Yo! Bum rush the show in ACT

Why can’t they just call it something else ?

I prefer the term ‘Gayiage’. It’s a marriage for gay people…

And I’ll believe in the sanctity of Gayiage when both partners can go down to Centrelink and get their benefits as a married couple would be entitled to, no sooner.

Last time I checked though, the Feds ran that department.

And I’ll pinch a quote from Bulldog (apologies matey) that far more succinctly sums up my opinion as well

“Someone explain how this is important when held up against the closure of schools, vast increases in the cost of living and the redundancy of 500 ACT public servants?

Like the dragway – this should be shitcanned because we have more pressing priorities. I am pro-gay marriage (even when they aren’t both hot chicks), as far as I’m concerned they’r entitled to the same rights I share with my wife. I don’t want to see an sixty-something dollar an hour MLA waste another taxpaying dollar or taxpayer funded minute on this, the dragway, the arboretum or the fucking centenary celebration until they can work on rectifying the shit state of affairs they have left us in. “

I guess that says it all

Constitutional bush lawyer….I like that one, inapt but likeable.

Either way the law is history. The ACT Govt has purported for the same sex unions to be the same as marriage. If that doesnt conflict with the Feds domain I’d be shocked.

I guess, with all the toing and froing, my point is there are far more important and salient things to be sorting out before this sort of thing. When the ACT goes cap in hand to the Feds for more money, constant idealogical clashes will get them nowhere. The counter-terrorism debacle by Stanhope only demonstrates that.

Once the ACT Govt has proven they can get their colelctive shit together they should then move onto other things, not before

vg
s51(xxi) and s51(xxii) may have been used as the head for sections referring to spouses in various Cth Superannuation Acts (although highly unlikely as the head use for the rest of the leg would cover sections referring to spouses) but the point you want to make, and which is incorrect, is that these sections can be used in conjunction with s109 to invalidate the local civil union legislation, as same sex unions fall outside marriage or matrimonial causes.

Oh and another thing. If the ACT has the power to enact law on Civil Unions which they do, they should do so, regardless of whether the Commonwealth may or may not strike down. Love it or leave it mate.

Vg, it pains me to say this – ‘cause I am usually in agreement with your views, but I’m afraid to say your wrong.

Like most constitutional bush lawyers and other sundry drop kicks you appear to be under the impression that the ACT law will be struck down because it is in conflict with the Federal law – quite simply this is not an issue for the Federal government to resolve – we have a High Court for such matters. The issue here is that the Federal Government sees an opportunity for what to them appears to be quick and easy political point scoring.

They will strike down the law simply because the Constitution allows them to – the same way that it allows them to strike down any ACT legislation covering any matter, regardless of whether or not it is in conflict with Commonwealth law. End of story.

Caf

Nice, but very amateur, try at twisting my words. You will find the overriding concerns for same sex unions relate to access to superannuation funds etc etc. As the legislation relating to super refers to marriage vis a vis beneficiaries, you will find the marriage power comes into it somewhere. If a same sex union seeks to derive the rights of a marriage as per super issues, then the marriage power will come into it.

Either way the legislation will, as I have said, last as snappily as Poland at the World Cup.

Either way whatever the Feds have previously said re same sex unions had bipartisan support previously. The Comrade can’t even follow his own party’s line.

Yes, the issue may be of some inportance to a minority (and I am not discounting that in any way shape of form in a discriminatory fashion….I really dont care what people do in the privacy of their own lives in certain aspects) but f**k me, the ACT is in a collapsing black hole financially and in terms of its governance and this is one of their big issues?

Health, Schools, Law and Order, Roads and transport and then this maybe. Get off the mopral high horse Standope, some people are sick of this sh*t getting rammed down their throats (and pardon any pun anyone wants to interpret from that).

Get on with the big issues that affect everyone before you foist your lefty agenda once more Sonic

Rant ends

My bad. Therefore, neither the Commonwealth Legislature nor the High Court of Australia considers a same sex union as a marriage (or matrimonial cause).

vg, how about you wait and see which power the federal government uses to overturn the ACT law – dollars to doughnuts it won’t be the federal power over marriages, because that doesn’t apply, because the ACT legislation doesn’t have anything to do with marriages (it’s to do with the interpretation of other ACT legislation).

And if the federal government uses it’s general power over the territories, then your argument applies to ANY ACT legislation – so you’re basically saying the ACT government shouldn’t do anything at all because it could be overturned by the federal government.

I sure hope you’re not a practising lawyer, Binker. The double negative in your penultimate para appears to throw your whole argument into disarray – or at least, muddies it irretrievably.

vg
s43(a) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) “…marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.”

This definition comes from Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee (1866) LR 1 P & D 130 where Lord Penzance stated that “marriage as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as a voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.”

Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee has been approved by the High Court of Australia, two examples being Calverley v Green (1984), 155 CLR 242 at pp259-260 or more recently R v L (1991) 174 CLR 379 at 389.

For a detailed discussion of “marriage” see AG (Cth) v “Kevin and Jennifer” [2003] FamCA 94

So it would appear neither the Commonwealth Legislature nor the High Court of Australia have not, and would not (in the case of the HCA due to stare decisis), consider a same sex union as a marriage (or matrimonial cause).

Thus it is highly unlikely the Commonwealth could use ss51(xxi) or (xxii) Const. s122 Const is the most obvious head that the Commonwealth would use.

That will be washed away and forgotten

Good on the locals for having a go. It is grandstanding, but it’s also making a mark in the sand.

Its not what I understand of it that matters. It is how it is interpreted. They can say ‘different’ to marriage all they like, it means f all. What the Act says and how it will be interpreted, as already stated by many legal commentators, will be its downfall.

The legislation will last as long as Poland at the World Cup

vg, what part of “is different to a marriage” in section 5 of the Civil Unions Act don’t you understand?

Caf

Have a squizz at s51(xxi) and (xxii) of the Constitution. This gives the Federal govt the exclusive power to legislate over marriage. The take a casual flick to s109 of the same Act. This gives Federal laws supremacy over State/Territory laws.

The ACT fools have openly stated that their legislation is designed to be treated as if it were speaking for marriages…ergo they have crossed into the Federal field.

If you think I am still wrong, wait the 1 or 2 months it will take for the Feds to strike down the ACT legislation then tell me if I’m still wrong.

If the ACT is so confident of the supremacy of their Act, why the need to rush it through. Lefty grandstanding is all it is. For true reform do it properly and professionally, not like these amateur bum clowns

Yes marriage should be preserved as the respected institution that it is. Britney Spears and those reality television shows like ‘The Bachelor’ have shown us the way.

Much cheaper than advertising the war memorial in the weekend Australian

From what I’ve gathered, the local system does allow interstate couples to get civilly united here (a similar system set up in Tasmania only allows Tasmanians to get civilly united within the state – insert inbreeding joke here).

Sounds like a tourism bonanza to me! If they’re charging a fee for the registeration relationship, it’s a revenue bonanza for the ACT government, too.

vg, your analysis of the situation is lacking. The ACT govt took a look at the body of ACT legislation, and realised that a lot of it refers to marriage. There are two ways that the effects of all of this legislation could be changed to apply to same-sex unions: either allow those unions to be recognised as marriages, or recognise them as non-marriage unions and specify that such unions are to be treated the same as marriages for the purposes of ACT legislation.

The former would require the Federal Government to act (constitutional power over marriages); the latter the ACT government. It was (and is) apparent that the Federal Government was not going to act in this way, so the second alternative was taken.

This is going to all be a complete waste of time, just like Stanhope’s last big anti-Commonwealth dummy spit over the Terrorism legislation.

If a few couples use the laws, there will be a supply of pin-up people to moan about the injustice of it all.

There would also be the complicating factor of this forcing an unseemly rush from the Government to pressure the G-G to act.

I love my boyfriend,
And he loves me,
Now we’ll get hitched, ‘cos
We live in the ACT!

People can get in quick and it will then be invalidated by the Commonwealth legislation overriding it. Nothing but ineffectual petty grandstanding by a government on the brink of collapse.

Lobby the Feds for real reform you morons. All they are doing is marginalising the ACT. The Feds already think we are a joke, this only reinforces it

I thought you had to be a Canberra resident to get a civil union.