Debate on same-sex civil union continues ...

Jim Jones said :

“I’m just saying that if the argument is for equal rights for same-sex relationships then EVERY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP deserves the equal right.”

You’re ignoring my point again:

A) not all human relationships are equal – same-sex relationships are radically different to incestuous relationships, and it is this difference that makes people accept one and not the other.

B) if you insist that all human relationships are equal, and reject the idea of extending marriage to minority groups, then you’d also be forced to reject previous extentions of marriage to such minority groups as interracial marriage and inter-religious marriage.

“If you’re going to say, in a situation (take ‘marriage’ for example), that equality is needed for a minority, then ALL minorities could/should be granted equality in that situation.”

Again, this is a complete fallacy. I can argue that a certain minority should have equal rights in a particular situation, for example, “aboriginals should have equal political rights” and then deny this right to another minority group based on the status of the minority. For example: “convicted paedophiles should not have equal political rights”.

There’s no contradiction or hypocrisy in this at all – not all ‘minorities’ are equal. Just because someone argues for equal rights for *a* minority doesn’t make them duty bound to accept equal rights for *all* minority groups.

As I keep saying, it’s you that is arguing that “if the argument is for equal rights for same-sex relationships then EVERY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP deserves the equal right”, no-one else.

Many people are supportive of same-sex marriage without somehow being in support of incestuous marriage or marriage of children with adults or whatever else.

Beyond that, really, what is your argument here? Are you seriously saying that, if gays get married, then incestuous couples will be next? If you’re not saying this, what is the point of your argument?

I’ll respond.

A) You’re only using incestuous relationships as the draw card. I also asked for positions on other relationships between humans unable to marry at the moment. Underage etc. Sure, they’re radically different, yet the argument can be applied still. Simply stating one is an orange and one is an apple doesn’t really work as a counter argument. Plus, not all people accept same-sex relationships.

B) Again, you’ve not read a thing I said. I don’t feel all human relationships are equal, but if one side is going to pul the equality card, then they need to accept their own point.

Why do you believe convicted paedophiles should have less rights than the indigenous people? Why should the average Australian have more rights than someone with a criminal record? They deserve the same ‘right’ of opinion and vote? Who’s being discriminatory now?

I think you’ll see a few people have said you’re not responding to my point, and they also see the validity.

georgesgenitals said :

Restating your argument doesn’t address the critiques that have been levelled against it.

Pot, kettle, etc.

Yeah, right :rolls eyes:

So your idea of a solid argument runs like this –

georgesgenitals said :

ahappychappy: “My argument is A.”

jim jones: “There are major problems with that. For example, B and C.”

ahappychappy: “My argument is A.”

jim jones: “Are you going to bother to respond to criticism of your argument?”

ahappychappy: “You don’t understand. My argument is A”.

jim jones: “You’re an idiot, I give up.”

georgesgenital: “Oh. Name calling. Hypocrisy. I win.”

That’s just solid George, real solid.

Oh that’s right, they called women a minority too.. Go figure!

It’s a bit funny to hear gays spoken of as a minority, in my weird and wonderful world they almost sometimes seem the majority lol

Of course statistically they wouldn’t be, just saying.

GnT said :

In order to overturn a state’s law, the Federal government would have to argue the laws were unconstitutional, in particular infringing on their exclusive right to legislate on marriage. Since the Howard government amended the Marriage Act to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, any state’s same-sex civil union laws could not possibly be considered anything to do with marriage. The High Court would never rule they were unconstitutional. The Commonwealth would have a hard time overturning any state’s same-sex union laws, compared with the ease with which they can overturn a territory’s laws by an executive order.

I’m not a complete nincompoop – I think I have considered some of the ‘realities of law’ in my ‘rant’.

Tell me this post is a wind up

State laws don’t have to be ‘constitutional’, as they are STATE laws. When they are inconsistent with Federal laws s109 of the Constitution can apply to give Fed law primacy.

As for the rest, please do some reading on what is and what isn’t Conlaw 101

Jim Jones said :

Restating your argument doesn’t address the critiques that have been levelled against it.

Pot, kettle, etc.

Granny said :

chewy14 said :

Of course the people you hang around with that have the same views and ideals as you seem more friendly than others who have different views and ideals.

Oh, really? Who do I hang around with?

Anyone that offers emotional acceptance, based on what you post on this site.

The ACT has temporarily been given a reprieve from veto for now…
Apparently Corbell and McLellan have struck a deal, where same-sex couples will get a second class process, but can have public ceremonies.

(Why is government involved in recognising social partnerships? Blame Calvin and the counter-reformationists)

chewy14 said :

Of course the people you hang around with that have the same views and ideals as you seem more friendly than others who have different views and ideals.

Oh, really? Who do I hang around with?

People, people, people!!!

Please exit the roundabout! I think this argument went round in the same circles on the other thread.

I’ve tries to focus this thread on the Territory versus Commonwealth aspect of the debate. Do you have an opinion on this?

Restating your argument doesn’t address the critiques that have been levelled against it. If you believe your argument is valid, then you really need to provide responses to (a) and (b) at the very least.

“I’m just saying that if the argument is for equal rights for same-sex relationships then EVERY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP deserves the equal right.”

You’re ignoring my point again:

A) not all human relationships are equal – same-sex relationships are radically different to incestuous relationships, and it is this difference that makes people accept one and not the other.

B) if you insist that all human relationships are equal, and reject the idea of extending marriage to minority groups, then you’d also be forced to reject previous extentions of marriage to such minority groups as interracial marriage and inter-religious marriage.

“If you’re going to say, in a situation (take ‘marriage’ for example), that equality is needed for a minority, then ALL minorities could/should be granted equality in that situation.”

Again, this is a complete fallacy. I can argue that a certain minority should have equal rights in a particular situation, for example, “aboriginals should have equal political rights” and then deny this right to another minority group based on the status of the minority. For example: “convicted paedophiles should not have equal political rights”.

There’s no contradiction or hypocrisy in this at all – not all ‘minorities’ are equal. Just because someone argues for equal rights for *a* minority doesn’t make them duty bound to accept equal rights for *all* minority groups.

As I keep saying, it’s you that is arguing that “if the argument is for equal rights for same-sex relationships then EVERY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP deserves the equal right”, no-one else.

Many people are supportive of same-sex marriage without somehow being in support of incestuous marriage or marriage of children with adults or whatever else.

Beyond that, really, what is your argument here? Are you seriously saying that, if gays get married, then incestuous couples will be next? If you’re not saying this, what is the point of your argument?

Well, you’ve completely missed it again.

As I said multiple times in the other thread, I’m here, nor there, on the homosexual relationship equal rights arguement. I’m just saying that if the argument is for equal rights for same-sex relationships then EVERY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP deserves the equal right.

To then link my argument to whether people can vote etc. is just linking the fact both situations have minority parties. Congratuations.

If you’re going to say, in a situation (take ‘marriage’ for example), that equality is needed for a minority, then ALL minorities could/should be granted equality in that situation.

I’ll use another example:

Let’s say the Croatian community decides to build an army base in the desert, but for some reason, legally, the Italian community can’t. The Italian community can’t scream ‘our rights/equality/discrimination’ if they wont allow the Serbian community the same rights they are lobbying for.

Now (I think I can see it coming), are you going to say:-

a) ‘well the Serbian community is known for violence’;
b) link to a different situation that doesn’t have the same basis; or
c) something else irrelevant to further discriminate the Serbian community and validate the Italian’s argument?

To simply link to other minority groups, in completely irrelevant situations, that have been given the equality they lobbied for doesn’t prove anything. Sure, women and indigenous people deserved the equality they asked for. But because they used the equality card, it then means they can’t discriminate against any other human in Australia.

Do you see my point now?

ahappychappy said :

I’m not even going to get into it.

Jim – You’re still not listening to ANYTHING I wrote in ANY of my posts. I never compared the two morally, that’s something you’ve just thrown in.

People here can see the logic behind my argument, as you’re heavily in favour of the opposite, you can’t. I’ve accepted that, and I’m not going to sit here and waste anyones time. You never ‘dealt my argument a death blow’ you merely overlooked some of it, including the main point.

Are you going to respond to:

A) The radical differences between same sex relationships and incestuous relationships (i.e. same sex relationships are socially accepted relationships between consenting adults, whereas incest is heavily dominated by interfamilial child abuse).

or

B) If one were to make the analogy between gay marriage and incestuous marriage and use this as the basis for dismissing the idea of minorities being given equal rights, then one would also be logically bound to reject the idea of interracial marriage, inter-religious marriage, and (by extension) to also reject similar pushes by minority groups for equal rights, such as women’s suffrage, aboriginal’s right to vote, religious equality, etc.

Or are you just going to ignore them and claim that I’m “overlooking your argument”?

chewy14 said :

Maybe you should be teh Gay’s spokesperson?

Hardly.

I’d argue if people are saying “everyone should be treated equally”, it’s lazy shorthand. It’s clear (to me, at least) what they’re referring to – and the rights of incestuous couples to marry obviously isn’t part of it. To take the vernacular statement ‘everyone should just be equal and stuff’ and start applying it to incestuous marriage, or whatever else, is quite clearly out of context. It doesn’t achieve anything beyond muddying the waters by using arguments based on shaky foundations.

chewy14 said :

And I suspect VY’s comment was to find out whether it’s acceptable for both sides to call people names. AT least it seems we’re both on an equal footing there!

How’s that? VY called me a “little fag lover” and I called him what precisely?

chewy14 said :

As I’ve said before, constructive debate is all good, but if you’re just going to do the standard thing of personal attacks because you don’t/can’t argue a point, there’s no reason to continue.

Where are all these personal attacks I keep hearing so much about?

I’m not even going to get into it.

Jim – You’re still not listening to ANYTHING I wrote in ANY of my posts. I never compared the two morally, that’s something you’ve just thrown in.

People here can see the logic behind my argument, as you’re heavily in favour of the opposite, you can’t. I’ve accepted that, and I’m not going to sit here and waste anyones time. You never ‘dealt my argument a death blow’ you merely overlooked some of it, including the main point.

Jim,
i would agree with your argument but you can’t say that a lot of people aren’t using the “everyone should be treated equally argument.”

They might just be lazy in writing when trying to explain their argument but i’ve lost count of the number of times i’ve seen that comment used.

Part of GnT’s (the author of this thread) first comment in the other thread was:

People who support gay marriage are not necessarily the people who want to be married to their gay partner. They are people who expect and demand equal rights for everyone.

And Watto:

“The sooner people realise that everyone has a right to be treated equally the better.”

Maybe you should be teh Gay’s spokesperson?

Jim Jones said :

chewy14 said :

You can’t logically say that everyone should be treated equally while reserving the right to then discriminate on the same issue based on your own personal preferences afterwards.

This is another failing in this incest/same-sex argument: it’s starting from a false premise.

People advocating same-sex marriage aren’t advocating “everyone should be treated equally”, all they’re doing is advocating that same-sex relationship be given the same status as heterosexual relationships. It’s very specific and simple statement that is being taken out of context in order for a spurious argument to be made.

I’m all for men and women to be paid the same wages. But to go from this to assume that I am forced to believe that *everyone* has to be paid the same wages (regardless of their age or what job they do) is obviously silly.

Again, I’d love to hear a response to this. But I daresay all I’ll hear is VY making comments about ‘little fag lovers’ and the usual whiners complaining that they’ve been oppressed by Political Correctness.

The exact reason given by lots of people here FOR gay marriage is equality. Duh.

And I suspect VY’s comment was to find out whether it’s acceptable for both sides to call people names. AT least it seems we’re both on an equal footing there!

BTW – where is VY these days? You hardly hear a peep out of him.

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

p1 said :

I really, really wish one of these ‘conservative’ could articulately explain how this impacts on their own personal lives (or the lives of their children). I am genuinely curious.

It makes their imaginary friend unhappy.

Personally, I think that if [insert deity here] had been a little more specific writing the software when [he/she/it] created humans, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

It was covered in previous thread, and those who tried to explain their thought process got shouted down with personal attacks, so now I suspect they won’t bother.

Could you please explain to me how the “same sex marriage would be the same as incestuous marriage” argument is indicative of “people trying to explain their thought processes” on this issue?

If you’ll look closely at the thread – the argument was dealt a serious of logical deathblows, none of which were responded to. I’d hardly call that “shouted down with personal attacks”.

I wasn’t referring to that thread. There was a thread some time ago where VY-Berlina-V8 and Deadmandrinking got into it fairly heavily, and it basically came down to one person trying to explain their view, while the other just screamed “you’re a bigot”, and in the end the person trying to explain their view stopped bothering.

As I’ve said before, constructive debate is all good, but if you’re just going to do the standard thing of personal attacks because you don’t/can’t argue a point, there’s no reason to continue.

chewy14 said :

You can’t logically say that everyone should be treated equally while reserving the right to then discriminate on the same issue based on your own personal preferences afterwards.

This is another failing in this incest/same-sex argument: it’s starting from a false premise.

People advocating same-sex marriage aren’t advocating “everyone should be treated equally”, all they’re doing is advocating that same-sex relationship be given the same status as heterosexual relationships. It’s very specific and simple statement that is being taken out of context in order for a spurious argument to be made.

I’m all for men and women to be paid the same wages. But to go from this to assume that I am forced to believe that *everyone* has to be paid the same wages (regardless of their age or what job they do) is obviously silly.

Again, I’d love to hear a response to this. But I daresay all I’ll hear is VY making comments about ‘little fag lovers’ and the usual whiners complaining that they’ve been oppressed by Political Correctness.

chewy14 said :

Anyway, from the news i just heard the ceremonies have been OK’d by the Feds.

Yay for gays.

This is a wonderful day for Canberra’s gay and lesbian community (and civil celebrants, who will soon be raking in the dosh). Let’s hope the rest of the states soon follow suite.

No – if you revisit the previous thread there are a number of (somewhat dubious – IMHO) reasons provided for why the anti-gay union people feel that this is a bad thing for society etc… Nobody has been able to tell me how gay unions will negatively impact, at a personal level, on their own lives. I honestly fail to see how anybody who isn’t gay, or doesn’t have any gay family or friends, could possibly be impacted by this issue.

Why are religions allowed to say whats right and wrong?

Um because that’s what they do. You don’t have to listen to them, you don’t have to agree with them but you should realise that there are a number of people who do.

Why do we never hear about people of no faith trying to tell the church what to do?

That’s a joke right? every day people are in the news trying to tell every religion that they should change or denigrating religion as a whole. Muslim females shouldn’t wear hijabs, Catholics should allow female priests. Abortion, contraception, do you want me to go on?

Anyway, from the news i just heard the ceremonies have been OK’d by the Feds.

Yay for gays.

chewy14 said :

but I don’t understand how you can’t see the point ahappychappy was making.

You need to go back and look at the thread: it was pointed out that, if one were to make the analogy between gay marriage and incestuous marriage and use this as the basis for dismissing the idea of minorities being given equal rights, then one would also be logically bound to reject the idea of interracial marriage, inter-religious marriage, and (by extension) to also reject similar pushes by minority groups for equal rights, such as women’s suffrage, aboriginal’s right to vote, religious equality, etc.

There was no response to this.

The radical differences between same sex relationships and incestuous relationships was also emphasised (i.e. same sex relationships are socially accepted blah blah blah, whereas incest is dominated by interfamilial child abuse) and the only response was ‘oh, but what about all the other incest’ (an unconvincing example of cherry-picking that attempts to redefine the foundation of the argument while still insisting upon incest as being somehow morally equivalent to same-sex relationships).

None of this is a case of ‘you disagree with my argument and that’s just your opinion’ (that relativistic muck that comes from America that ‘all opinions are equal’ should be dealt a swift death). It’s clearly a case of an argument being proposed and shot down in flames.

People have expressed valid reasons why they are against same-sex marriage – but to attempt to posit some link between same-sex marriage and incestuous marriage is little more than sophistry, particularly when your definition of incest excludes the bulk of incestuous relationships.

It’s also notable that it is a favourite argument of the conservative religious right in America (used very publicly by Rick Warren, Glenn Beck and ) because it functions as dog-whistle politics: implying that homosexuality is no better than incest and that gay marriage would lead the way for other ‘depraved individuals to destroy the sanctity of marriage’.

But by all means continue to run with the line that you’re just being victimised by the mean people and their personal attacks.

Name a recent war where religion wasn’t involved?

The American Revolution

The French Revolution

The US Civil War

World War I

World War II (for example on what religious basis did the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbour?)

The Cold War

Korea (clearly communism vs democracy)

Vietnam (clearly communism vs democracy)

Afghanistan (no clear ‘christian’ motive although it is plausibly tenable that the ‘taliban as a religion’ attack against a foreign government could slightly be attributed to ‘religion’

Iraq (regime change)

Straight back at you Watto – what recent wars have there been where religion has been involved ?

I’ll start the list for you:

Internet Porn/Religion dominance war

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

p1 said :

I really, really wish one of these ‘conservative’ could articulately explain how this impacts on their own personal lives (or the lives of their children). I am genuinely curious.

It makes their imaginary friend unhappy.

Personally, I think that if [insert deity here] had been a little more specific writing the software when [he/she/it] created humans, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

It was covered in previous thread, and those who tried to explain their thought process got shouted down with personal attacks, so now I suspect they won’t bother.

Could you please explain to me how the “same sex marriage would be the same as incestuous marriage” argument is indicative of “people trying to explain their thought processes” on this issue?

If you’ll look closely at the thread – the argument was dealt a serious of logical deathblows, none of which were responded to. I’d hardly call that “shouted down with personal attacks”.

Sorry Jim,

i just had a look at that thread and I can’t find any of these wonderous logical deathblows you mention. Ahappychappy made a logical argument which you then disagreed with. Fair enough you want gay marriage to be legalised but I don’t understand how you can’t see the point ahappychappy was making.
I actually think the proponents of gay marriage do themselves a disservice by using the equality argument, because it allows argument like ahappychappy’s to be made. You can’t logically say that everyone should be treated equally while reserving the right to then discriminate on the same issue based on your own personal preferences afterwards.

Pretty much, ‘coz as mentioned multiple times by multiple people, by voicing an opinion against the majority here you’re labelled, attacked and ridiculed so no-one cares to bother anymore.

The ridiculous thing is believing that there’s a single “RiotACT view” on any topic at all.

The only topic ever found that Rioters agree on is recumbent cyclists!

chewy14 said :

Granny said :

watto23 said :

Why does it seem today that people of no faith are the most tolerant and friendly people in the world?

I agree, watto23. It makes me incredibly sad sometimes.

Sorry,
but this is just a massive pile of crap.
There is at least as much bigotry going around from non religious people.
And as for your views on “Friendly people”, that is just a great example of self selection. Of course the people you hang around with that have the same views and ideals as you seem more friendly than others who have different views and ideals.

Name a recent war where religion wasn’t involved?
Why are religions allowed to say whats right and wrong?
Why do we never hear about people of no faith trying to tell the church what to do? Usually its telling the church to mind their own business. People can believe what they want to believe, just don’t expect everyone else to follow the same ideals. I only draw the line on this when its illegal.

Oh my views were no less a generalisation than yours regarding my friends. In fact most of my friends believe in some kind of god, be it muslim, hindu or christian/catholic. I’m not saying they are not friendly people but their views and opinions differ greatly from me.

sloppery said :

p1 said :

I really, really wish one of these ‘conservative’ could articulately explain how this impacts on their own personal lives (or the lives of their children). I am genuinely curious.

It makes their imaginary friend unhappy.

Personally, I think that if [insert deity here] had been a little more specific writing the software when [he/she/it] created humans, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

It was covered in previous thread, and those who tried to explain their thought process got shouted down with personal attacks, so now I suspect they won’t bother.

Could you please explain to me how the “same sex marriage would be the same as incestuous marriage” argument is indicative of “people trying to explain their thought processes” on this issue?

If you’ll look closely at the thread – the argument was dealt a serious of logical deathblows, none of which were responded to. I’d hardly call that “shouted down with personal attacks”.

ahappychappy said :

sloppery said :

It was covered in previous thread, and those who tried to explain their thought process got shouted down with personal attacks, so now I suspect they won’t bother.

Pretty much, ‘coz as mentioned multiple times by multiple people, by voicing an opinion against the majority here you’re labelled, attacked and ridiculed so no-one cares to bother anymore.

RiotACT should just become a ‘news’ based website, at least then debate/topic/conversation wouldn’t be biased and could probably be more beneficial.

Ah bollocks.

You were pulling this argument in the last thread about gay marriage and it never happened. The only thing of interest in that thread was the bizarro ‘gay marriage would be just the same as incestuous marriage’ argument, which was dealt numerous logical death blows.

You can try to fool yourself that you’re being “oppressed” for voicing your opinion but the only people who will take you seriously are those who manage to ignore the ironic context of this statement (i.e. you’re attempting to use victimhood whilst arguing against a group that has been persecuted, demonised and vilified throughout this debate), and those who manage to ignore the fact that you haven’t brought any serious arguments or debate to the table.

sloppery said :

It was covered in previous thread, and those who tried to explain their thought process got shouted down with personal attacks, so now I suspect they won’t bother.

Pretty much, ‘coz as mentioned multiple times by multiple people, by voicing an opinion against the majority here you’re labelled, attacked and ridiculed so no-one cares to bother anymore.

RiotACT should just become a ‘news’ based website, at least then debate/topic/conversation wouldn’t be biased and could probably be more beneficial.

p1 said :

I really, really wish one of these ‘conservative’ could articulately explain how this impacts on their own personal lives (or the lives of their children). I am genuinely curious.

It makes their imaginary friend unhappy.

Personally, I think that if [insert deity here] had been a little more specific writing the software when [he/she/it] created humans, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

It was covered in previous thread, and those who tried to explain their thought process got shouted down with personal attacks, so now I suspect they won’t bother.

Jim Jones said :

sloppery said :

R. Slicker said :

BigDave said :

Personally, I hope Rudd does overturn this pile of nonsense. He’ll get my vote next time around if he does.

Ah, yes the arch homophobe with another grubby post. This is the same Big Dave who said here last year “I’m not homophobic, I just don’t bloody like them”.

Ahh, the name calling and personal attacks begin…

Oooh. I’m being victimised. I’m just expressing my opinion that homosexuals are all evil and that black people are subhuman and they’re calling me names and oppressing me.

You’re doing your cause no good with this attitude. If you don’t think we need structure and civility in such a debate, maybe I should feel free to use similar terms.

I really, really wish one of these ‘conservative’ could articulately explain how this impacts on their own personal lives (or the lives of their children). I am genuinely curious.

It makes their imaginary friend unhappy.

Personally, I think that if [insert deity here] had been a little more specific writing the software when [he/she/it] created humans, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

I’m not ready to lose my CT letter-writing virginity so I’m just going to rant on RA instead:

There were some interesting (read: loopy) letters in CT today. Apparently one troglodyte who apparently speaks on behalf of Canberra’s “conservative” community feels their human rights and freedom of expression are being violated.

This is the thing that I seriously don’t understand. How does a gay union affect, in way, ‘conservative people’s’ lives? They probably don’t even have any gay friends, so it isn’t like they’ll have to be coughing up money for more wedding pressies or anything. I really, really wish one of these ‘conservative’ could articulately explain how this impacts on their own personal lives (or the lives of their children). I am genuinely curious.

Granny said :

watto23 said :

Why does it seem today that people of no faith are the most tolerant and friendly people in the world?

I agree, watto23. It makes me incredibly sad sometimes.

Sorry,
but this is just a massive pile of crap.
There is at least as much bigotry going around from non religious people.
And as for your views on “Friendly people”, that is just a great example of self selection. Of course the people you hang around with that have the same views and ideals as you seem more friendly than others who have different views and ideals.

sloppery said :

R. Slicker said :

BigDave said :

Personally, I hope Rudd does overturn this pile of nonsense. He’ll get my vote next time around if he does.

Ah, yes the arch homophobe with another grubby post. This is the same Big Dave who said here last year “I’m not homophobic, I just don’t bloody like them”.

Ahh, the name calling and personal attacks begin…

Oooh. I’m being victimised. I’m just expressing my opinion that homosexuals are all evil and that black people are subhuman and they’re calling me names and oppressing me.

R. Slicker said :

BigDave said :

Personally, I hope Rudd does overturn this pile of nonsense. He’ll get my vote next time around if he does.

Ah, yes the arch homophobe with another grubby post. This is the same Big Dave who said here last year “I’m not homophobic, I just don’t bloody like them”.

Ahh, the name calling and personal attacks begin…

watto23 said :

Why does it seem today that people of no faith are the most tolerant and friendly people in the world?

I agree, watto23. It makes me incredibly sad sometimes.

…compared with the ease with which they can overturn a territory’s laws by an executive order.

If you’re dumber than sheep shit you’ll argue that the issue is ‘constitutional’ in nature rather than a personal vendetta against self governance. But in the end, Krudd ad his dip-shit cronies could ar$efcuk your grannie and the people of Canberra would thank him for it and vote Labor on polling day so what difference would it make?

In order to overturn a state’s law, the Federal government would have to argue the laws were unconstitutional, in particular infringing on their exclusive right to legislate on marriage. Since the Howard government amended the Marriage Act to define marriage as solely between a man and a woman, any state’s same-sex civil union laws could not possibly be considered anything to do with marriage. The High Court would never rule they were unconstitutional. The Commonwealth would have a hard time overturning any state’s same-sex union laws, compared with the ease with which they can overturn a territory’s laws by an executive order.

I’m not a complete nincompoop – I think I have considered some of the ‘realities of law’ in my ‘rant’.

“f a state passed similar laws, as Victoria and Tasmania are likely to do, the federal government would not be able to overturn them so easily, despite what they thought of the actual laws”

Don’t kid yourself. A State would find it impossible to function without Federal funding, and they can distribute or revoke parts of that on a whim. Try and find a piece of State legislation that the Feds really don’t like. And then, if you do, have a look at Section 109 of the Constitution. If necessary the Feds just create their own legislation and the inconsistent State law is nigh on struck out……and Section 51 (xxi) gives the Feds the ultimate power over ‘marriage’.

Not expressing feelings either way regarding this proposed legislation, but there are realities of law people don’t consider in their rants

I’m not ready to lose my CT letter-writing virginity so I’m just going to rant on RA instead:

There were some interesting (read: loopy) letters in CT today. Apparently one troglodyte who apparently speaks on behalf of Canberra’s “conservative” community feels their human rights and freedom of expression are being violated.

I imagine if we went back 100 years and the issue was womens’ suffrage, the letter would have been no different, although perhaps without the references to the Stasi and George Orwell.

I voted for the Greens and this was one of the reasons why. More so the ability for ACT to create its own laws, than the gay rights issue the christian lobby is against. I personally feel everyone should have equal rights and right now only the greens seem to be offering that.

I’m guessing the Christian lobby groups don’t watch Animal planet, because there is lots of filthy unnatural behaviour in animals like homosexuality and hermaphrodites. I’ve yet to get an answer as well to the question “If god was so powerful to create everything on earth, why does he let all these things that christian lobby groups hate, occur in the first place?”.

Why does it seem today that people of no faith are the most tolerant and friendly people in the world?

+ 1 Grail! I remember it well …. we had the Sun-Ripen Warm Tomato Party, the Party! Party! Party! and Abolish Self Government Party – who promised, if elected, to somehow overturn the Federal Govt decision and do themselves out of the job … never happened (obviously).

If Rudd overturns the legislation it will demonstrate the power of the far right wing conservative fundementalists.

I fail to see the argument that the Feds have for how this ACT law conflicts with Fed law.

I see it as such. The Marriage ACT solely covers Man+Woman. The civil partnership act does not have this distinction, in fact it was specifically written for the opposite case Same+Same.

Therefore, the two are different.

Madame Workalot said :

The Feds are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If ACT was not given self-government, people would be whinging about being ‘taken over’. ACT was given self-government, and people still whinge. And it’s the same in the other territories…..

I’m not sure where Madame Workalot grew up, but let me assure you that there was never any talk of the Federal Government “taking over”, since the Federal Government was always in charge here. We had one referendum in 1978 where the populace of Canberra said, “NO F***ING WAY”, but we still got self-government anyway: almost 2/3rds majority saying, “leave us be”. Then in 1988 we had a Legislative Assembly elected with four seats going to joke parties such as “No Self Government Party” and “Abolish Self-Government Coalition.” Four more seats went to the Liberals, meaning 8 seats were voted in by people who didn’t respect the Federal Government’s wishes for ACT to be controlled by a local government.

The only reason we’ve ever been given for the imposition of local government is that the Federal Government at the time didn’t want to keep paying for upkeep of the administrative capital of the nation.

Since then we’ve had such wonderful advances in urban planning as Gungahlin – the jewel of that crown being suburbs like Amaroo where you can’t drive two cars side by side down the street without hitting wing mirrors on something. This is what happens when the local Government doesn’t have enough money to plan suburbs properly (or when we are forced to hire the urban planners that Sydney rejects). Not that I’m on a soap box or anything.

Cameron said :

Eby said :

Just out of interest (pardon my ignorance), why was the NT a territory to begin with, rather than a state?

Because it was part of South Australia at the time of Federation.

Really, how interesting! Thanks for letting me know.

BigDave said :

Personally, I hope Rudd does overturn this pile of nonsense. He’ll get my vote next time around if he does.

Ah, yes the arch homophobe with another grubby post. This is the same Big Dave who said here last year “I’m not homophobic, I just don’t bloody like them”.

Personally, I hope Rudd does overturn this pile of nonsense. He’ll get my vote next time around if he does.

Eby said :

Just out of interest (pardon my ignorance), why was the NT a territory to begin with, rather than a state?

Because it was part of South Australia at the time of Federation.

The Commonwealth legislation will win every time. If the state legislation was found to contradict Commonwealth legislation, the state legislation could also be ruled invalid and overturned. Putting the same or very similar legislation up repeatedly knowing that it will likely be overruled is a waste of time and our money.

Under the Constitution the Commonwealth law will prevail to the extent that there is an inconsistency. This does not mean that the ACT legislation would be invalid in totality – only to the extent of the inconsistency. In any case, that is a matter for the High Court.

The reason Howard asked the Governor General to quash the ACT legislation last time was because he had real fears that there was no such inconsistency and he was not prepared to take the chance. If Rudd does the same then it will be because (a) he does not believe that Territorians have the right to govern themselves and (b) he perceives that there may be votes to be gained from nut-bag fundamentalists. His decision will of course be balanced against the likelihood of Canberra’s safe Labor seats falling to the coalition or minor parties (unlikely).

As a matter of principle, the ACT Legislative assembly has an obligation to continue to enact the same law as many times as it is necessary to ensure that it gets up.

Just out of interest (pardon my ignorance), why was the NT a territory to begin with, rather than a state?

Seriously, who gives a flying charnwood what the Australian Christian Lobby thinks?

bd84 said :

Putting the same or very similar legislation up repeatedly knowing that it will likely be overruled is a waste of time and our money.

…unless the Government thinks that it’s worth doing as a point of principle. I’m not in the market for a same-sex marriage, but I personally don’t have a problem with the ACT Government
taking a stand on the issue as the current ban is a pretty clear-cut case of discrimination.

Oh and I forgot to add – if you do manage to get ‘civil-unioned’ before the law is overturned in the ACT, you can at least rest happy that you’ll be counted in the next Census.

http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/news/20090507.htm

caf said :

The legal status of the ACT as a territory is neither here not there when it comes to our moral right to self-determination.

Well said.

The ACT assembly should just keep reintroducing this bill in different forms until the Feds get sick of intervening.

Clown Killer said :

To be honest I don’t care much for same sex marriage (but then again I suppose one shouldn’t knock it until one has tried it). On the other hand I care deeply about the fact that we Territorians should be allowed to govern ourselves.

If there is a conflict between ACT legislation and Commonwealth legislation then let the High Court sort it out.

The Commonwealth legislation will win every time. If the state legislation was found to contradict Commonwealth legislation, the state legislation could also be ruled invalid and overturned. Putting the same or very similar legislation up repeatedly knowing that it will likely be overruled is a waste of time and our money.

To be honest I don’t care much for same sex marriage (but then again I suppose one shouldn’t knock it until one has tried it). On the other hand I care deeply about the fact that we Territorians should be allowed to govern ourselves.

If there is a conflict between ACT legislation and Commonwealth legislation then let the High Court sort it out.

chewy14 said :

I am slightly ambivalent about this topic but i would like to know the amount of people in the ACT who actually voted for Labor or the Greens with this issue being a major factor in their decision. I would think the number would be very small.

Maybe, but it was a well-known part of both parties’ platforms so there’s a popular mandate to bring the legislation in.

I am slightly ambivalent about this topic but i would like to know the amount of people in the ACT who actually voted for Labor or the Greens with this issue being a major factor in their decision. I would think the number would be very small.
I would much rather the government stopped wasting time on crap like this when they know there is a chance of it getting overturned. They should focus on their core policies of buiding more cycle lanes, arboretums and public artworks.

I can’t believe Rudd is thinking of overturning ACT law which was taken to not one but two territory elections and approved. If the public wanted this type of thing they would have returned the Howard government in 2007 rather than electing Labor, after all Howard did this and nailed his colours to the mast as a moral conservative throughout his term. This, along with Internet censorship will cause many who traditionally vote Labor for progressive policies to switch their vote to the Libs or Nats. After all, if we are going to have a conservative government we might as well have a fair dinkum one rather than a Claytons one.

ACT, NT, Jervis Bay Territory, Christmas Island, Cocos (Keeling) Island, Norfolk Island etc are all territories. Their only real power comes from Federal legislation enacted under s 128 of the Constitution (the Commonwealth has the power to make laws for a territory), which can be taken away. Territories cannot even compare to states, which have specified powers in accordance with the Constitution.

The Feds are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. If ACT was not given self-government, people would be whinging about being ‘taken over’. ACT was given self-government, and people still whinge. And it’s the same in the other territories…..

Gungahlin Al said :

And I personally have had a gutful of Kevin Rudd treating the ACT citizenry as the populist whipping boy to be trotted out every time he wants a Canberra-bashing headline in the trash metro media.

+1

NT was going to be a state, but it needed support at a referendum. That failed, and so the NT stayed a territory.

There was some local politics involved, but someone closer to NT-world would need to provide more detail.

I think the issue is simple. If one of the states enacted this law, the Feds could do nothing about it. If the “sanctity of marriage” were somehow undermined, then they’d have no choice but to “suck it up.”

ACT laws should be treated the same way by the Feds – particularly given it’s the same mob who slagged off at Howard when he pulled the rug out last time. Talking to you Kate!

It’s the height of hypocrisy what the ALP are doing now at a Federal level. And I personally have had a gutful of Kevin Rudd treating the ACT citizenry as the populist whipping boy to be trotted out every time he wants a Canberra-bashing headline in the trash metro media.

The NT is not a state. I do not know where this myth originates from. Their laws can be overruled just as ours can be.

If ACT has self-government why does the NCA exist? Why do we only lease the land in the ACT? mmmm, sounds to me self-government is, and always has been, smoke and mirrors. Although, could we adopt similar legislation to NT as they are now technically a ‘state’ I do believe. We have a bigger population than NT and more concentrated in a smaller area.

btw, what has any government got to do with religion anyway? They’re separate entities and should remain that way. Whilst the press release from Stanhope does separate the laws from being anti-Christian, what if, hypothetically, they were in fact that way inclined, legislation has nothing to do with the church. Legislation exists already that could be deemed anti-Christian, such as abortion, the fact most folk do stuff on the sabbath aka rest days, divorce, etc etc. So, as with the silly shenanigans that occurred on Mt Ainslie recently, leave religion out of politics!

Maybe the fundies are against Gay Marriage because they know that if gay people can get married then they can have gay sex, and that will make fundies sad.

GnT said :

Is civil unions in the ACT a matter of federal importance?

It is if you’re afraid that all the fundies will get angry at you and swear their allegiance to the Liberal Party.

The legal status of the ACT as a territory is neither here not there when it comes to our moral right to self-determination.

Is civil unions in the ACT a matter of federal importance?

We are a territory after all. We don’t really have the right to self-govern. It is merely a delegation to take care of business while the Federal government is occupied with issues of Federal importance. However, it would seem hypocritical of Federal government members not to intervene on issues they are elected to fight against.

This comment came from housebound:

Now I can’t really see why there is so much fuss over a piece of paper and whether a ceremony has legal standing, since all levels of government are going through legislation and removing discrimination from everywhere. It was a long time ago, but I vaguely remember church weddings needing a piece of paper to be signed to be legal, so the difference really is what Stanhope sees as ‘a little pedantic and little technical’.

More to the point, it is now clear that the Feds – the Labor Feds who foisted self-government on us – still think that the public servants who govern a nation can’t be trusted to govern themselves (do they know something we don’t?). Apart from their importance to those affected, civil ceremonies are as big a deal on the scale of everything as some other contentious issues (that also affected people) that have come up in the past 20-odd years. But the Feds didn’t do anything then.

I say go all the way and remove self-government, or leave us alone.