I’m also of the firm belief that if we can hold out for another decade or so, and we see the impacts on other countries and the statistics behind gay marriage, parenting etc. the fad will pass.

I would personally like to see a referendum, because we’d actually test the support, not be browbeaten by polling which I don’t believe is anything close to accurate. If it passed, fine. But if knocked back, I’d hope it could be taken off the political debate for a while so we could focus on things which are actually important.

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Well you’ll have no trouble copy and pasting your response then. Remember, ‘actual tangible impact’ and why overseas gay marriage hasn’t had a supposed tangible impact on you, marriages and society.

😉

There are plenty of case studies about the impacts gay marriage has had on places like Canada and states like Massachusetts. It didn’t end at gay marriage for those places – it was followed up by more and more homosexual propaganda being introduced into school curriculum as well as legal challenges to churches and the like. You can’t stop activists being activists by giving them what they claim to want, because they’ll just move on to something more extreme.

It boils down to the kind of society you want to live in and you want your children to grow up in. Families are, after all, the basis of society. I prefer predictability and structure and I believe children benefit from that. Having a mum and a dad. The hedonistic “anything goes” approach typified by gay marriage puts all of the emphasis on the desires of adults, not the needs of children or the cohesion of community and society at large. And I think kids should learn about it when they are ready to deal with such subjects (ie. late teens) and not by having propaganda rammed down their throats in primary school. School is no place to be promoting the gay agenda under the auspices of “tolerance”.

There’s no legal benefit to marriage. Virtually all rights and responsibilities given by marriage apply equally to de-facto domestic partners, including homosexual ones. Marriage is a structure set up on the basis of (ostensibly) guaranteeing stability to children by two adults signifying an intention to stay together.

There’s a reason, for example, AIDS spread like wildfire through the gay community when it first reared its head, and why infection rates are still higher in the gay community. Every single study on sexuality has found that promiscuity is the norm for homosexuals. Fidelity is virtually unknown in the gay community and is in many instances openly ridiculed.

Gay marriage is therefore entirely political. There’s significant evidence that the majority of gay marriages, even where they are legal, are not faithful, and most are in fact entirely “open” marriages.

Fundamentally changing the institution of marriage, the roles and importance of parents, and the concept of family is not something we should enter into just because one vocal minority group wants to claim victory over these things (and many will, amongst themselves, admit that this is what it’s all about – Masha Gessen for example).

I can, and have, write paragraph after paragraph on the subject. People can believe what they want to believe and I object to the name calling and hyperbole from both sides of the argument. This is real world, practical stuff that impacts the society my kids will grow up in and worth fighting for.

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Well you’ll have no trouble copy and pasting your response then. Remember, ‘actual tangible impact’ and why overseas gay marriage hasn’t had a supposed tangible impact on you, marriages and society.

😉

For a start, his wife probably has to listen to his interminable whinging about it.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Religion gives marriage its power

You’re thinking of Castle Greyskull.

Castle GAYskull … amirite!

c_c™ said :

Simple s109 inconsistency analysis.
Does the ACT act raise simultaneous impossibility to obey? No
Does the ACT law deprive someone of a right that the Commonwealth law grants? No.

So that leaves the most controversial ground, does the state law invade the field of law the Commonwealth intended to cover?

You might think it’s an open and shut case, Marriage Act of the Commonwealth seeks to define the only valid form of marriage, a state (well, territory) comes along and tries to legislate about marriage, bada bing Commonwealth law prevails.

But the High Court found in the Airlines of NSW case (which was a dispute arising under s 51 of the Constitution) that both the Commonwealth and the State could concurrently introduce licensing schemes for air transport, on the basis they had different criteria. There was no inconsistency in a “relevant” sense.

In Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour, the High Court found no inconsistency in Commonwealth legislation authorising the ABT to grant a licence specifying the height and location of the transmitter, and state environmental legislation further regulating the placement of a transmitter. It was claimed the Commonwealth law was intended to cover the entire field of broadcasting services, but the High Court read down the characterisation of the legislation as merely pertaining to the quality and efficiency of broadcasting. Hypothetically then the state could legislate then even on heterosexual marriage, for example, banning rice being thrown outside ceremonies and it still wouldn’t end up with the state impinging on the Commonwealth’s field.

Dispute between Listening Devices Act and Customs Act was also found not the have an inconsistency because the latter Commonwealth Act was found only to apply to federal narcotic investigations.

The tricky thing for me though is the Commonwealth can’t legislate to prevent the state from legislating about something, and while it can legislate and indicate a clear intention to legislate in a field, it will be interesting to see how the High Court views that intention on this. I think there’s a strong argument that via the Marriage Act, the Commonwealth declared an intention not to cover the subject matter of same-sex marriage because it doesn’t recognise such a thing could be possible under Commonwealth law. This is a bit like in the movie The Man who Sued God, where the insurer said to avoid liability for an act of god, the Church would have to denounce the existence of god. And it’s the same reason why curiously, same-sex marriage would side step the Commonwealth offence of bigamy, because the Commonwealth offence can only apply to marriage as defined in the Marriage Act, so to outlaw bigamy where someone is in more than one same-sex relationship, or in a heterosexual and a same-sex marriage at the same time, it would first need to recognise same-sex marriage.
And this kind of logic was apparent in a High Court case regarding state long service leave law and Commonwealth employment law. The argument was that the Commonwealth law didn’t recognise long service leave and so that showed an intention that there shouldn’t be such a thing as long service leave. The High Court chucked that out, quite rightly, trying to make out that Commonwealth’s silence was to exclude state legislative power was a moronic argument.
Maybe in this case the Commonwealth could have more success trying to make out the Marriage Act intends to exclude via the closed definition use in s5. But at the same time the long title of the Act (cited early on in the writ amusingly) clearly states that the Act is one to regulate “marriage” and so purposively, you would interpret that Act as only applying to marriage as defined in s5. The long title is a recognised part of the Act, and the words used in it are assumed to have substantive meaning.
And to quote Latham in Birch v Allen, the long title is useful for identifying the scope of the Act. And this in turn leads back to the intention of the Commonwealth to cover the field.

I can’t claim a comprehensive understanding of constitutional law, and even the experts are unclear on these sorts of cases because there is politics behind the scenes of the court.

But I do think the Commonwealth’s writ is certainly shaky. It remains to be seen what they do in the actual arguments of course. And even if the Commonwealth loses, I strongly suspect that Abbott would try to amend the Marriage Act to cover the field once the Senate is in his favour.

Legal speak makes Diggety cross eyed – do you think the HC challenge will be successful or no?

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Well you’ll have no trouble copy and pasting your response then. Remember, ‘actual tangible impact’ and why overseas gay marriage hasn’t had a supposed tangible impact on you, marriages and society.

😉

ScienceRules3:21 pm 25 Oct 13

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Refresh our memory. Just dot point form will do nicely. Remember, you’re answering the question “How does the implementation of marriage equality actually, measurably and negatively effect my marriage?”

Have at it!

dtc said :

chewy14 said :

The thing I get out of this, and correct me if I’m reading it wrong, is that if the ACT wins this case, they have succeeded in defining Same Sex marriage as a different entity to heterosexual marriage. That the only way they can win, is if the court determines that same sex marriage does not equal hetero marriage.

Isn’t that the exact opposite of what the proponents have been trying to achieve and the reason they rejected things like civil unions? ie. Complete equality before the law?

Yes and No.

If the Cth power over marriage includes power over same sex marriage, then the Cth may win the case (although there is an issue because the Cth has clearly not legislated over SSM, so as cc pointed out, can it claim to have an inconsistent law merely arising from silence?). But if the court made this finding, it can only do so by defining ‘marriage’ as including SSM. So all those people claiming that SSM is ‘re-defining marriage’ will be, legally, wrong. In fact, SSM is not re defining marriage, it has always been part of what is covered by the word ‘marriage’ in the Constitution.

If ‘marriage’ in the Constitution does not cover SSM, then the ACT law is not inconsistent and will stand. In this case people are correct in saying that ‘marriage’ does not include SSM so far as the Constitution is concerned. You are right in saying we now have two types of marriage – a Cth marriage (hetero) and a state marriage (SSM).

They are different in the sense that the power to legislate over the marriage comes from a different source (Cth expressly from the Constitution, state from the ‘residual powers’ rule) and, in theory, the state based marriages can be given different powers or structures to the Cth marriages. I’m sure this issue will be raised by anti-SSM proponents to claim that SSM marriages are not the same as hetero marriages. But its sort of like saying that a drivers licence from NSW is different to one from the ACT – it is, but the practical effect is that they are exactly the same – ie both Cth and state marriages will result in a couple being ‘married’, whatever that means to you.

What is yet to be determined is, if the Cth loses, whether Cth law will be changed so that references to marriage in Cth legislation will be specified to apply only to hetero marriages. At the moment ‘marriage’ is widely defined in general legislation as it needs to cover people married overseas etc (and not just under the Cth legislation). Potentially the Cth could be vindictive and define marriage for general legislation as being only hetero marriage if that ceremony is conducted in Australia. In other words, SSM will be legal within the ACT (and other states that pass similar legislation) but the couple will remain unmarried so far as the Cth is concerned.

DTC,

Thanks for the analysis. Very interesting.

Garfield said :

Serious question, what additional legal rights or responsibilities does the same sex marriage legislation confer upon people compared to the existing civil union legislation?

I believe the simple answer is it doesn’t confer any. Commonwealth legislation has already been extensively modified, for example in 2008, to provide more equality to same-sex couples. And the modifications in the newly passed bill seem only to deal with language used in various ACT laws rather than substance.

Darkfalz said :

I’m a strong believer you don’t use religious arguments in this debate, even if you are religious. They’re about as useful in a debate as gay proponents throwing around cliché buzz words like “equality” or other stupid platitudes like “it doesn’t affect you” when what affects people is entirely up to them.

The high court should overturn it. But that will never be the end of it. Referendum, including a ban on any future state or federal vote on the issue for 10 years if defeated. The impact on family and society and culture and is significant, so let society vote on it.

There will never ever be an end to it until it happens. Referendum or not. Delaying it just makes everyone angry. Please elaborate on what the impact to family, society and culture? Or are you concerned that a gay couple with kids don’t have the same rights when a partner dies and the surviving partner struggles to support the children? Is that what you mean…. Of course not, because your narrow minded views and those against this means that gay people don’t really count as real people. Scientists could prove being gay is not an option tomorrow and that still wouldn’t stop the whole idea from the ACL that it is a sickness. After all does anything in the christian world have any real substance behind it other than a fictional book written many years ago with no evidence of fact about it?

Woody Mann-Caruso3:03 pm 25 Oct 13

Religion gives marriage its power

You’re thinking of Castle Greyskull.

Garfield said :

Serious question, what additional legal rights or responsibilities does the same sex marriage legislation confer upon people compared to the existing civil union legislation?

There are legal issues, most related to things like wills and superannuation. Apparently ACT legislation has fixed most of the legal differences, but there are some where marriage is required and That is about all I know.
But the whole idea of calling it another word is ridiculous, because even if the civil union was exactly the same, people would still call it marriage, people would still propose with “Will you marry me?”.

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

PantsMan said :

A total disaster waiting to unfold.

Obviously your definition of ‘total disaster’ is substantially different (and more histrionic) than mine.

Same sex marriage supporters turn upon Gallagher:

In an email to Ms Gallagher on Thursday, NSW MP and former Australian Marriage Equality national convener Alex Greenwich said it was “essential that amendments be made to create a distinct status of marriage called ‘same-sex marriage’, and that this terminology is consistent throughout the legislation.”

Mr Greenwich said defeat of the ACT law in the High Court would be a major setback for the marriage equality movement in Australia and warned the Chief Minister that “your Government, not the High Court or the Federal Government, will be held responsible”.

“Your legislation must be designed with one goal in mind; to protect the same-sex couples seeking to marry under it,” he said.

“It should not be considered as a piece of protest legislation against the Federal Government.
“I note that your government waited till the Coalition formed government to legislate in this regard, despite having the numbers and a mandate to pass legislation for over a year.
“Had your Bill gone through the same consultation process as the Tasmanian and NSW bills you would likely have been provided with this [legal] advice in advance and it would have informed stronger legislation.”

But Ms Gallagher fired back, writing to Mr Greenwich that his suggestion the ACT law was a “protest” was “simply wrong” and “the claim that we will be held responsible for the consequences of any loss in the High Court is disappointing and unhelpful”.

“The ACT has a long and proud history of eliminating discrimination from the statute book in relation to same sex relationships that exceed 10 years now,” she wrote.

More here: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/samesex-marriage-laws-could-be-amended-ahead-of-high-court-legal-challenge-20131024-2w3xt.html

A total disaster waiting to unfold.

Serious question, what additional legal rights or responsibilities does the same sex marriage legislation confer upon people compared to the existing civil union legislation?

qbngeek said :

If the followers of your beliefs are going to preach to everyone and try tell us all that we are wrong and you are right then I have the right to laugh at your beliefs. FYI I am happy to live and let live, I have my own beliefs that give me a guide on how I live my life and I am happy that you believe in god/gods/FSM/magical purple pants if it helps you to be a better person. However you should never push it onto anyone else.

Someone once told me: ‘Religion and Penises should be treated the same way.’ That is very good advice.

If you have one of your own, or have found one that gives you pleasure and makes you happy then good for you. Just don’t ever take it out in public and never try to force it down someone’s throat.

chewy14 said :

The thing I get out of this, and correct me if I’m reading it wrong, is that if the ACT wins this case, they have succeeded in defining Same Sex marriage as a different entity to heterosexual marriage. That the only way they can win, is if the court determines that same sex marriage does not equal hetero marriage.

Isn’t that the exact opposite of what the proponents have been trying to achieve and the reason they rejected things like civil unions? ie. Complete equality before the law?

Yes and No.

If the Cth power over marriage includes power over same sex marriage, then the Cth may win the case (although there is an issue because the Cth has clearly not legislated over SSM, so as cc pointed out, can it claim to have an inconsistent law merely arising from silence?). But if the court made this finding, it can only do so by defining ‘marriage’ as including SSM. So all those people claiming that SSM is ‘re-defining marriage’ will be, legally, wrong. In fact, SSM is not re defining marriage, it has always been part of what is covered by the word ‘marriage’ in the Constitution.

If ‘marriage’ in the Constitution does not cover SSM, then the ACT law is not inconsistent and will stand. In this case people are correct in saying that ‘marriage’ does not include SSM so far as the Constitution is concerned. You are right in saying we now have two types of marriage – a Cth marriage (hetero) and a state marriage (SSM).

They are different in the sense that the power to legislate over the marriage comes from a different source (Cth expressly from the Constitution, state from the ‘residual powers’ rule) and, in theory, the state based marriages can be given different powers or structures to the Cth marriages. I’m sure this issue will be raised by anti-SSM proponents to claim that SSM marriages are not the same as hetero marriages. But its sort of like saying that a drivers licence from NSW is different to one from the ACT – it is, but the practical effect is that they are exactly the same – ie both Cth and state marriages will result in a couple being ‘married’, whatever that means to you.

What is yet to be determined is, if the Cth loses, whether Cth law will be changed so that references to marriage in Cth legislation will be specified to apply only to hetero marriages. At the moment ‘marriage’ is widely defined in general legislation as it needs to cover people married overseas etc (and not just under the Cth legislation). Potentially the Cth could be vindictive and define marriage for general legislation as being only hetero marriage if that ceremony is conducted in Australia. In other words, SSM will be legal within the ACT (and other states that pass similar legislation) but the couple will remain unmarried so far as the Cth is concerned.

Solidarity said :

Man… so much effort by these people and for what?

A culture war?

Man… so much effort by these people and for what?

c_c™ said :

Simple s109 inconsistency analysis.
Does the ACT act raise simultaneous impossibility to obey? No
Does the ACT law deprive someone of a right that the Commonwealth law grants? No.

So that leaves the most controversial ground, does the state law invade the field of law the Commonwealth intended to cover?.

Thanks c_c.

The thing I get out of this, and correct me if I’m reading it wrong, is that if the ACT wins this case, they have succeeded in defining Same Sex marriage as a different entity to heterosexual marriage. That the only way they can win, is if the court determines that same sex marriage does not equal hetero marriage.

Isn’t that the exact opposite of what the proponents have been trying to achieve and the reason they rejected things like civil unions? ie. Complete equality before the law?

magiccar9 said :

PantsMan said :

If this fails, Corbell should resign.

If it fails I think Barr, Katy, and Corbell should all go – they’re the top 3 banging the marriage equality drum.

qbngeek said :

Those who believe in sky fairies should mind their own business since they are rapidly becoming a minority.

If that is your mentality, then shouldn’t those who believe in same sex marriage mind the own business too? The people who believe in the so called “sky fairies” have just as much right to oppose the changes as those supporting it. Their beliefs are just as relevant as those who choose to engage in same sex marriage.

Unlike the ACL I am not trying to enforce my personal beliefs on other people. I have my own personal beliefs, part of those are that if people want to do something that does not adversely impact anyone else then why should they not be allowed to?

As for everyone who has issues with my use of the phrase ‘sky fairies’ please enlighten me as to why you have so many issues with me using this phrase. If the followers of your beliefs are going to preach to everyone and try tell us all that we are wrong and you are right then I have the right to laugh at your beliefs. FYI I am happy to live and let live, I have my own beliefs that give me a guide on how I live my life and I am happy that you believe in god/gods/FSM/magical purple pants if it helps you to be a better person. However you should never push it onto anyone else.

I have worked with quite a few Christians and most of them felt the need to tell me how awesome their god is. Most of them learnt that as a Atheistic Satanist I am not the person to get into an argument about religion with. That and they were also some of the most hypocritical people I have ever met.

Jim Jones said :

Dilandach said :

Do you think Jesus would be proud of your stance? You think he’d be okay with exclusion of people? Perhaps you should take some time to think about that one. Honestly think about it.

There was only ever one Christian, and he died on the cross.

Damn, need to call mt brother and tell him to change his name 🙂

Darkfalz said :

I’m a strong believer you don’t use religious arguments in this debate, even if you are religious. They’re about as useful in a debate as gay proponents throwing around cliché buzz words like “equality” or other stupid platitudes like “it doesn’t affect you” when what affects people is entirely up to them.

The high court should overturn it. But that will never be the end of it. Referendum, including a ban on any future state or federal vote on the issue for 10 years if defeated. The impact on family and society and culture and is significant, so let society vote on it.

I’m a strong believer in actually asking the questions that are uncomfortable to ask or refuse to be answered. I don’t like stupid people handing over their money to hillsong like churches that allow the self appointed pastors to drive around in BMWs, its not my place to intervene where people think they’re doing god’s work by giving supposed preachers a higher standard of living. If they want to be hoodwinked, so be it. I don’t like it but it doesn’t have any impact on my life at all.

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

You also like using that society will collapse if it is allowed. Again, in countries where it has been allowed where has society collapsed and fallen into hedonism? Are we somehow protected against the evils of society with a ‘no-homo’ international barrier?

Tacking onto that is the favourite argument of “incest, polygamy and beastiality is next!” Show me one single case where there has been any serious undertaking of those being introduced after same sex marriage has been introduced.

How about you man up and really say why you’re against it instead of trying to hide behind “oooh it affects me!” but never saying *how*. Because we both know there’s no impact.

c_c™ said :

Simple s109 inconsistency analysis.
Does the ACT act raise simultaneous impossibility to obey? No
Does the ACT law deprive someone of a right that the Commonwealth law grants? No.

So that leaves the most controversial ground, does the state law invade the field of law the Commonwealth intended to cover?

You might think it’s an open and shut case, Marriage Act of the Commonwealth seeks to define the only valid form of marriage, a state (well, territory) comes along and tries to legislate about marriage, bada bing Commonwealth law prevails.

But the High Court found in … [a list of cases] … that both the Commonwealth and the State could concurrently introduce … [ laws/schemes/regulations ] … on the basis they had different criteria. There was no inconsistency in a “relevant” sense.

And to quote Latham in Birch v Allen, the long title is useful for identifying the scope of the Act. And this in turn leads back to the intention of the Commonwealth to cover the field.

I can’t claim a comprehensive understanding of constitutional law, and even the experts are unclear on these sorts of cases because there is politics behind the scenes of the court.

But I do think the Commonwealth’s writ is certainly shaky. It remains to be seen what they do in the actual arguments of course. And even if the Commonwealth loses, I strongly suspect that Abbott would try to amend the Marriage Act to cover the field once the Senate is in his favour.

Thanks for your work on this. Much appreciated.

It sounds like you’re saying it’s going to come down to a ‘states rights’ issue. I had, until now, assumed the commonwealth always won those.

Darkfalz said :

The high court should overturn it.

Yes, we’re all aware that you’re a brilliant legal mind with inside knowledge.

:rollseyes:

Dilandach said :

Do you think Jesus would be proud of your stance? You think he’d be okay with exclusion of people? Perhaps you should take some time to think about that one. Honestly think about it.

There was only ever one Christian, and he died on the cross.

I’m a strong believer you don’t use religious arguments in this debate, even if you are religious. They’re about as useful in a debate as gay proponents throwing around cliché buzz words like “equality” or other stupid platitudes like “it doesn’t affect you” when what affects people is entirely up to them.

The high court should overturn it. But that will never be the end of it. Referendum, including a ban on any future state or federal vote on the issue for 10 years if defeated. The impact on family and society and culture and is significant, so let society vote on it.

Simple s109 inconsistency analysis.
Does the ACT act raise simultaneous impossibility to obey? No
Does the ACT law deprive someone of a right that the Commonwealth law grants? No.

So that leaves the most controversial ground, does the state law invade the field of law the Commonwealth intended to cover?

You might think it’s an open and shut case, Marriage Act of the Commonwealth seeks to define the only valid form of marriage, a state (well, territory) comes along and tries to legislate about marriage, bada bing Commonwealth law prevails.

But the High Court found in the Airlines of NSW case (which was a dispute arising under s 51 of the Constitution) that both the Commonwealth and the State could concurrently introduce licensing schemes for air transport, on the basis they had different criteria. There was no inconsistency in a “relevant” sense.

In Commercial Radio Coffs Harbour, the High Court found no inconsistency in Commonwealth legislation authorising the ABT to grant a licence specifying the height and location of the transmitter, and state environmental legislation further regulating the placement of a transmitter. It was claimed the Commonwealth law was intended to cover the entire field of broadcasting services, but the High Court read down the characterisation of the legislation as merely pertaining to the quality and efficiency of broadcasting. Hypothetically then the state could legislate then even on heterosexual marriage, for example, banning rice being thrown outside ceremonies and it still wouldn’t end up with the state impinging on the Commonwealth’s field.

Dispute between Listening Devices Act and Customs Act was also found not the have an inconsistency because the latter Commonwealth Act was found only to apply to federal narcotic investigations.

The tricky thing for me though is the Commonwealth can’t legislate to prevent the state from legislating about something, and while it can legislate and indicate a clear intention to legislate in a field, it will be interesting to see how the High Court views that intention on this. I think there’s a strong argument that via the Marriage Act, the Commonwealth declared an intention not to cover the subject matter of same-sex marriage because it doesn’t recognise such a thing could be possible under Commonwealth law. This is a bit like in the movie The Man who Sued God, where the insurer said to avoid liability for an act of god, the Church would have to denounce the existence of god. And it’s the same reason why curiously, same-sex marriage would side step the Commonwealth offence of bigamy, because the Commonwealth offence can only apply to marriage as defined in the Marriage Act, so to outlaw bigamy where someone is in more than one same-sex relationship, or in a heterosexual and a same-sex marriage at the same time, it would first need to recognise same-sex marriage.
And this kind of logic was apparent in a High Court case regarding state long service leave law and Commonwealth employment law. The argument was that the Commonwealth law didn’t recognise long service leave and so that showed an intention that there shouldn’t be such a thing as long service leave. The High Court chucked that out, quite rightly, trying to make out that Commonwealth’s silence was to exclude state legislative power was a moronic argument.
Maybe in this case the Commonwealth could have more success trying to make out the Marriage Act intends to exclude via the closed definition use in s5. But at the same time the long title of the Act (cited early on in the writ amusingly) clearly states that the Act is one to regulate “marriage” and so purposively, you would interpret that Act as only applying to marriage as defined in s5. The long title is a recognised part of the Act, and the words used in it are assumed to have substantive meaning.
And to quote Latham in Birch v Allen, the long title is useful for identifying the scope of the Act. And this in turn leads back to the intention of the Commonwealth to cover the field.

I can’t claim a comprehensive understanding of constitutional law, and even the experts are unclear on these sorts of cases because there is politics behind the scenes of the court.

But I do think the Commonwealth’s writ is certainly shaky. It remains to be seen what they do in the actual arguments of course. And even if the Commonwealth loses, I strongly suspect that Abbott would try to amend the Marriage Act to cover the field once the Senate is in his favour.

HiddenDragon10:40 pm 24 Oct 13

bigfeet said :

Is this the same Christian Lobby that claim that gay marriage will confuse electricians?

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/familyvoice-australia-sends-press-release-saying-gay-marriage-will-confuse-tradies/story-fnizhakg-1226746088149

! – and it will also fade the curtains (and cause serious warping of the venetian blinds).

c_c™ said :

I’ve read the Commonwealth’s writ and good grief it’s shaky.

Don’t think it will take long for the High Court the kick them to the kerb

C_c, I’d be interested to hear the particulars of your legal opinion why this is the case?

c_c™ said :

I’ve read the Commonwealth’s writ and good grief it’s shaky.

Don’t think it will take long for the High Court the kick them to the kerb

Is this Katy or Shane? What parts are shaky? You might want to read it again.

How it is equality everyone has the law applied to them equally. No body, gay or straight is allowed to marry another person of the same sex, same family, or anyone that’s already legally married.

How could it get any more equal?

With defacto laws marriage is purely a tag of definition except in the 0-6 months of living with someone. If you get married those vows throw aside the need to wait 6 months before your financially related.

Religion gives marriage its power, if gay marriage isn’t part of religion what power does it have other than to lessen the value of marriage for straight people.

If the reasoning behind gay marriage is love, then that’s also a reason for many other types of marriage, including incest and bigamy. If they are also love then we need to remove everyone else’s social objections. We can’t single out gay marriage and say that those other relationships are equally valid because the deciding factor is love.

The issue needs to goto a referendum anything short of that is an insult to the Australian people.
The question need not be about gay marriage what what actually constitutes the reason for marriage. The ability to naturally produce offspring, love alone.

We’ve already seen the flaws in the two parent system. Fathers been taken of birth certificated in place of the other mother. If we allowed families to be more than 2 people in a marriage then we could address these issues. Many cultures have multiple partners, including indigenous Australians and Africans. Many of these are illegal by current laws and has a physical effect.

Ronald_Coase7:44 pm 24 Oct 13

ScienceRules said :

Sadly the challenge will likely be successful given the federalist nature of the constitution. As positive and welcome as the ACT stance is, it probably won’t survive the challenge. A state (or territory) can’t pass legislation that has a national effect as the NT found out over their experiment with voluntary euthenasia.

But the important difference here is that by having the High Court rule gives guidance to the states, who may then amend their draft laws to make the eventual passage faster. So in some ways we are kicking the ball down the field in an arsey way such that if we don’t score others may.

I’ve read the Commonwealth’s writ and good grief it’s shaky.

Don’t think it will take long for the High Court the kick them to the kerb

magiccar9 said :

PantsMan said :

If this fails, Corbell should resign.

If it fails I think Barr, Katy, and Corbell should all go – they’re the top 3 banging the marriage equality drum.

qbngeek said :

Those who believe in sky fairies should mind their own business since they are rapidly becoming a minority.

If that is your mentality, then shouldn’t those who believe in same sex marriage mind the own business too? The people who believe in the so called “sky fairies” have just as much right to oppose the changes as those supporting it. Their beliefs are just as relevant as those who choose to engage in same sex marriage.

Not even close to being similar.

The difference is that it causes zero physical inconvenience or harm. I’ll ask the question that I ask all of your ilk that can’t think for themselves. How is someone getting married in the ACT to the same sex affect you any more than the marriages in NZ, Europe and the US?

Do you think Jesus would be proud of your stance? You think he’d be okay with exclusion of people? Perhaps you should take some time to think about that one. Honestly think about it.

Holden Caulfield said :

magiccar9 said :

The people who believe in the so called “sky fairies” have just as much right to oppose the changes as those supporting it. Their beliefs are just as relevant as those who choose to engage in same sex marriage.

Er, no, not really.

Marriage equality is about removing discrimination from our laws and treating couples of all sexual persuasion equally. It has no effect whatsoever on the lives or beliefs of those who practice whatever religious order takes their fancy.

Gay couples aren’t asking to be married with the blessing of any church and until they do no religious order has any right whatsoever to stick their nose into state-based laws.

Someone give that man a cigar.

emperorminge6:26 pm 24 Oct 13

PantsMan said :

qbngeek said :

Those who believe in sky fairies should mind their own business since they are rapidly becoming a minority.

Tolerance and respect for diversity, leftard-style.

If you managed to type that insanely hypocritical comment with a straight face, kudos.

Holden Caulfield said :

magiccar9 said :

The people who believe in the so called “sky fairies” have just as much right to oppose the changes as those supporting it. Their beliefs are just as relevant as those who choose to engage in same sex marriage.

Er, no, not really.

Marriage equality is about removing discrimination from our laws and treating couples of all sexual persuasion equally. It has no effect whatsoever on the lives or beliefs of those who practice whatever religious order takes their fancy.

Gay couples aren’t asking to be married with the blessing of any church and until they do no religious order has any right whatsoever to stick their nose into state-based laws.

Exactly! Your beliefs don’t grant you the right to restrict the freedoms of others. Allowing same-sex couples to wed doesn’t restrict your freedom in anyway. If you feel that it would ‘devalue’ hetero marriages, well then, that’s your own stupid opinion, but it’s not restricting you in anyway.

Holden Caulfield said :

Marriage equality is about removing discrimination from our laws and treating couples of all sexual persuasion equally. It has no effect whatsoever on the lives or beliefs of those who practice whatever religious order takes their fancy.

Gay couples aren’t asking to be married with the blessing of any church and until they do no religious order has any right whatsoever to stick their nose into state-based laws.

Bravo.

Of course, there are religious orders willing to marry gay people – so isn’t this challenge then trying to impinge on their religious freedoms? Or do people who claim that their religious views preclude gay marriage also not acknowledge the religious views of their brethren? Pretty poor form.

Holden Caulfield said :

Er, no, not really.

Marriage equality is about removing discrimination from our laws and treating couples of all sexual persuasion equally. It has no effect whatsoever on the lives or beliefs of those who practice whatever religious order takes their fancy.

Gay couples aren’t asking to be married with the blessing of any church and until they do no religious order has any right whatsoever to stick their nose into state-based laws.

Er, no not really. They have exactly the same right as any other citizen or group of citizens.

plausibly_deniable said :

Why would Corbell etc resign? They’ve made a law which represents the majority view of their constituency.

The last election wasn’t a referendum on the single issue of same-sex marriage. Those who voted for the Government might, or then again might not, support same-sex marriage, but I’d guess that most voters considered a range of policies in making their decision.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I think you’ll find that gay people are a real thing, and that marriage is a real thing, unlike the other thing you’re talking about.

Gay people are a real thing, though I’d prefer to say they are real people, but both marriage and religion are human constructs.

Holden Caulfield5:22 pm 24 Oct 13

magiccar9 said :

The people who believe in the so called “sky fairies” have just as much right to oppose the changes as those supporting it. Their beliefs are just as relevant as those who choose to engage in same sex marriage.

Er, no, not really.

Marriage equality is about removing discrimination from our laws and treating couples of all sexual persuasion equally. It has no effect whatsoever on the lives or beliefs of those who practice whatever religious order takes their fancy.

Gay couples aren’t asking to be married with the blessing of any church and until they do no religious order has any right whatsoever to stick their nose into state-based laws.

PantsMan said :

If this fails, Abbott should resign.

I fixed that for you.

magiccar9 said :

PantsMan said :

If this fails, Corbell should resign.

If it fails I think Barr, Katy, and Corbell should all go – they’re the top 3 banging the marriage equality drum.

qbngeek said :

Those who believe in sky fairies should mind their own business since they are rapidly becoming a minority.

If that is your mentality, then shouldn’t those who believe in same sex marriage mind the own business too? The people who believe in the so called “sky fairies” have just as much right to oppose the changes as those supporting it. Their beliefs are just as relevant as those who choose to engage in same sex marriage.

The difference is, most in support are not gay, and can see how it doesn’t affect them in any meaningful way. Those who oppose it, do so based on their own views and beliefs. Therefore they are pushing their beliefs onto the majority. Nobody is telling anyone against to do anything against their will. So it doesn’t really affect them, other than having some moral superiority that must be protected at all costs. the thought processes from those against are almost as if gay people are denied the right to marry then maybe they’ll stop being gay???

It does not really affect anyone other than those involved and the sooner religious groups just keep their noses out of other peoples business the better, because it does not affect them at all, except they think we should all believe in the unproven nonsense they believe in.

PantsMan said :

If this fails, Corbell should resign.

If it succeeds, Abbott should be fired… out of a cannon, into the Sun.

ScienceRules4:45 pm 24 Oct 13

Sadly the challenge will likely be successful given the federalist nature of the constitution. As positive and welcome as the ACT stance is, it probably won’t survive the challenge. A state (or territory) can’t pass legislation that has a national effect as the NT found out over their experiment with voluntary euthenasia.

Woody Mann-Caruso4:34 pm 24 Oct 13

magiccar9 said :

Their beliefs are just as relevant as those who choose to engage in same sex marriage.

I think you’ll find that gay people are a real thing, and that marriage is a real thing, unlike the other thing you’re talking about.

Woody Mann-Caruso4:32 pm 24 Oct 13

PantsMan said :

If this fails, Corbell should resign.

Kinda like how you’ll leave Canberra forever if your move to have the Governor-General dissolve the Assembly doesn’t get up?

qbngeek said :

Those who believe in sky fairies should mind their own business since they are rapidly becoming a minority.

Tolerance and respect for diversity, leftard-style.

plausibly_deniable4:02 pm 24 Oct 13

Why would Corbell etc resign? They’ve made a law which represents the majority view of their constituency. They should be applauded for being on the right side of history. If Abbott has suddenly found that stomping on happy gay people’s happiness is his priority, that’s not the ACT Government’s problem – it’s just the last thrashings of a soon-to-be-shameful bigotry.

PantsMan said :

If this fails, Corbell should resign.

If it fails I think Barr, Katy, and Corbell should all go – they’re the top 3 banging the marriage equality drum.

qbngeek said :

Those who believe in sky fairies should mind their own business since they are rapidly becoming a minority.

If that is your mentality, then shouldn’t those who believe in same sex marriage mind the own business too? The people who believe in the so called “sky fairies” have just as much right to oppose the changes as those supporting it. Their beliefs are just as relevant as those who choose to engage in same sex marriage.

If this fails, Corbell should resign.

Those who believe in sky fairies should mind their own business since they are rapidly becoming a minority. Many of the people who share their religious beliefs support marriage equality.

I say let them marry and be just a miserable as the rest of us 🙂

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.