22 October 2013

Break out the rainbow bubbly, we're the gay marriage Capital! (For now)

| johnboy
Join the conversation
120

Shane Rattenbury has made it known that it’s gay marriage a go go in the ACT at least until the High Court weighs in:

Leader of the Australian Greens, Christine Milne joined ACT Greens Member for Molonglo, Shane Rattenbury at the ACT Legislative Assembly today to celebrate the ACT becoming the first jurisdiction to legislate for same sex marriage.

“The passage of the Marriage Equality Bill is a landmark moment for this Assembly, for the ACT community, and for people across the nation who have been waiting so long to formalise their love through marriage but have been denied,” said Mr Rattenbury.

“Today the ACT, through the vote in this Assembly, says that we are a place that cares about people, cares about their human rights, and cares about equality and fairness.

“When you think about it, this is really a straightforward law expressing something that should be clear already. It simply says ‘love is love’, and the public and formal commitment of love is something that cannot, and should not, be restrained,” said Mr Rattenbury.

“I congratulate the ACT Assembly for this historic legislation. Last century discrimination has no place in our laws and the ACT is leading the way,” said Senator Milne.


UPDATE: Simon Corbell is getting in on the act:

People in a same sex relationship are now able to have their love and commitment to each other legally recognised in the same way that people in a heterosexual relationship are able to, after historic legislation was passed in the ACT Legislative Assembly today.

“Today’s Bill shows clearly and unambiguously that all people are entitled to respect, dignity, the right to participate in society and to receive the full protection of the law, regardless of sexual orientation,” Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, said today.

“This Labor Government has consistently advocated and acted to remove discrimination in our community and the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Bill is another key example of this work.

“The ACT Government is disappointed, but not deterred, by the Commonwealth’s intention to challenge the ACT’s authority to make this law but this law is no threat to the Commonwealth’s powers under the Constitution or to the institution of marriage,” Mr Corbell said.

The new law will commence in time for the first same-sex weddings to be held before the end of the year, despite the Commonwealth Government’s announcement that it will challenge the ACT law in the High Court.

Marriages under the Act will begin in the same way as other marriages — with a notice of intention tomarry, accompanied by evidence of identity and age, given to an authorised marriage celebrant.

Marriages under the Marriage Equality Act will be solemnised by authorised celebrants, on any day, at any time and at any place in the ACT.


UPDATE: Andrew Barr’s tear soaked speech is also now available.

Join the conversation

120
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

good onya mole face , nice to see you have the publics interest on waisting time and money on this. how much will this cost medicare in jedus operations when the fags arse caves in.

Minz said :

chewy14 said :

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Dunno about your logic, but my logic says that the commitment of 2 consenting adults to each other isn’t the same as either incest (which involves one person unable to consent) or polygamy (multiple adults). Unless you’re using particularly creative definitions?

I agree that the discussion of same sex marriage shouldn’t be tainted by incest slurs, but why do you think that incest necessarily involves one person being unable to give consent? And what’s special about two?

Minz said :

chewy14 said :

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Dunno about your logic, but my logic says that the commitment of 2 consenting adults to each other isn’t the same as either incest (which involves one person unable to consent) or polygamy (multiple adults). Unless you’re using particularly creative definitions?

Consent can exist in both incestuous relationships and polygamous ones. Consent can even exist in sexual relationships between children and adults, but we have (rightfully) decided that children can not give “informed” consent (although I wouldn’t particularly care if that “child” was 15-16 or older and mature).

Believe what you want to believe and fight for those beliefs if you need to. But when you insist your obviously different relationship is the same as a biologically compatible and complimentary heterosexual one, but yet so very different from those other examples so don’t extend the rights we are demanding to them, you end up sounding like a hypocrite.

Minz said :

chewy14 said :

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Dunno about your logic, but my logic says that the commitment of 2 consenting adults to each other isn’t the same as either incest (which involves one person unable to consent) or polygamy (multiple adults). Unless you’re using particularly creative definitions?

1. You do realise that incest doesn’t necessarily involve a minor right? We’ve already been through this in the thread. You probably didn’t consider that those two consenting adults could be related right? Use the exact same wording that Shane Rattenbury has towards same sex couples and apply it to the above. What’s the difference?

2.If the definition of marriage is fluid, and can be changed as implied by this law, what makes the number 2 so special. Why is the recognition of groups of people who love each other any different? Why should they be discriminated against?

chewy14 said :

[The legal issues can easily be solved by civil unions for everyone (and I actually mean everyone)rather than a piecemeal solution that simply extends marriage to same sex couples whilst still discriminating against other groups that could use the exact same arguments as the proponents of same sex marriage. This isn’t “marriage equality”, it’s same sex marriage. The proposed laws will still discriminate, it will just be you choosing who gets discriminated against.

+1 on that. As far as I can tell, the only reasons for any government to make laws about relationships are a) tax and b) protection. By protection, I mean that people must consent to be in binding relationships – no forced unions and no unions involving people who can’t consent. Since neither of those reasons give any cause to make binding relationships particular to any particular group of consenting adults, why do the feds care? Civil unions for all in the eyes of the law! Wanna get married? Find a religious group to do it.

On that, I personally find it offensive that the government would use my tax dollars (albeit a tiny proportion of) to pursue their idealogical goal of ensuring that a segment of our society remains lower in the eyes of the law, without any logical reason whatsoever. Sod off, Tony.

chewy14 said :

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Dunno about your logic, but my logic says that the commitment of 2 consenting adults to each other isn’t the same as either incest (which involves one person unable to consent) or polygamy (multiple adults). Unless you’re using particularly creative definitions?

chewy14 said :

[The legal issues can easily be solved by civil unions for everyone (and I actually mean everyone)rather than a piecemeal solution that simply extends marriage to same sex couples whilst still discriminating against other groups that could use the exact same arguments as the proponents of same sex marriage. This isn’t “marriage equality”, it’s same sex marriage. The proposed laws will still discriminate, it will just be you choosing who gets discriminated against.

Easily the best idea so far.

chewy14 said :

I’m guessing that the people who support this law are the same ones who would be the first to squeal if a conservative state government tried to pass a law contradicting a progressive federal one.

I can’t speak for anyone else, but AFAIC you’re wrong. I’d be among the first to squeal if any government – state, federal or territorial – tried to pass a conservative law contradicting a progressive one.

We should move forwards, not backwards.

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Well said. For people to complain that the ACT Government has other things it should prioritise, but not say the same about the Feds, shows a ridiculous level of bias.

I would much rather the Feds had a long hard look at their misuse of expenses – when they’ve done that and a few other things, then they (and posters here on their behalf) can try to claim some moral high ground.

IP

Irish Pete, I completely disagree.

It’s not up to the Federal government to make sure its laws are consistent with the states/territories but the other way around, so how can it be their responsibility for the wasted resources that are going to come out of this case?
They’re protecting their constitutional powers, whereas it seems to me that the ACT government is trying to using semantics (marriage definition) to bypass those powers. If there is any ambiguity, they should defer to the federal law rather than trying to push through their agenda.
Those section 51powers are the feds core business, why wouldn’t they protect them? And BTW, you still haven’t provided examples of where they’ve failed to protect those powers previously, so at this stage you can’t claim at this stage that they’re acting hypocritically on this issue without backing it up.

The ACT government bears all responsibility for this situation and it’s not even close to being “ridiculously biased” in thinking so. Rather, it’s based on a belief that these type of issues should be dealt with at a national level (and in my case a dislike of the wastefulness of state governments in general).

Bollocks. The Libs are challenging because they’re against same sex marriage (unsurprisingly, given that they’re a pack of reactionary conservatives). All the po-faced justifications in the world don’t alter that basic fact.

If it were an issue that they were opposed to, the challenge wouldn’t exist.

And again, the reason that the ACT legislation has gone ahead is because Federal goverments of both persuasions have sat on their hands and done nothing for fear of annoying fundy f%^wits like the ACL.

If the Federal gummint had shown an ounce of backbone, then none of this would be necessary. As it is, without serious prodding and threats from the States, four-fifths of f%^k-all would happen on the same sex marriage front.

It’s remarkably telling that the people using the ‘it’s not about same sex marriage, it’s about consistent laws blah blah blah’ bollocks arguments are reactionary conservatives themselves, usually those who’ve trotted out every other tedious, disingenous argument regarding same-sex marriage (waste of time, not important, civil-unions are the same anyway, incestuous unions will be next … etc. etc.).

I’m not arguing that the Liberals are coming at this issue wholly from a legal standpoint, there’s clearly ideological background to it. Doesn’t mean they aren’t correct from that legal standpoint though.

My position on this issue has been clearly stated on this very forum multiple times and is logically consistent which is more than I can say for quite a few others here.

I’ve stated many times that I don’t actual believe that the government (any government) should be involved in solemnising people’s relationships in the first place. I’ve asked repeatedly on previous threads as to why this is necessary and am still yet to get a logical answer.

The legal issues can easily be solved by civil unions for everyone (and I actually mean everyone)rather than a piecemeal solution that simply extends marriage to same sex couples whilst still discriminating against other groups that could use the exact same arguments as the proponents of same sex marriage. This isn’t “marriage equality”, it’s same sex marriage. The proposed laws will still discriminate, it will just be you choosing who gets discriminated against.

And it’s interesting that the response to these logical issues by people like yourself has mostly been deafening silence. Ironic too, because those kinds of illogical claims have been rightly derided when they come from the religious nutters claiming god’s law or some such.

On this issue, I am however a pragmatist, who realises that same sex marriage laws will be passed at some stage in the future because politicians aren’t, on the whole, open to logical arguments. But I’ve consistently said that they should be dealt with at a federal level which is where the issue belongs. I supported the Feds being in control when the ALP were in charge and I continue to do so now the LNP are.

I’m guessing that the people who support this law are the same ones who would be the first to squeal if a conservative state government tried to pass a law contradicting a progressive federal one.

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Well said. For people to complain that the ACT Government has other things it should prioritise, but not say the same about the Feds, shows a ridiculous level of bias.

I would much rather the Feds had a long hard look at their misuse of expenses – when they’ve done that and a few other things, then they (and posters here on their behalf) can try to claim some moral high ground.

IP

Irish Pete, I completely disagree.

It’s not up to the Federal government to make sure its laws are consistent with the states/territories but the other way around, so how can it be their responsibility for the wasted resources that are going to come out of this case?
They’re protecting their constitutional powers, whereas it seems to me that the ACT government is trying to using semantics (marriage definition) to bypass those powers. If there is any ambiguity, they should defer to the federal law rather than trying to push through their agenda.
Those section 51powers are the feds core business, why wouldn’t they protect them? And BTW, you still haven’t provided examples of where they’ve failed to protect those powers previously, so at this stage you can’t claim at this stage that they’re acting hypocritically on this issue without backing it up.

The ACT government bears all responsibility for this situation and it’s not even close to being “ridiculously biased” in thinking so. Rather, it’s based on a belief that these type of issues should be dealt with at a national level (and in my case a dislike of the wastefulness of state governments in general).

Bollocks. The Libs are challenging because they’re against same sex marriage (unsurprisingly, given that they’re a pack of reactionary conservatives). All the po-faced justifications in the world don’t alter that basic fact.

If it were an issue that they were opposed to, the challenge wouldn’t exist.

And again, the reason that the ACT legislation has gone ahead is because Federal goverments of both persuasions have sat on their hands and done nothing for fear of annoying fundy f%^wits like the ACL.

If the Federal gummint had shown an ounce of backbone, then none of this would be necessary. As it is, without serious prodding and threats from the States, four-fifths of f%^k-all would happen on the same sex marriage front.

It’s remarkably telling that the people using the ‘it’s not about same sex marriage, it’s about consistent laws blah blah blah’ bollocks arguments are reactionary conservatives themselves, usually those who’ve trotted out every other tedious, disingenous argument regarding same-sex marriage (waste of time, not important, civil-unions are the same anyway, incestuous unions will be next … etc. etc.).

Err, I’ve stated quite publicly and will happily state again that I support same sex marriage. I certainly wouldn’t ever be considered a reactionary conservative. I could call you a contrary leftie ignoramus based on what you’ve said, but I don’t know that for sure so I won’t.

I support what both the ACT legislative assembly has done (testing the limits of the powers granted under s122, under which the ACT has been given self-government) and the Commonwealth is doing (testing the scope of s51 powers). I reiterate – the ACT same-sex marriage laws would have been challenged by the Commonwealth regardless of which party was in power, because it’s an important constitutional issue. The Commonwealth would be mad if it didn’t challenge it in the High Court – the decision in this case will further refine the power of territories to legislate generally on a range of matters, not just in the case of marriage laws. I don’t understand why people just don’t get that.

Jim Jones said :

And again, the reason that the ACT legislation has gone ahead is because Federal goverments of both persuasions have sat on their hands and done nothing for fear of annoying fundy f%^wits like Tony Abbott, the ACL, and the other fundies in both the Liberal and Labor parties.

Correct, with a couple of minor modifications.

PantsMan said :

Overall, this was all a big undergraduate gee-up to mainstream religions and the Federal Coalition by left-wing secular types who have no tolerance or respect for plurality in society.

So … plurality doesn’t include the gheys then?

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Well said. For people to complain that the ACT Government has other things it should prioritise, but not say the same about the Feds, shows a ridiculous level of bias.

I would much rather the Feds had a long hard look at their misuse of expenses – when they’ve done that and a few other things, then they (and posters here on their behalf) can try to claim some moral high ground.

IP

Irish Pete, I completely disagree.

It’s not up to the Federal government to make sure its laws are consistent with the states/territories but the other way around, so how can it be their responsibility for the wasted resources that are going to come out of this case?
They’re protecting their constitutional powers, whereas it seems to me that the ACT government is trying to using semantics (marriage definition) to bypass those powers. If there is any ambiguity, they should defer to the federal law rather than trying to push through their agenda.
Those section 51powers are the feds core business, why wouldn’t they protect them? And BTW, you still haven’t provided examples of where they’ve failed to protect those powers previously, so at this stage you can’t claim at this stage that they’re acting hypocritically on this issue without backing it up.

The ACT government bears all responsibility for this situation and it’s not even close to being “ridiculously biased” in thinking so. Rather, it’s based on a belief that these type of issues should be dealt with at a national level (and in my case a dislike of the wastefulness of state governments in general).

Bollocks. The Libs are challenging because they’re against same sex marriage (unsurprisingly, given that they’re a pack of reactionary conservatives). All the po-faced justifications in the world don’t alter that basic fact.

If it were an issue that they were opposed to, the challenge wouldn’t exist.

And again, the reason that the ACT legislation has gone ahead is because Federal goverments of both persuasions have sat on their hands and done nothing for fear of annoying fundy f%^wits like the ACL.

If the Federal gummint had shown an ounce of backbone, then none of this would be necessary. As it is, without serious prodding and threats from the States, four-fifths of f%^k-all would happen on the same sex marriage front.

It’s remarkably telling that the people using the ‘it’s not about same sex marriage, it’s about consistent laws blah blah blah’ bollocks arguments are reactionary conservatives themselves, usually those who’ve trotted out every other tedious, disingenous argument regarding same-sex marriage (waste of time, not important, civil-unions are the same anyway, incestuous unions will be next … etc. etc.).

I think it is entirely obvious that the ACT Government just wanted to use this issue to play politics with the new Abbott Federal Government (This was never on the agenda while Rudd and Gillard were in office). In doing so, they have made public statements that have disclosed that they have almost no knowledge of basic constitutional law concepts (including, in particular, the actual functions for which the ACT Government itself is responsible).

Now we are going to see the most pitiful attempt to defend the (legally) indefensible in the High Court with our money.

The latest entirely contradictory claim made by Corbell and Barr is that Senator Brandis should just resile from upholding the law, as what the law is does not really matter. If they law does not matter, why do we need gay marriage laws?

Also, the (now rehashed) laws have basically just rebranded existing civil unions as same sex marriages. Not a great reform methinks; and I suspect that it will be somewhat awkward for heterosexual couples that opted for a civil union over marriage to wake up one day and find they are now in a same sex marriage.

Overall, this was all a big undergraduate gee-up to mainstream religions and the Federal Coalition by left-wing secular types who have no tolerance or respect for plurality in society.

IrishPete said :

Well said. For people to complain that the ACT Government has other things it should prioritise, but not say the same about the Feds, shows a ridiculous level of bias.

I would much rather the Feds had a long hard look at their misuse of expenses – when they’ve done that and a few other things, then they (and posters here on their behalf) can try to claim some moral high ground.

IP

Irish Pete, I completely disagree.

It’s not up to the Federal government to make sure its laws are consistent with the states/territories but the other way around, so how can it be their responsibility for the wasted resources that are going to come out of this case?
They’re protecting their constitutional powers, whereas it seems to me that the ACT government is trying to using semantics (marriage definition) to bypass those powers. If there is any ambiguity, they should defer to the federal law rather than trying to push through their agenda.
Those section 51powers are the feds core business, why wouldn’t they protect them? And BTW, you still haven’t provided examples of where they’ve failed to protect those powers previously, so at this stage you can’t claim at this stage that they’re acting hypocritically on this issue without backing it up.

The ACT government bears all responsibility for this situation and it’s not even close to being “ridiculously biased” in thinking so. Rather, it’s based on a belief that these type of issues should be dealt with at a national level (and in my case a dislike of the wastefulness of state governments in general).

Mr Gillespie said :

Ms Katy Gallagar (who chucked a spaz when she followed by those Liberals who got her shaking in her boots she whined to the media about it, remember just days before the election) wouldn’t know what “forward-thinking” meant, if it hit her in the face like a rotten fish!

Dear cod! That’s a sentence that will live in infamy.

thebrownstreak6912:40 pm 24 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

vet111 said :

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

Well said. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, it’s extremely unfair to be using gay couples wishing to marry as a political football. These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.

:snort:

Oh totally.

What the gay community want isn’t the right to marry, but certainty. It’s really all about certainty. I’m sure that the government will help these poor people that have been so ill-treated by the ACT government and provide them their ‘certainty’ as soon as they possibly can.

Honestly, how disingenous do you have to be to try to argue that the government trying to prevent same-sex marriage is actually on the side of the gay community?

Still haven’t taken remedial English I see.

I am not suggesting for a second that the feds are on the side of the gay community. What I am saying is that a national solution is needed, regardless of how you, I or anyone else feels about it.

You do realise that under the current law a married gay couple won’t be recognised as such outside the ACT (for legal purposes), right?

/snort…

So … it wasn’t you who wrote: ” These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.”

Well, that’s confusing. I could have sworn it was.

Yep, that was me, but I think the message got lost in translation.

Gay marriage is a political football right now. Why didn’t the ACT govt push it through a month ago when they could have worked with federal Labor? Oh that’s right, they could have. But they didn’t. The stuffed around and waited until they had feds who they knew weren’t on side, and there’s now a good chance the high court will overturn it (but maybe not).

Do you think being stuck in the middle of a politcial argument between two sides that don’t see eye is reasonable? Do you think the ACT govt waiting until the Libs got in was a sensible thing to do? How would you feel if your marriage wasn’t recognised more than a few kilometres from home?

Again, regardless of how you or I see this, it needs a national solution. I am sure there will come a day when gay marriage is legal and widely socially accepted, but this doesn’t seem to me to be a constructive way to achieve this. Do you think what the ACT govt has done is a good way to achieve their aim?

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

vet111 said :

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

Well said. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, it’s extremely unfair to be using gay couples wishing to marry as a political football. These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.

:snort:

Oh totally.

What the gay community want isn’t the right to marry, but certainty. It’s really all about certainty. I’m sure that the government will help these poor people that have been so ill-treated by the ACT government and provide them their ‘certainty’ as soon as they possibly can.

Honestly, how disingenous do you have to be to try to argue that the government trying to prevent same-sex marriage is actually on the side of the gay community?

Well said. For people to complain that the ACT Government has other things it should prioritise, but not say the same about the Feds, shows a ridiculous level of bias.

I would much rather the Feds had a long hard look at their misuse of expenses – when they’ve done that and a few other things, then they (and posters here on their behalf) can try to claim some moral high ground.

IP

thebrownstreak69 said :

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

vet111 said :

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

Well said. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, it’s extremely unfair to be using gay couples wishing to marry as a political football. These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.

:snort:

Oh totally.

What the gay community want isn’t the right to marry, but certainty. It’s really all about certainty. I’m sure that the government will help these poor people that have been so ill-treated by the ACT government and provide them their ‘certainty’ as soon as they possibly can.

Honestly, how disingenous do you have to be to try to argue that the government trying to prevent same-sex marriage is actually on the side of the gay community?

Still haven’t taken remedial English I see.

I am not suggesting for a second that the feds are on the side of the gay community. What I am saying is that a national solution is needed, regardless of how you, I or anyone else feels about it.

You do realise that under the current law a married gay couple won’t be recognised as such outside the ACT (for legal purposes), right?

/snort…

So … it wasn’t you who wrote: ” These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.”

Well, that’s confusing. I could have sworn it was.

thebrownstreak6912:16 pm 24 Oct 13

Jim Jones said :

thebrownstreak69 said :

vet111 said :

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

Well said. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, it’s extremely unfair to be using gay couples wishing to marry as a political football. These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.

:snort:

Oh totally.

What the gay community want isn’t the right to marry, but certainty. It’s really all about certainty. I’m sure that the government will help these poor people that have been so ill-treated by the ACT government and provide them their ‘certainty’ as soon as they possibly can.

Honestly, how disingenous do you have to be to try to argue that the government trying to prevent same-sex marriage is actually on the side of the gay community?

Still haven’t taken remedial English I see.

I am not suggesting for a second that the feds are on the side of the gay community. What I am saying is that a national solution is needed, regardless of how you, I or anyone else feels about it.

You do realise that under the current law a married gay couple won’t be recognised as such outside the ACT (for legal purposes), right?

/snort…

thebrownstreak69 said :

vet111 said :

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

Well said. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, it’s extremely unfair to be using gay couples wishing to marry as a political football. These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.

:snort:

Oh totally.

What the gay community want isn’t the right to marry, but certainty. It’s really all about certainty. I’m sure that the government will help these poor people that have been so ill-treated by the ACT government and provide them their ‘certainty’ as soon as they possibly can.

Honestly, how disingenous do you have to be to try to argue that the government trying to prevent same-sex marriage is actually on the side of the gay community?

thebrownstreak6911:37 am 24 Oct 13

vet111 said :

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

Well said. Regardless of whether or not you agree with gay marriage, it’s extremely unfair to be using gay couples wishing to marry as a political football. These people need a clear, national solution defined at the federal level to give them certainty.

IrishPete said :

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Or perhaps it has something to do with state/territory laws thay are inconsistent with federal ones?

So if inconsistency is actually the real issue here, as you allude, why don’t we dissolve the state and territory governments in favour of one big federal orgy.

Oh don’t get me started on the massive wan@fest the existence of state governments are. It’s our historical cross of inefficient government that we have to bear.

Fair enough.

But is the new ACT law the only example in the country of a state/territory law being inconsistent with a federal law? Certainly across the states we have heaps (eg. road rules etc).

Indeed. The anti-bikie laws in Qld are going to end up in the High Court, and wlll probably be shot down, but not at the instigation of the Abbott government, nor expedited the way this one is being. That’s just one recent example, I bet there are dozens more dogs that they are happy to just let lie.

IP

The anti bike laws in South Australia were found to be unconstitutional by the high court and the state government was pilloried for wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. The Queensland ones will most likely go the same way. But I can’t remember them being shot down for inconsistency with federal laws but rather I thought it was because they forced judges to make assumptions on people’s guilt without appropriate evidence. It was the concept of judicial independence that was the issue.

Do you have an example of the Abbott government not pursuing inconsistencies with state law in the same way as these laws? I’m truly interested whether they have acted differently in this case???

The High Court is a federal/Commonwealth court. If it chose to take jurisdiction over the anti-bikie laws, I think that says it all.

The Abbot government has been in power just a few weeks. They inherit all the sleeping dogs of their predecessors, but they’ve chosen to put the boot into gay people first, because the ACT government has had the temerity to challenge their authority. (Off the top of my head I will say local government funding as one possible example…)

IP

Wow IP, you really are incapable of seeing the bigger picture aren’t you? Try looking beyond the ACT/gay marriage issue…

The federal government taking action now will provide certainty for the other territories about the issue, and will provide guidance to the states about their ability to legislate for gay marriage. Are you trying to say this is not a good thing?

You really should stop trying to see conspiracy theories where there are none. Regardless of a red, blue, black, green government in power at the federal level I would expect they would take this same action.

Mr Gillespie said :

Ms Katy Gallagar … wouldn’t know what “forward-thinking” meant, if it hit her in the face like a rotten fish!

If something hit me in the face like a rotten fish I doubt I would think it’s “forward-thinking” either.

I’d probably think it’s a rotten fish.

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Or perhaps it has something to do with state/territory laws thay are inconsistent with federal ones?

So if inconsistency is actually the real issue here, as you allude, why don’t we dissolve the state and territory governments in favour of one big federal orgy.

Oh don’t get me started on the massive wan@fest the existence of state governments are. It’s our historical cross of inefficient government that we have to bear.

Fair enough.

But is the new ACT law the only example in the country of a state/territory law being inconsistent with a federal law? Certainly across the states we have heaps (eg. road rules etc).

Indeed. The anti-bikie laws in Qld are going to end up in the High Court, and wlll probably be shot down, but not at the instigation of the Abbott government, nor expedited the way this one is being. That’s just one recent example, I bet there are dozens more dogs that they are happy to just let lie.

IP

The anti bike laws in South Australia were found to be unconstitutional by the high court and the state government was pilloried for wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. The Queensland ones will most likely go the same way. But I can’t remember them being shot down for inconsistency with federal laws but rather I thought it was because they forced judges to make assumptions on people’s guilt without appropriate evidence. It was the concept of judicial independence that was the issue.

Do you have an example of the Abbott government not pursuing inconsistencies with state law in the same way as these laws? I’m truly interested whether they have acted differently in this case???

The High Court is a federal/Commonwealth court. If it chose to take jurisdiction over the anti-bikie laws, I think that says it all.

The Abbot government has been in power just a few weeks. They inherit all the sleeping dogs of their predecessors, but they’ve chosen to put the boot into gay people first, because the ACT government has had the temerity to challenge their authority. (Off the top of my head I will say local government funding as one possible example…)

IP

Queen_of_the_Bun12:19 am 24 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

DrKoresh said :

chewy14 said :

Imagine if one of the states (probably Queensland) decided to change their currency or start their own army? Would people be supportive of state autonomy then?

No, but then you’re being disingenuous in your analogy because marriage equality is not even remotely similar to either of those things.

DrKoresh said :

chewy14 said :

Imagine if one of the states (probably Queensland) decided to change their currency or start their own army? Would people be supportive of state autonomy then?

No, but then you’re being disingenuous in your analogy because marriage equality is not even remotely similar to either of those things.

You or I may not think so but our Constitution does. All three are Federal powers under section 51.

Perhaps you want to change the constitution? Or are you happy for the states to do whatever they want as long as you agree with the outcome?

I think the issue to be decided is whether the Commonwealth, by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, has excluded itself from having jurisdiction over same-sex relationships.

Anyway, it will be huge internationally whatever the High Court decides.

Way to put Canberra on the map in its centenary year!

IrishPete said :

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Or perhaps it has something to do with state/territory laws thay are inconsistent with federal ones?

So if inconsistency is actually the real issue here, as you allude, why don’t we dissolve the state and territory governments in favour of one big federal orgy.

Oh don’t get me started on the massive wan@fest the existence of state governments are. It’s our historical cross of inefficient government that we have to bear.

Fair enough.

But is the new ACT law the only example in the country of a state/territory law being inconsistent with a federal law? Certainly across the states we have heaps (eg. road rules etc).

Indeed. The anti-bikie laws in Qld are going to end up in the High Court, and wlll probably be shot down, but not at the instigation of the Abbott government, nor expedited the way this one is being. That’s just one recent example, I bet there are dozens more dogs that they are happy to just let lie.

IP

The anti bike laws in South Australia were found to be unconstitutional by the high court and the state government was pilloried for wasting hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars. The Queensland ones will most likely go the same way. But I can’t remember them being shot down for inconsistency with federal laws but rather I thought it was because they forced judges to make assumptions on people’s guilt without appropriate evidence. It was the concept of judicial independence that was the issue.

Do you have an example of the Abbott government not pursuing inconsistencies with state law in the same way as these laws? I’m truly interested whether they have acted differently in this case???

Mr Gillespie8:30 pm 23 Oct 13

Ms Katy Gallagar (who chucked a spaz when she followed by those Liberals who got her shaking in her boots she whined to the media about it, remember just days before the election) wouldn’t know what “forward-thinking” meant, if it hit her in the face like a rotten fish!

DrKoresh said :

chewy14 said :

Imagine if one of the states (probably Queensland) decided to change their currency or start their own army? Would people be supportive of state autonomy then?

No, but then you’re being disingenuous in your analogy because marriage equality is not even remotely similar to either of those things.

DrKoresh said :

chewy14 said :

Imagine if one of the states (probably Queensland) decided to change their currency or start their own army? Would people be supportive of state autonomy then?

No, but then you’re being disingenuous in your analogy because marriage equality is not even remotely similar to either of those things.

You or I may not think so but our Constitution does. All three are Federal powers under section 51.

Perhaps you want to change the constitution? Or are you happy for the states to do whatever they want as long as you agree with the outcome?

Another undergraduate disaster waiting to happen, courtesy of ACT Gov Co.

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Or perhaps it has something to do with state/territory laws thay are inconsistent with federal ones?

So if inconsistency is actually the real issue here, as you allude, why don’t we dissolve the state and territory governments in favour of one big federal orgy.

Oh don’t get me started on the massive wan@fest the existence of state governments are. It’s our historical cross of inefficient government that we have to bear.

Fair enough.

But is the new ACT law the only example in the country of a state/territory law being inconsistent with a federal law? Certainly across the states we have heaps (eg. road rules etc).

Indeed. The anti-bikie laws in Qld are going to end up in the High Court, and wlll probably be shot down, but not at the instigation of the Abbott government, nor expedited the way this one is being. That’s just one recent example, I bet there are dozens more dogs that they are happy to just let lie.

IP

bigfeet said :

Well, it was quite a nervous night but I have woken to see that the sun did actually rise today

And so far no Nazis On Dinosaurs have been sighted.

Maybe…just maybe…this isn’t the end of civilisation as we know it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hpPwB5X4yc

Rivers of blood are flowing through Giralang as I type this. Nazis and Dinosaurs are surely on their way. 🙂

DrKoresh said :

chewy14 said :

Imagine if one of the states (probably Queensland) decided to change their currency or start their own army? Would people be supportive of state autonomy then?

No, but then you’re being disingenuous in your analogy because marriage equality is not even remotely similar to either of those things.

They are similar to the extent that it may lead to an inconsistency between Commonwealth and State/Territory law. Whether it does or not is up to the court to decide.

Darkfalz said :

watto23 said :

The ACT government are doing this because its the right thing to do and showing they actually have the guts to do something too difficult for other governments to do.

1 month into an Abbott federal government its the right thing to do?

Strange they never had the guts under Rudd/Gillard (I won’t count the second coming of zombie Rudd) – not so good a look when federal Labor lead by Gillard had to overturn their political stunt?

The legislation was being written well before the federal election. They waited for the bill that required a federal gov bill to pass to overturn legislation first. Then as I said there was an ACT election, after that they started to draft the legislation. Seems reasonable to me. If you remember the federal election could have occurred at any time this year. 1 month into a coalition government or 1 year, the people complaining about it would still complain.

chewy14 said :

Imagine if one of the states (probably Queensland) decided to change their currency or start their own army? Would people be supportive of state autonomy then?

No, but then you’re being disingenuous in your analogy because marriage equality is not even remotely similar to either of those things.

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Or perhaps it has something to do with state/territory laws thay are inconsistent with federal ones?

So if inconsistency is actually the real issue here, as you allude, why don’t we dissolve the state and territory governments in favour of one big federal orgy.

Oh don’t get me started on the massive wan@fest the existence of state governments are. It’s our historical cross of inefficient government that we have to bear.

Fair enough.

But is the new ACT law the only example in the country of a state/territory law being inconsistent with a federal law? Certainly across the states we have heaps (eg. road rules etc).

I’m not sure if there are other examples of similar but if there were I’d be supporting the federal law holding precedence.
Section 51 of the constitution sets out the powers that the states ceded to the Commonwealth at federation. The states can still make laws on these issues but where there is inconsistency the federal law takes precedence which is the issue here because Marriage is one of those powers.

Road rules and similar aren’t included, and the Australian road rules actually hold no legislative power which is why we have inconsistencies between the state laws because the ARR haven’t been fully adopted.
Imagine if one of the states (probably Queensland) decided to change their currency or start their own army? Would people be supportive of state autonomy then?

Holden Caulfield3:29 pm 23 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Or perhaps it has something to do with state/territory laws thay are inconsistent with federal ones?

So if inconsistency is actually the real issue here, as you allude, why don’t we dissolve the state and territory governments in favour of one big federal orgy.

Oh don’t get me started on the massive wan@fest the existence of state governments are. It’s our historical cross of inefficient government that we have to bear.

Fair enough.

But is the new ACT law the only example in the country of a state/territory law being inconsistent with a federal law? Certainly across the states we have heaps (eg. road rules etc).

Postalgeek said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Wow. It’s awesome how all the sweet gay and lesbian supporters, full of love and good will to all mankind want me dead. Is this what it felt like for gay people before they became a majority? I guess being heterosexual is a thing of the past and as a minority I better hide my true nature, or I’ll get beaten up with flowers and sent to N.S.W. Honestly, have any of you read your own comments? Such hatred, personal attacks and foul language! Maybe I have been right to oppose this legislation seeing the gay community is so nasty.

So you can’t even count to one. One person (1) said they wanted you dead in a flippant immature comment. Christ, you’re more histrionic than Albert in The Birdcage.

If it’s my comment you’re referring to, I was directing it at DUB. As distasteful and wrong as I find your views, Turkey, you’re a walk in the park compared to DUB’s ridiculous homophobia. I doubt I’m the only one who feel that way about him.

Holden Caulfield said :

chewy14 said :

Or perhaps it has something to do with state/territory laws thay are inconsistent with federal ones?

So if inconsistency is actually the real issue here, as you allude, why don’t we dissolve the state and territory governments in favour of one big federal orgy.

Oh don’t get me started on the massive wan@fest the existence of state governments are. It’s our historical cross of inefficient government that we have to bear.

Gah, I knew I’d bugger the quoting up (pun sort of intended). Anyway, here’s what I want to respond to chewy:

Thanks chewy. I’m not sure that the genetics argument can be applicable in relation to gay marriage – it is physically impossible for members of the same sex to biologically produce a child together, therefore the increased risk of genetic abnormalities is not present. As such, I think the distinction between incest and gay marriage still stands.

I’d agree with the slippery slope eugenics issue, but aren’t we already treading down that path in the space of forced sterilisation of severely disabled children?

Agree with your comments about polygamy, I (very reluctantly) find it difficult to produce a good argument. Maybe there should be a rethink about the law prohibiting polygamy – I’d be interested to see if anyone else can distinguish it from gay marriage.

Re: your other comments, I’ve no doubt that there’s a fair bit of political skullduggery in the timing of this – I don’t think I’ve said otherwise. Nonetheless, I still think it will be valuable to see what the High Court finds and as such, it’s a worthwhile exercise. I think we’re on the same page with that one, and with the justification for the Commonwealth to take it to the High Court. I support that action, in the same manner as I support the fact that the ACT has decided to take action to test the question.

Apologies if the quoting on this goes arse-up – I didn’t want it to be a ridiculously long post.

chewy14 said :

vet111 said :

chewy14 said :

johnboy said :

Yes, clearly paedophilia can be separated on the grounds of consent.

But we have been consistently told by gay marriage proponents that procreation has nothing to do with marriage (because the churches used that argument too), so the potential for genetically abnormal children cannot be used as a requirement for marriage. Also, you’d be skating the eugenics path by using that argument, are we going to genetically profile couples before allowing them to wed?

polygamy seems to have no logical argument against it. If you can change the definition of marriage from man and woman to man-man, woman-woman, then why can’t you change it to groups of people using the same sort of arguments presented by our ACT politicians?

I’m not proposing these things, I just see the logical disconnect of some of the arguments used in this debate. I’ve posted many times here that because of these reasons the government should be removing itself from people’s relationships as much as possible. There is no reason that people should require the government to solemnise their personal relationships.

As for your second comment, I’ve no doubt that some members believe in this issue, but the timing of this can’t be ignored. They’ve purposely chosen a time to try and wedge the LNP rather than when the ALP were in power federally. As well as this, I’m not sure about your claim that a conscience vote would see this issue pass through federal parliament at the moment. Labor only managed to get 42 out of 72 votes in 2012 and I would think that the support amongst LNP members would be much lower. Even with a conscience vote, I doubt it would pass, although there’s no doubt that it will in the future.

With regards to the constitutional issue, I would think that it’s self-evident why we don’t want conflicting state/territory and federal laws. And it makes perfect sense for the Feds not to change their laws to suit individual state laws lest we have even more conflicts between multiple jurisdictions. If this is an area of Federal power, then it should require federal action to change the law. Which is exactly what the high court challenge will determine.

Thanks chewy. I’m not sure that the genetics argument can be applicable in relation to gay marriage – it is physically impossible for members of the same sex to biologically produce a child together, therefore the increased risk of genetic abnormalities is not present. As such, I think the distinction between incest and gay marriage still stands.

I’d agree with the slippery slope eugenics issue, but aren’t we already treading down that path in the space of forced sterilisation of severely disabled children?

Agree with your comments about polygamy, I (very reluctantly) find it difficult to produce a good argument. Maybe there should be a rethink about the law prohibiting polygamy – I’d be interested to see if anyone else can distinguish it from gay marriage.

Re: your other comments, I’ve no doubt that there’s a fair bit of political skullduggery in the timing of this – I don’t think I’ve said otherwise. Nonetheless, I still think it will be valuable to see what the High Court finds and as such, it’s a worthwhile exercise. I think we’re on the same page with that one, and with the justification for the Commonwealth to take it to the High Court. I support that action, in the same manner as I support the fact that the ACT has decided to take action to test the question.

Apologies if the quoting on this goes arse-up – I didn’t want it to be a ridiculously long post.

Holden Caulfield1:49 pm 23 Oct 13

chewy14 said :

Or perhaps it has something to do with state/territory laws thay are inconsistent with federal ones?

So if inconsistency is actually the real issue here, as you allude, why don’t we dissolve the state and territory governments in favour of one big federal orgy.

vet111 said :

chewy14 said :

johnboy said :

In what possible way is this any nearer or further from incest?

Stuffed the quotes up above, hopefully this works better.

Disregarding the silliness of the post you were responding to, straight from Rattenbury:

“When you think about it, this is really a straightforward law expressing something that should be clear already. It simply says ‘love is love’, and the public and formal commitment of love is something that cannot, and should not, be restrained,” said Mr Rattenbury.

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Thanks very much for attempting to provide a reasoned opposition response (I mean this genuinely).

The way I see it, incest can be distinguished because laws are in place to prevent health crises (children born of incest are more likely to suffer genetic abnormalities).
Paedophilia can be distinguished because it is about capacity (children are not capable of consenting to certain acts, and therefore laws need to protect them).
Regarding polygamy, the only reasoning I can think is on public revenue grounds – it could potentially create situations that the Australian tax and welfare systems cannot cope with. Other than that, I can’t really see a distinction (as much as it pains me to admit it).
Gay marriage involves individuals with the capacity to consent to actions, and does not lead to increased genetic disorders. And it’s on that basis that I support it.

Yes, clearly paedophilia can be separated on the grounds of consent.

But we have been consistently told by gay marriage proponents that procreation has nothing to do with marriage (because the churches used that argument too), so the potential for genetically abnormal children cannot be used as a requirement for marriage. Also, you’d be skating the eugenics path by using that argument, are we going to genetically profile couples before allowing them to wed?

polygamy seems to have no logical argument against it. If you can change the definition of marriage from man and woman to man-man, woman-woman, then why can’t you change it to groups of people using the same sort of arguments presented by our ACT politicians?

I’m not proposing these things, I just see the logical disconnect of some of the arguments used in this debate. I’ve posted many times here that because of these reasons the government should be removing itself from people’s relationships as much as possible. There is no reason that people should require the government to solemnise their personal relationships.

As for your second comment, I’ve no doubt that some members believe in this issue, but the timing of this can’t be ignored. They’ve purposely chosen a time to try and wedge the LNP rather than when the ALP were in power federally. As well as this, I’m not sure about your claim that a conscience vote would see this issue pass through federal parliament at the moment. Labor only managed to get 42 out of 72 votes in 2012 and I would think that the support amongst LNP members would be much lower. Even with a conscience vote, I doubt it would pass, although there’s no doubt that it will in the future.

With regards to the constitutional issue, I would think that it’s self-evident why we don’t want conflicting state/territory and federal laws. And it makes perfect sense for the Feds not to change their laws to suit individual state laws lest we have even more conflicts between multiple jurisdictions. If this is an area of Federal power, then it should require federal action to change the law. Which is exactly what the high court challenge will determine.

Darkfalz said :

watto23 said :

The ACT government are doing this because its the right thing to do and showing they actually have the guts to do something too difficult for other governments to do.

1 month into an Abbott federal government its the right thing to do?

Strange they never had the guts under Rudd/Gillard (I won’t count the second coming of zombie Rudd) – not so good a look when federal Labor lead by Gillard had to overturn their political stunt?

McLelland knocked it back in 2008, I’m almost certain that was a Labor government.

Dem farkin’ poofs having gay marriages and things.
They’re farkin’ different and we should attack dem farkin’ poofs.
*drives off in shitty old ute with a “fu(k off we’re full” sticker on the back, 27MHz antennas and a cyclone fence bullbar!*

LOL!

The commenter is from Canberra…. Who’s taking the piss!

watto23 said :

The ACT government are doing this because its the right thing to do and showing they actually have the guts to do something too difficult for other governments to do.

1 month into an Abbott federal government its the right thing to do?

Strange they never had the guts under Rudd/Gillard (I won’t count the second coming of zombie Rudd) – not so good a look when federal Labor lead by Gillard had to overturn their political stunt?

chewy14 said :

IrishPete said :

It’s hard to know which of the many concurrent threads to post this on, but here goes:

why are people criticising the ACT Government for being willing to spend money defending this law in the High Court, but those same people are not criticising the Feds for spending money to challenge it?

A whole lot of taxpayer funds could be saved at both levels of government, and a few lawyers might get a little less rich, if the Feds accepted the democratic decision of the ACT Legislative Assembly and left the issue alone.

Oh, I know the answer to my question: the Fed government is Liberal/National and they can do no wrong, and Tony has a Mandate for anything and everything, including abusing his expense account. No doubt when he attends his sister’s wedding in the ACT, he will claim expenses for it too.

IP

Or perhaps it has something to do with state/territory laws thay are inconsistent with federal ones?

I disagree with the ACT government wasting our money on this because I believe it’s ostensibly a federal issue and the ACT government are clearly using this as an issue to wedge the federal LNP.

If the ACT government were so sure of the legality of this, wouldn’t it be better to hold off on implementation until after the high court challenge is finalised? Ah but there’s plenty of political mileage to be gained, possibly at the expense of couples who rush to get hitched in the meantime isn’t there?

Really… The ACT government has had this on the cards for over a decade, having had previous legislation overturned twice. However they managed to get one thing through federal government that mattered. The right for ACT government to not have their laws overturned on the whim of a person or party. So that has happened, they drafted new legislation post the ACT election then a federal election occurred with a change in government. I’m trying to see the conspiracy theory here.

If it does in fact conflict the constitution then why don’t the federal government just draft legislation removing the conflict? They could do that and save a lot of money. Or they could try and legislate against it, but they know that won’t pass. Its not like the constitution didn’t allow women or aboriginals certain rights either in the past. It will happen eventually Australia wide, so why waste money on a high court case now. Just let the ACT, NSW and Tas have their laws and respect the rights of those governments to govern. when the citizens of other states also agree they can draft laws as such. In the mean time if there is a constitutional issue, remove the issue, rather than cause a fight.

The ACT government are doing this because its the right thing to do and showing they actually have the guts to do something too difficult for other governments to do. Everyone knew this was going to happen at the last ACT election. This would pass the federal parliament if it was a conscience vote for all members. Most people are not against it and can’t see why not.

poetix said :

Postalgeek said :

poetix said :

I am a heterosexual guy, but if you need a hug MildTurkey…

No need for that. DUB and WTC will find each other through their shared grief, and they’ll give each other a consoling hug, one that will go three seconds too long, and then things will be awkward and uncomfortable between them.

Um, I didn’t say that! I am not a heterosexual guy, and I have no intention of hugging that person. I think that it was maxblues who said the huggy thing.

My inability to quote correctly has given you an involuntary sex change. For that I am sorry. This is what gay marriage does to people.

IrishPete said :

It’s hard to know which of the many concurrent threads to post this on, but here goes:

why are people criticising the ACT Government for being willing to spend money defending this law in the High Court, but those same people are not criticising the Feds for spending money to challenge it?

A whole lot of taxpayer funds could be saved at both levels of government, and a few lawyers might get a little less rich, if the Feds accepted the democratic decision of the ACT Legislative Assembly and left the issue alone.

Oh, I know the answer to my question: the Fed government is Liberal/National and they can do no wrong, and Tony has a Mandate for anything and everything, including abusing his expense account. No doubt when he attends his sister’s wedding in the ACT, he will claim expenses for it too.

IP

Er, how about because it poses an important constitutional question that needs to be resolved? That the issue at hand is not about gay marriage, but about the ACT’s power to legislate? That the ‘democratic power’ afforded to the ACT is not unlimited, and has been granted by the Commonwealth?

For what it’s worth, I strongly support what the ACT has done.

I’m looking forward to it going to the High Court – I think in decades to come that will be the important aspect of what has happened here. Sometimes people need to stop and think about the bigger picture, and I’d suggest you do that IP.

chewy14 said :

johnboy said :

In what possible way is this any nearer or further from incest?

Stuffed the quotes up above, hopefully this works better.

Disregarding the silliness of the post you were responding to, straight from Rattenbury:

“When you think about it, this is really a straightforward law expressing something that should be clear already. It simply says ‘love is love’, and the public and formal commitment of love is something that cannot, and should not, be restrained,” said Mr Rattenbury.

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Thanks very much for attempting to provide a reasoned opposition response (I mean this genuinely).

The way I see it, incest can be distinguished because laws are in place to prevent health crises (children born of incest are more likely to suffer genetic abnormalities).
Paedophilia can be distinguished because it is about capacity (children are not capable of consenting to certain acts, and therefore laws need to protect them).
Regarding polygamy, the only reasoning I can think is on public revenue grounds – it could potentially create situations that the Australian tax and welfare systems cannot cope with. Other than that, I can’t really see a distinction (as much as it pains me to admit it).
Gay marriage involves individuals with the capacity to consent to actions, and does not lead to increased genetic disorders. And it’s on that basis that I support it.

wildturkeycanoe could have a point.
I mean, look what has happened in New Zealand.

http://dailycurrant.com/2013/04/18/surges-hours-zealand-legalizes-gay-marriage-2/

poetix said :

Postalgeek said :

poetix said :

I am a heterosexual guy, but if you need a hug MildTurkey…

No need for that. DUB and WTC will find each other through their shared grief, and they’ll give each other a consoling hug, one that will go three seconds too long, and then things will be awkward and uncomfortable between them.

Um, I didn’t say that! I am not a heterosexual guy, and I have no intention of hugging that person. I think that it was maxblues who said the huggy thing.

For a guy, you’re very feminine looking 😉

That’s the nicest compliment I’ve had in the last twenty seconds…

IrishPete said :

It’s hard to know which of the many concurrent threads to post this on, but here goes:

why are people criticising the ACT Government for being willing to spend money defending this law in the High Court, but those same people are not criticising the Feds for spending money to challenge it?

A whole lot of taxpayer funds could be saved at both levels of government, and a few lawyers might get a little less rich, if the Feds accepted the democratic decision of the ACT Legislative Assembly and left the issue alone.

Oh, I know the answer to my question: the Fed government is Liberal/National and they can do no wrong, and Tony has a Mandate for anything and everything, including abusing his expense account. No doubt when he attends his sister’s wedding in the ACT, he will claim expenses for it too.

IP

Or perhaps it has something to do with state/territory laws thay are inconsistent with federal ones?

I disagree with the ACT government wasting our money on this because I believe it’s ostensibly a federal issue and the ACT government are clearly using this as an issue to wedge the federal LNP.

If the ACT government were so sure of the legality of this, wouldn’t it be better to hold off on implementation until after the high court challenge is finalised? Ah but there’s plenty of political mileage to be gained, possibly at the expense of couples who rush to get hitched in the meantime isn’t there?

Postalgeek said :

poetix said :

I am a heterosexual guy, but if you need a hug MildTurkey…

No need for that. DUB and WTC will find each other through their shared grief, and they’ll give each other a consoling hug, one that will go three seconds too long, and then things will be awkward and uncomfortable between them.

Um, I didn’t say that! I am not a heterosexual guy, and I have no intention of hugging that person. I think that it was maxblues who said the huggy thing.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Wow. It’s awesome how all the sweet gay and lesbian supporters, full of love and good will to all mankind want me dead. Is this what it felt like for gay people before they became a majority? I guess being heterosexual is a thing of the past and as a minority I better hide my true nature, or I’ll get beaten up with flowers and sent to N.S.W. Honestly, have any of you read your own comments? Such hatred, personal attacks and foul language! Maybe I have been right to oppose this legislation seeing the gay community is so nasty.

So you can’t even count to one. One person (1) said they wanted you dead in a flippant immature comment. Christ, you’re more histrionic than Albert in The Birdcage.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Wow. It’s awesome how all the sweet gay and lesbian supporters, full of love and good will to all mankind want me dead. Is this what it felt like for gay people before they became a majority? I guess being heterosexual is a thing of the past and as a minority I better hide my true nature, or I’ll get beaten up with flowers and sent to N.S.W. Honestly, have any of you read your own comments? Such hatred, personal attacks and foul language! Maybe I have been right to oppose this legislation seeing the gay community is so nasty.

Awww, you so sad. I’d give you a hug … but that would probably be uncomfortably gay for you.

Well, it was quite a nervous night but I have woken to see that the sun did actually rise today

And so far no Nazis On Dinosaurs have been sighted.

Maybe…just maybe…this isn’t the end of civilisation as we know it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hpPwB5X4yc

wildturkeycanoe6:29 am 23 Oct 13

Wow. It’s awesome how all the sweet gay and lesbian supporters, full of love and good will to all mankind want me dead. Is this what it felt like for gay people before they became a majority? I guess being heterosexual is a thing of the past and as a minority I better hide my true nature, or I’ll get beaten up with flowers and sent to N.S.W. Honestly, have any of you read your own comments? Such hatred, personal attacks and foul language! Maybe I have been right to oppose this legislation seeing the gay community is so nasty.

DrKoresh said :

DUB said :

johnboy said :

Yes DUB, you’re all alone, but it’s everyone else who’s wrong?

Apologies for messed up formatting in previous message, phone browser issue.
nah, I am not alone, as a matter of fact, I know plenty of people who share my thoughts.
What happened today is f***ing minority ACT gov’t did this in order to get support in future elections from fudge peckers and butch dykes.

it’s ok, I will get over it.:-)

Do us all a favour, kill yourself.

Totally uncalled for.

So someone doesn’t agree with you? No need to sink to those depths.

I don’t agree either but I’m happy to ignore it as ignorance.

+1.

I think that it’s great to see the ACT Legislative Assembly passed the Marriage Equality Bill to finally give equality to all parts of our community. It does concern me that the Federal Government has inferred that the newly passed legislation will be challenged in the Federal High Court this year.

This raises the question if Federal Government is going to challenge any state law that don’t like then why do we have Territory and State parliaments. If that is the case get rid of a layer of bureaucrats and the country will be better off. If not then the Federal Government should leave the states alone to manage their own affairs.

It’s hard to know which of the many concurrent threads to post this on, but here goes:

why are people criticising the ACT Government for being willing to spend money defending this law in the High Court, but those same people are not criticising the Feds for spending money to challenge it?

A whole lot of taxpayer funds could be saved at both levels of government, and a few lawyers might get a little less rich, if the Feds accepted the democratic decision of the ACT Legislative Assembly and left the issue alone.

Oh, I know the answer to my question: the Fed government is Liberal/National and they can do no wrong, and Tony has a Mandate for anything and everything, including abusing his expense account. No doubt when he attends his sister’s wedding in the ACT, he will claim expenses for it too.

IP

Doesn’t infuriate me one bit. It’s cruel, soon to be hilarious hope as the High Court squashes it. Even Groupthink-infested ABC believes it’s almost certain to be overturned. And we’ll all pay for the “privilege” of this base Labor political stunt being legislated, fought in court, and un-legislated. Tax dollars well wasted.

poetix said :

I am a heterosexual guy, but if you need a hug MildTurkey…

No need for that. DUB and WTC will find each other through their shared grief, and they’ll give each other a consoling hug, one that will go three seconds too long, and then things will be awkward and uncomfortable between them.

OMG, how could they do this????

I can’t stand the thought of our fair city being invaded by men wanting to marry other men in matching hot pink suits…………..and all that dirty dancing to ABBA and Kylie Minogue afterwards – it’s all so filthy and unnatural!

Stuff it all – I’m moving to a safe, forward thinking, civilised place like Queensland!

Meanwhile in other news the Russian embassy are moving premises to Queanbeyan.

I believe in equality in marriage…I think everyone on the planet is entitled to an expensive divorce. I also believe I’ll have another drink.
Shaun Micallef poignantly pointed out that without enacting any new laws that it is currently legal to marry a gay person…it just has to be a gay person of the opposite sex.
I just heard today that even Tony Abbott is going to attend the wedding of his gay sister and her partner…so get over it MildTurkeyCanoe…you are in a lonely backwater of s*** creek, in a barbed wire canoe, with an empty bourbon bottle for a paddle.
I am a heterosexual guy, but if you need a hug MildTurkey…

Jethro said :

If it weren’t for wildturkeycanoe and DUB’s long history of ignorance, I’d be calling Poe on their posts.

They are so over-the-top hysterical they are almost unbelievable.

Yeah, it’s a weird kind of reverse double backwards inverse Poe under a flaming bridge and I’m too confused to know how to respond.

johnboy said :

Perhaps more important than marriage equity is the vile bastards this legislation infuriates.

To wit: Joe From Queensland:

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T13CDBF6R07DFJ391

Wow, that is really funny. Old Joe seems to be obsessed with buggery. A bit of latency on show

Cool! Won’t really affect me (am in a hetero relationship), but should be good for our gay/lesbian friends. They can be married, and have their wedding closer to our home. Sweet!

There’s always the concern the sky will fall and what not if marriage equality is passed. I’m just checking out on my balcony now….. The sky’s still in place, doesn’t seem to have fallen in places like Norway, the UK, NZ or France yet….. Nope, can’t seem to find any news reports of that happening in those places on Google…… Should be all good.

Well played Canberra!

johnboy said :

Perhaps more important than marriage equity is the vile bastards this legislation infuriates.

To wit: Joe From Queensland:

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T13CDBF6R07DFJ391

No, today is a good and important day *despite* all the vile bastards (who always exist), and the politics, and the worrying possibility of the legislation being found invalid.

It’s a very good day! (I’d like to say for love, but I don’t want to appear egregiously soppy.)

johnboy said :

Perhaps more important than marriage equity is the vile bastards this legislation infuriates.

To wit: Joe From Queensland:

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T13CDBF6R07DFJ391

You’ve been in a bad mood all day. What’s with the constant aggro?

Pork Hunt said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.
Oh, wow, I was born with arms and legs instead of fins. I want to be legally declared a fish instead of a human being. Bugger, the law won’t let me change what I am into what I was supposed to be.
If you were born with a penis – you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. If you have fins you are a fish and feathers mean you are a bird. Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature but some influential garbage from deviants that make try to this a popular thing to be involved in. C’mon, what exactly is there to celebrate in? What have they really achieved?

Dude, calm down. It’s a bit like euthanasia, if you don’t like it, you don’t have to partake.

Oh lordy, was I the only person to have an evil thought cross my mind when I read this?

IP

I used to know GLBTI as my favourite sandwich. It was a goat, lettuce, bacon, tomato and Idiazabal cheese sandwich. For those unfamiliar with Idiazabal cheese it is a rustic Spanish cheese. Thanks to this thread my gastronomic enjoyment has now been spoiled forever as I will know my previously favourite bite as a shit sandwich.

Ronald_Coase7:07 pm 22 Oct 13

DUB said :

johnboy said :

Yes DUB, you’re all alone, but it’s everyone else who’s wrong?

Apologies for messed up formatting in previous message, phone browser issue.
nah, I am not alone, as a matter of fact, I know plenty of people who share my thoughts.
What happened today is f***ing minority ACT gov’t did this in order to get support in future elections from fudge peckers and butch dykes.

it’s ok, I will get over it.:-)

Such eloquence! Perhaps you’d feel better if you fudge-packed wildturkey.

Sounds more like you secretly want to get into and not over it.

Got to admit, this is probably one of the more ridiculous things I have read on RA.

Whoa, let’s not go crazy now.

I am happy this legislation passed today, I really can’t see why anyone would be against it. I am in a happy marriage and I would hope every person would have the same right. I also happen to think the so called “pink dollar” could do wonders for the ACT hospitality sector and the ACT economy over all. And lastly I am happy that the Fed gov will challenge this in the high court. If they don’t some other right wing nut jobs will at some stage. So I guess it’s best to get an answer either way sooner rather than later.

I hope our new laws hold up in the high court as well.

Aren’t you guys forgetting the time all the gay people got together and formed an institution to help them bugger young boys without fear of exposure or prosecution? Or maybe that was Catholics, I can’t recall…

DUB, I think we need to stop all the fighting. Let’s kiss and make-up, I promise not to use too much tongue.

If it weren’t for wildturkeycanoe and DUB’s long history of ignorance, I’d be calling Poe on their posts.

They are so over-the-top hysterical they are almost unbelievable.

DUB said :

johnboy said :

Yes DUB, you’re all alone, but it’s everyone else who’s wrong?

Apologies for messed up formatting in previous message, phone browser issue.
nah, I am not alone, as a matter of fact, I know plenty of people who share my thoughts.
What happened today is f***ing minority ACT gov’t did this in order to get support in future elections from fudge peckers and butch dykes.

it’s ok, I will get over it.:-)

So DUB, why exactly are you against marriage equality? Surely it won’t have any impact on your life whatsoever, and is exactly the same issue as interracial marriage being legalised in the US in the sixties.

DUB said :

johnboy said :

Yes DUB, you’re all alone, but it’s everyone else who’s wrong?

Apologies for messed up formatting in previous message, phone browser issue.
nah, I am not alone, as a matter of fact, I know plenty of people who share my thoughts.
What happened today is f***ing minority ACT gov’t did this in order to get support in future elections from fudge peckers and butch dykes.

it’s ok, I will get over it.:-)

Do us all a favour, kill yourself.

DUB said :

nah, I am not alone, as a matter of fact, I know plenty of people who share my thoughts.
What happened today is f***ing minority ACT gov’t did this in order to get support in future elections from fudge peckers and butch dykes.

it’s ok, I will get over it.:-)

Check it out. A REAL LIVE DINOSAUR!!!

DUB said :

TY, I didn’t need to know about your birth defects,such as having both sets of indeterminate genitals and gay genes.

Well my, aren’t you sparkling? However much you might not like it, there is no ‘them’. There is only ‘us’. We are all humans doing what humans do. Your divisions into ‘us’ and ‘them’ are a facade and can be made along any arbitrary line. I choose not to.

Perhaps more important than marriage equity is the vile bastards this legislation infuriates.

To wit: Joe From Queensland:

http://www.topix.com/forum/world/australia/T13CDBF6R07DFJ391

Deref said :

Postalgeek said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.

I agree. Marriage should remain the heterosexual union of a mother and son, or grandfather and granddaughter.

Or a man and a dog. Providing it’s a lady dog.

Lots of men have married bitches, they just didn’t know it at the time…

Holden Caulfield5:19 pm 22 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.
Oh, wow, I was born with arms and legs instead of fins. I want to be legally declared a fish instead of a human being. Bugger, the law won’t let me change what I am into what I was supposed to be.
If you were born with a penis – you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. If you have fins you are a fish and feathers mean you are a bird. Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature but some influential garbage from deviants that make try to this a popular thing to be involved in. C’mon, what exactly is there to celebrate in? What have they really achieved?

DUB said :

With the exception of wildturkeycanoe,whom I support, rest of aggressive commentators seem to be,as I suspected, old poof green supporters. We,heterosexuals, are in minority in this s*** town. No wonder canberrans, “thanks” to whining poofs, are seen as cry babies. That gay rights activist who’d allegedly proposed live on tv,did he bring this much younger bum chum of his after a sex trip to Asia?
I do hope that this gets overturned before December. We have far more important issues,such as hospitals and roads to spend money on, not some gay law s***.

I’m sorry you were born that way.

johnboy said :

Yes DUB, you’re all alone, but it’s everyone else who’s wrong?

Apologies for messed up formatting in previous message, phone browser issue.
nah, I am not alone, as a matter of fact, I know plenty of people who share my thoughts.
What happened today is f***ing minority ACT gov’t did this in order to get support in future elections from fudge peckers and butch dykes.

it’s ok, I will get over it.:-)

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.

Hey how could you forget bestiality? Baaaah!

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.
Oh, wow, I was born with arms and legs instead of fins. I want to be legally declared a fish instead of a human being. Bugger, the law won’t let me change what I am into what I was supposed to be.
If you were born with a penis – you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. If you have fins you are a fish and feathers mean you are a bird. Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature but some influential garbage from deviants that make try to this a popular thing to be involved in. C’mon, what exactly is there to celebrate in? What have they really achieved?

Have you been reading Cory Bernadi quotes again? I’d be surprised if more incest happened with gay couples than it did with heterosexuals. Gay people generally seem to be kinder people than the religious scare mongerers, who probably want to keep incest and pedophilia within the church like it always has until outed. In fact its a much shorter bow to draw, that priests are by default pedophiles than it is to claim gay people will start marrying their gay sons and daughters. At least their is some truth to the former.

beejay76 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Quite.
Some of us are born with indeterminate genitals. Or both sets. And some of us have a sexual genotype that doesn’t match our phenotype. And some of us have indeterminate genes. And some of us are transgender. And some of us are gay.

And, apparently, some of us are homophobic arsehats.

TY, I didn’t need to know about your birth defects,such as having both sets of indeterminate genitals and gay genes. 🙂

With the exception of wildturkeycanoe,whom I support, rest of aggressive commentators seem to be,as I suspected, old poof green supporters. We,heterosexuals, are in minority in this s*** town. No wonder canberrans, “thanks” to whining poofs, are seen as cry babies. That gay rights activist who’d allegedly proposed live on tv,did he bring this much younger bum chum of his after a sex trip to Asia?
I do hope that this gets overturned before December. We have far more important issues,such as hospitals and roads to spend money on, not some gay law s***.

Yes DUB, you’re all alone, but it’s everyone else who’s wrong?

Pork Hunt said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.
Oh, wow, I was born with arms and legs instead of fins. I want to be legally declared a fish instead of a human being. Bugger, the law won’t let me change what I am into what I was supposed to be.
If you were born with a penis – you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. If you have fins you are a fish and feathers mean you are a bird. Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature but some influential garbage from deviants that make try to this a popular thing to be involved in. C’mon, what exactly is there to celebrate in? What have they really achieved?

Dude, calm down. It’s a bit like euthanasia, if you don’t like it, you don’t have to partake.

I’ll try gay marriage if wildturkeycanoe tries euthanasia.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Created one way or another, we are who we are

Quite.
Some of us are born with indeterminate genitals. Or both sets. And some of us have a sexual genotype that doesn’t match our phenotype. And some of us have indeterminate genes. And some of us are transgender. And some of us are gay.

And, apparently, some of us are homophobic arsehats.

I agree. Marriage should remain the heterosexual union of a mother and son, or grandfather and granddaughter.

Whoa, what? You are saying that a mother and son or a grandfather and granddaughter have the right to marry but gays and lesbians don’t?

What is with you homophobic twits? This is a fantastic thing that has happened. I am heterosexual but believe that anyone of any sex can love, fall in love and marry whoever they want as long as they are not related or under 18.

To you people living in the past like Tony Abbott, just remember this, there is many more Australians out there that support this new law nowadays than trolls who keep spewing the same old out dated phrase of “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” Or the most ridiculous one of gays and lesbians have a higher tendency to commit incest. Oh how wrong you idiots are. Yes, idiots because you seem to think that it is 1950?s Australia again.

To that all I can say is if you want to live in the 1950?s again, go and invent a time machine and send yourself there and away from the real world, the real Australia of 2013.

Apologies for the duplicate post. Please use the second one. Thankyou.

johnboy said :

In what possible way is this any nearer or further from incest?

Stuffed the quotes up above, hopefully this works better.

Disregarding the silliness of the post you were responding to, straight from Rattenbury:

“When you think about it, this is really a straightforward law expressing something that should be clear already. It simply says ‘love is love’, and the public and formal commitment of love is something that cannot, and should not, be restrained,” said Mr Rattenbury.

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Hmmm.

Have they also legalised gay divorce?

Is that something that needs to be legalised?

It’s just that… the divorce rate is so high that I don’t see why gay people should be excluded from being able to get divorced.

Postalgeek said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.

I agree. Marriage should remain the heterosexual union of a mother and son, or grandfather and granddaughter.

Or a man and a dog. Providing it’s a lady dog.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.

I agree. Marriage should remain the heterosexual union of a mother and son, or grandfather and granddaughter.

johnboy said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

In what possible way is this any nearer or further from incest?

Disregarding the silliness of the post you were responding to, straight from Rattenbury:

“When you think about it, this is really a straightforward law expressing something that should be clear already. It simply says ‘love is love’, and the public and formal commitment of love is something that cannot, and should not, be restrained,” said Mr Rattenbury.

Logically, incest or polygamy fit the above just as much as same sex marriage. Some seem to be more equal than others.

Pork Hunt said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.
Oh, wow, I was born with arms and legs instead of fins. I want to be legally declared a fish instead of a human being. Bugger, the law won’t let me change what I am into what I was supposed to be.
If you were born with a penis – you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. If you have fins you are a fish and feathers mean you are a bird. Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature but some influential garbage from deviants that make try to this a popular thing to be involved in. C’mon, what exactly is there to celebrate in? What have they really achieved?

Dude, calm down. It’s a bit like euthanasia, if you don’t like it, you don’t have to partake.

But … but … what if someone comes along being all gay and gay marriages me when I’m not paying attention? WHAT WILL I SAY TO MY CHILDREN???

CrocodileGandhi3:22 pm 22 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.

What evidence do you have from the dozen or so countries in which same-sex marriage is legal that there are thousands of people clambering to hold incestuous marriages? There’s none that I am aware of, but you seem to have the inside knowledge on this. Care to share?

krome said :

So, does the Mardi Gras take a detour down Northbourne now?

Sounds like fun to me. I could sell the shiny thing I wore to Bjorn Again.

To a gay person with no taste. (-:

In Sodomite Canberra Today:

So why is public policy being designed around the claims of a tiny minority?

Better to ask why oppress a tiny minority?

wildturkeycanoe said :

I’m scared and angry and desperately ignorant!

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.
Oh, wow, I was born with arms and legs instead of fins. I want to be legally declared a fish instead of a human being. Bugger, the law won’t let me change what I am into what I was supposed to be.
If you were born with a penis – you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. If you have fins you are a fish and feathers mean you are a bird. Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature but some influential garbage from deviants that make try to this a popular thing to be involved in. C’mon, what exactly is there to celebrate in? What have they really achieved?

Dude, calm down. It’s a bit like euthanasia, if you don’t like it, you don’t have to partake.

MERC600 said :

Couldn’t they have passed the hat around to help defray the cost for a bunch of high priced lawers the Assembly will need to fight it in the high court.

Social Justice always has a cost. It is a pity that the Federal Government feels that they must challenge this in the high court, and that the high priced lawyers are even needed.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.
Oh, wow, I was born with arms and legs instead of fins. I want to be legally declared a fish instead of a human being. Bugger, the law won’t let me change what I am into what I was supposed to be.
If you were born with a penis – you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. If you have fins you are a fish and feathers mean you are a bird. Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature but some influential garbage from deviants that make try to this a popular thing to be involved in. C’mon, what exactly is there to celebrate in? What have they really achieved?

not sure how you link homosexuality to incest, but I look forward to your explanation.

It’s great to see that, somewhere, there’s still a commitment to basic decency and equal human rights.

Very rarely do governments do something that I can support without any reservations. This is one such time. Well done, ACT government.

johnboy said :

The Vine has a great take on it:

“Speaking after the final vote, Chief Minister Katy Gallagher maintained that she was glad she did it. “The ACT has long been the most forward-thinking Parliament in this country and so we welcome our eternity of suffering at the hand of Abaddon, angel of the bottomless pit,” she said as the screams of the damned filled the air. “We are glad to offer as sacrifice the souls of our citizens. It seems, at least, a better alternative than a Coalition government.”

Response from the Devil was swift and violent, as sodomites and succubi from around the nation congregated on the steps of Parliament to pay tribute to the Great Deceiver and play overly loud disco music. A male reveller, holding hands with another man in direct contravention of the laws of Moses, exclaimed “Isn’t this wild? Me and Tyrone are going to get married wearing ostrich outfits because we’re in love!” The two men kissed and a nearby believer exploded in a ball of fire, leaving his distraught widow to moan, “Why do you gays hate us so much?” But her cries couldn’t be heard over the cheering as two elderly women married and promptly kidnapped her children. Which is obviously now legal.”

😀 Gold.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.
Oh, wow, I was born with arms and legs instead of fins. I want to be legally declared a fish instead of a human being. Bugger, the law won’t let me change what I am into what I was supposed to be.
If you were born with a penis – you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. If you have fins you are a fish and feathers mean you are a bird. Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature but some influential garbage from deviants that make try to this a popular thing to be involved in. C’mon, what exactly is there to celebrate in? What have they really achieved?

Ugh its people like you who piss me off. marriage equality DOES NOT lead to incest and what other weird and wonderful sh*t you can come up with to justify the ‘consequence’ of today.

house_husband2:46 pm 22 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this?

That as a heterosexual male in a long term marriage whose life has been enriched by the involvement of many gay and lesbian friends and relatives they get the same legal recognition of their union as I do?

Proud to be a Canberran today! An amazing step in achieving equality for same-sex attracted people within our country. By upholding, and defending discrimination within our legislation we further marginalise those who are most at risk of disadvantage and prejudice within our society… This is about social justice, and in turn human beings.

Woody Mann-Caruso2:40 pm 22 Oct 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature

*sniff*

Thank you, wildturkeycanoe, for your touching and insightful embrace of the LGBTI community. That was just beautiful. Truly, we are all who we are, and none of us freaks of nature.

Congratulations to basic human rights.

Cue the homophobia & insecurity police.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.
Oh, wow, I was born with arms and legs instead of fins. I want to be legally declared a fish instead of a human being. Bugger, the law won’t let me change what I am into what I was supposed to be.
If you were born with a penis – you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. If you have fins you are a fish and feathers mean you are a bird. Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature but some influential garbage from deviants that make try to this a popular thing to be involved in. C’mon, what exactly is there to celebrate in? What have they really achieved?

Gosh, what a row of straw men.

In what possible way is this any nearer or further from incest?

wildturkeycanoe2:26 pm 22 Oct 13

Hooray!! Next in line is the father who wants to marry his gay son, or the grandmother whose husband died and wants to marry her great grand-daughter. Honestly, do any of you people realize the consequences of this? What is borderline on becoming acceptable keeps on getting closer to incest.
Oh, wow, I was born with arms and legs instead of fins. I want to be legally declared a fish instead of a human being. Bugger, the law won’t let me change what I am into what I was supposed to be.
If you were born with a penis – you are a man. If you were born with a vagina, you are a woman. If you have fins you are a fish and feathers mean you are a bird. Created one way or another, we are who we are and if a majority of our population thinks for some reason we have all been born wrong, then I don’t think it is a freak of nature but some influential garbage from deviants that make try to this a popular thing to be involved in. C’mon, what exactly is there to celebrate in? What have they really achieved?

Couldn’t they have passed the hat around to help defray the cost for a bunch of high priced lawers the Assembly will need to fight it in the high court.

So, does the Mardi Gras take a detour down Northbourne now?

Well, given that we’re no longer the fireworks or porn capital of Australia, we had to do something different to the other territories and states.

The Vine has a great take on it:

“Speaking after the final vote, Chief Minister Katy Gallagher maintained that she was glad she did it. “The ACT has long been the most forward-thinking Parliament in this country and so we welcome our eternity of suffering at the hand of Abaddon, angel of the bottomless pit,” she said as the screams of the damned filled the air. “We are glad to offer as sacrifice the souls of our citizens. It seems, at least, a better alternative than a Coalition government.”

Response from the Devil was swift and violent, as sodomites and succubi from around the nation congregated on the steps of Parliament to pay tribute to the Great Deceiver and play overly loud disco music. A male reveller, holding hands with another man in direct contravention of the laws of Moses, exclaimed “Isn’t this wild? Me and Tyrone are going to get married wearing ostrich outfits because we’re in love!” The two men kissed and a nearby believer exploded in a ball of fire, leaving his distraught widow to moan, “Why do you gays hate us so much?” But her cries couldn’t be heard over the cheering as two elderly women married and promptly kidnapped her children. Which is obviously now legal.”

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.