Humphries to talk to Howard; Berry to GG

I refuse to engage someone as ignorant as yourself, and with no concept of how to use possessive apostophes. And it’s not as though I proposed that homosexuality be made illegal as it was in the past. Tosser.

And yes, police study law before they graduate. What, you think they just give them a gun and say “Go for it son!”.

Being a Police officer requires a good knowledge of the law? What a pile of bullshit. Given the performance of some Police Officers that I’ve witnessed in Court recently, the cops don’t know shit about law, criminal, constitutional or otherwise.

Re LurkerGal’s comments: Perhaps, given your ‘life is different for everyone get used to it’ approach, you’d like the Commonwealth Government to reinstate the marital rape immunity in the ACT, legislate to reinforce the principle that women are the property of their Father’s or Husbands, and enact a scheme to codify the ‘common sense’ idea that women who walk around in short skirts deserve to get sexually assaulted? After all LurkerGal, life is different for everyone, and we can’t expect the law to protect EVERYONE’S security and dignity.

Your PMT is biologically imposed. It sucks, but it’s not something the government can do much about.

Marriage, civil unions and the rights of both or either are legally imposed. And they’re definately something I can reasonably expect the government to do something about, if they want to. The churches stopped having control over marriage the second that celebrants entered the picture – unless someone’s suggesting that all non-church ceremonies should be declared null and void?

I’ll point out that this doesn’t really affect me at the moment, since I don’t have anybody on the horizon who even vaguely resembles a life partner, but it seems commonsense to me that, should someone show up, it really shouldn’t matter whether they’re a bloke or a woman in terms of how the government of the day’s going to treat us.

I’ve got PMT. The guy next to me at work doesn’t have. that is so not fair. what happened to equal rights? Why do I have to bleed and cramp and get emotional and he doesn’t? It’s not fair. I expect the government to put equal rights in place. Either all you men start menstruating, or the women don’t anymore. And then when the GG says we can’t do it, I’ll whinge some more.

LIfe is different for everyone. Deal with it. Not everyone has the same situation. Deal with it.

simto – its not that were ‘owed’ its more that there are existing rights, freedoms and customs which are steadily being eroded by tut tutting dogooders and insidious social engineers.

Plus, whining that the world owes us a living is at least half the threads on this board. We’re owed a dragway. We’re owed schooling for our kids. We’re owed free parking. We’re owed peace and quiet in our homes. We’re owed fireworks.

Everybody whines on this board. Straights, gays, cops, lawyers, public servants, IT professionals. So don’t pretend otherwise.

You’ll note, LG, that my comment made clear that I don’t doubt his knowledge of criminal law. But he has no professional claim to have any expertise on constitutional law.

Since a side thread had developed into “the constitution means this”/”No it doesn’t”, I was adding to that thread. I’m trying to work out why I’m apparently violating someone’s integrity by pointing this out.

Hear, hear, LG!

He is indeed a cop, and he may once have referred to it a lot, but not for at least a year. It’s only referenced when relevant. VG and I have had many differences of opinion, however, his occupation requires a pretty sound knowledge of the law.

and some of you guys give gays and lesbians a bad name with your whinging moaning “the world owes me a living” sanctamonious spruiking shit.

pull your head lads.

He’s a cop. As he’s told us at voluminous length.

so what is VG’s job exactly?

Oh, and to be fair to VG, I have no doubts about his professional judgement in the area of the criminal law. But I don’t think he’d claim to have ever arrested anyone for violating the constiution.

Simto, because in Howard’s Australia gay families shouldn’t be recognised and doing so (as in recognising a minority) would undermine the majority of Australian families, by granting equal rights to those currently denied it – not by removing rights from those currently enjoying these benefits.

That statement turns on the word “unique” if there are half a dozen other marriage like institutions then marriage would no longer be “unique” however that marriage is unique or should remain unique is not a legal question, but one based in religion, morals, philosophy etc but is asserted here with the hope that it is cloaked in the guise of a legal statement.

From the statement:

The unique status of marriage is undermined by any measures that elevate other relationships to the same or similar level of public recognition and legal status.

Why? I don’t see why the institution of marriage is particularly threatened by any other form of relationship having the same benefits. Is someone able to enlighten me on this?

It’s interesting to note that nowhere in the explanatory statement does the Commonwealth asert that the ACT legislation was inconsistent with the Commonwealth – only that a Civil Union under ACT law would be too much like a marriage for the Commonwealths comfort.

Subsection 35(2) of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (the ACT Self-Government Act) provides that the Governor-General may, by written instrument, disallow an enactment made by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory (the ACT Assembly) within 6 months after it is made.

So as we assumed vg doesn’t know shit. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but it doesn’t matter what excuse they give they’re using subsection 35 of the self government act not the federal marriage act.

A one coat, near transparent gloss containing unsustainable assertions, that attempts to make a political decision appear to be based on legal considerations with the aim of ensuring the religious right remain on side.

All our legal debaters should check out the explanatory statement.

Yep, it’s now on the register.

vg, you were and are still fucking wrong.

The GG does not decide if territory/state laws are invalid because they are in conflict with federal constitutional powers; this determination is the sole dominion of the High Court.

The GG was able to disallow the ACT legislation simply because he is allowed to disallow ANY ACT legislation under the ACT self-government act.

vg
Hindmarsh Bridge Case make also means remove, although that’s irrelevant as s35 is sound.
I say again regarding s109 only the courts decide on inconsistency not the executive.

It was disallowed as per s35 Self Govt Act as the GG can disallow any ACT leg whether it is inconsistent or otherwise with Cth Leg.

“The GG quashed the legislation basd (sic) on the fact that it was in conflict with the Feds Marriage Act…” you have made up this “fact” to support your unsustainable justifications for your completely wrongheaded understanding (or lack of it) of the Constitution and the ACT Self Government Act 1988 (Cth).
Show me where it says that GG has disallowed this legislation because of inconsistency. Maybe you should have paid attention in Com Con in the apparently unlikely event you did it.

been overturned. just on intraweb thingy with hook-ups etc.

fucking souless conservatives. I just wish that these people could learn the word equality, and then realise that the old and new book of fairytales trots this line out constantly.

I can tell you all that no instrument has been published at this time.

The GG quashed the legislation basd on the fact that it was in conflict with the Feds Marriage Act…ergo under s109 of the Constitution, it is invalidated. If the ACT Govt want to go to the High Court and fight this go right ahead. Under s122 the Feds can ‘make’ laws for a territory, not disallow them.

Back to ConLaw1 for you

vg
I don’t think anyone argued that the Cth could not quash the legislation, just that the constitutional head of power that you argued would be used (ss51xxi and xxii) was incorrect, which has shown to be the case by the GG disallowing (under leg based on s122) as opposed to an incompatible piece of legislation being passed in Cth Parliament under ss51xxi and xxii.

Just heard that, at a meeting of the Executive Council, the GG has decided to disallow the ACT legislation, as it is inconsistent with the Federal Marriage Act.

I will now take apologies from all those who told me I was wrong, but I guess they will now be silent

It’s not a bill, it’s a disallowable instrument.

The whole thing is being done to try and get Fielding sweet with the government by beating up the godless homosexuals, so we can assume he’s going to support it.

Sorry, I shouldn’t say that Fielding crossed the floor. I mean: last year only Barnaby Joyce crossed the floor, but since Fielding also voted against the legislation that was sufficient.

In any case, I think they are saying two Government senators on the assumption that Senator Fielding won’t cross.

One Coalition + Fielding, or two Coalition senators is all that’s needed to defeat a bill AFAIK. Certainly only two Senators crossed the floor to defeat the ACCC amendments last year.

To defeat the disallowance motion the Government has to bring on the debate, if undebated it’s automatically carried after 15 sitting days (IIRC)

So as I understand it, to “win” a disallowance you need one less vote than normal, because of the way the President of the Senate’s vote is proscribed.

The Canberra Times is saying that Labor needs two Government senators to cross the floor; but this assumes that Steve Fielding (Family First) would vote for the disallowance motion. Although he doesn’t seem to have put out a media release on this matter yet, I think it’s highly unlikely he would do so. This means that Labor actually needs three Government senators to cross the floor.