Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Fly direct from
Canberra to New Zealand

Simon gets to be the Rainbow Warrior

By johnboy - 16 September 2013 79

gay pride

With tories returning to the treasury benches up on the hill ACT Labor can get back to the simple joys of gesture politics.

Thus the first order of business is Simon Corbell trotting out a same-sex marriage bill:

The ACT Labor Government will this week introduce the Marriage Equality Bill 2013 into the Legislative Assembly to allow same-sex couples to marry, Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, announced today.

“The Marriage Equality Bill will establish a Territory based scheme which allows same sex couples to solemnise a same sex marriage before an authorised celebrant,” Mr Corbell said.

“It will send a clear and unambiguous message 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.”

The Bill does not propose a residency requirement.

We’ll see what the Federales have to say.

[Photo by Guillaume Paumier CC BY 2.0]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
79 Responses to
Simon gets to be the Rainbow Warrior
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Robertson 11:38 am 26 Sep 13

Spitfire3 said :

Mysteryman said :

Spitfire3 said :

Mysteryman said :

Presumably the ever-so-clever ACT Labor party doesn’t quite understand section 51 of the Australian constitution.

Presumably you didn’t read as far as section 52 of the constitution. It lists the things that the commonwealth has exclusive power to legislate over. Marriage isn’t there.

Correct. It’s not there. But it IS in section 51. Accordingly there is a federal law called the Marriage Act 1961. Do you know what happens when a territory and federal law conflict? Have a guess which one takes precedence.

Yes, but you miss my point. 51 is a list of things the fed can do. Immediately following that is 52 which is a list of things that ONLY the feds can do. Since marriage is in the first list and not the second, it seems clear to me that the ACT govt is not prevented by S51 from making laws about marriage.

This question is now moot thanks to advances in scientific knowledge achieved by a scientist in Nigeria and for which he will no doubt be awarded a Nobel Prize:

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/205755/nigerian-student-uses-magnets-to-prove-gay-marriage-scientifically-impossible/

beardedclam 2:45 pm 20 Sep 13

#76 – that should make the Wreck Bay crew happy.

Skidbladnir 12:47 pm 20 Sep 13

So, Jervis Bay as the new destination for gay weddings?

Spitfire3 11:38 am 20 Sep 13

Mysteryman said :

Spitfire3 said :

Mysteryman said :

Presumably the ever-so-clever ACT Labor party doesn’t quite understand section 51 of the Australian constitution.

Presumably you didn’t read as far as section 52 of the constitution. It lists the things that the commonwealth has exclusive power to legislate over. Marriage isn’t there.

Correct. It’s not there. But it IS in section 51. Accordingly there is a federal law called the Marriage Act 1961. Do you know what happens when a territory and federal law conflict? Have a guess which one takes precedence.

Yes, but you miss my point. 51 is a list of things the fed can do. Immediately following that is 52 which is a list of things that ONLY the feds can do. Since marriage is in the first list and not the second, it seems clear to me that the ACT govt is not prevented by S51 from making laws about marriage.

Robertson 10:21 am 20 Sep 13

lostinbias said :

Robertson said :

gazket said :

how a man can find love in another mans exhaust pipe is beyond me. sicko’s

It’s far, far worse than you thought:

http://christwire.org/2011/06/14-outrageous-secrets-that-a-homosexual-will-never-tell-you/

Not sure if troll or idiot….

You neglected to consider option3: Concorde.

Mysteryman 10:06 am 20 Sep 13

Spitfire3 said :

Mysteryman said :

Presumably the ever-so-clever ACT Labor party doesn’t quite understand section 51 of the Australian constitution.

Presumably you didn’t read as far as section 52 of the constitution. It lists the things that the commonwealth has exclusive power to legislate over. Marriage isn’t there.

Correct. It’s not there. But it IS in section 51. Accordingly there is a federal law called the Marriage Act 1961. Do you know what happens when a territory and federal law conflict? Have a guess which one takes precedence.

chewy14 9:55 am 20 Sep 13

johnboy said :

Some of you guys spend an awful lot of time thinking about gay men.

I came for the debate but stayed for the pictures of scantily clad homosexuals.

pink little birdie 9:52 am 20 Sep 13

johnboy said :

Some of you guys spend an awful lot of time thinking about gay men.

I notice in the arguments that it’s never against 2 women doing it just 2 men. sort of like 2 women kissing most men want to watch, but 2 men kissing does absolutely nothing for women.
Like those parties where everyone watches women kissing but men won’t kiss each other for attention. Girls kiss to win wet t-shirt competions, guys would lose if they did that in the male category.

chewy14 9:51 am 20 Sep 13

LSWCHP said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

If it doesn’t hurt anyone then it’s okay, eh? Why is it well frowned upon to have sex with animals then? Is it because the animal can’t say no? What if a person could show a court that the animal likes it and it is consensual?

Dude, WTF are you on about? I asserted that consensual sex between humans that is free of harm is nobody’s business but those who are doing it. I’ll repeat that assertion until the cows come home. But you’ve gone from that to a loony rant about bestiality without any sort of intermediate clauses that could have included things like logic or reason.

I can only conclude that I’ve triggered one of one of those “he doth protest too much” things. You don’t own hamsters wrapped in gaffer tape do you, by any chance?

This is the reason why, if this bill was truly about “marriage equality” it would include allowances for polygamous and incestuous marriage. The should stop trying to obfuscate and call it the same sex marriage bill.

Or as I’ve said before, why is the government in the marriage game at all? It should be civil unions for all.

Robertson 8:38 am 20 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

I’m not a sociologist but it strikes me the main difference between gay and heterosexual relationships is that sex is one aspect of the heterosexual relationship, but the primary aspect of a homosexual one (picture at the beginning of this article illustrates this well). Obviously a lot of younger heterosexuals are like this too, and there’s a portion of them who remain this way much of their lives (the “Sex and the City” crowd), ….

“Sex and the City” was quite obviously written to male homosexual characters but performed by women.

Darkfalz 8:07 am 20 Sep 13

Ronald_Coase said :

Sir Dark of Falz, you my good man are what is collaquially known as a character. Other terms also exist.

I suppose if you can’t ridicule my sources, from respected studies (Harvard), you may as well ridicule me. Whatever works for you.

wildturkeycanoe 7:19 am 20 Sep 13

I’m not so sure about dogs playing chess, but dogs can be trained to fetch beer from the fridge, octupi can open jars, elephants and beluga whales can paint whilst helper monkeys can do all sorts of things.

LSWCHP 11:33 pm 19 Sep 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

If it doesn’t hurt anyone then it’s okay, eh? Why is it well frowned upon to have sex with animals then? Is it because the animal can’t say no? What if a person could show a court that the animal likes it and it is consensual?

Dude, WTF are you on about? I asserted that consensual sex between humans that is free of harm is nobody’s business but those who are doing it. I’ll repeat that assertion until the cows come home. But you’ve gone from that to a loony rant about bestiality without any sort of intermediate clauses that could have included things like logic or reason.

I can only conclude that I’ve triggered one of one of those “he doth protest too much” things. You don’t own hamsters wrapped in gaffer tape do you, by any chance?

pink little birdie 11:15 pm 19 Sep 13

wildturkeycanoe said :

LSWCHP said :

gazket said :

how a man can find love in another mans exhaust pipe is beyond me. sicko’s

Just because you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean it’s impossible. I know gay people who’ve been together for decades. Have a look on the cover of todays CT for an example.

I’m straight. I didn’t make a decision to be that way, it’s just how things turned out. I also have blue eyes. I didn’t make a decision about my eye colour either, that’s just how they turned out.

Gay people didn’t decide to be gay, they just are gay. And it’s no more a sickness than having blue eyes, or being short or tall.

Everybody should just chill out about the whole sex thing. As long as nobody is harmed it doesn’t matter in the slightest what variations we all have in our occasional nightly grunty-sweaty action.

If it doesn’t hurt anyone then it’s okay, eh? Why is it well frowned upon to have sex with animals then? Is it because the animal can’t say no? What if a person could show a court that the animal likes it and it is consensual? Personally, I can understand the gay love thing on an emotional level, men can love men and women can love women. Kissing is okay I suppose, but genitalia is designed for two things, one being for reproductive purposes and the second for removing waste from the body. The third option is just not natural, nor the way nature or God created it to be. That’s my view point and I’m sticking to it.
Call me homophobic all you like, but minority groups keep using arguments like “I was born this way, just like I have blue eyes” just a bit too much. What if I was born with a genetic abnormality that drove me to want to use recreational drugs incessantly? I’m not hurting anybody, but the government deems it to be an illegal thing. Shouldn’t I have the right to do with my own body what I want, including any kind of sexual act, religious ritual or indeed drug use, as long as I do it in private and it doesn’t hurt anybody?
If we use that argument in it’s broader sense “Anyone can do anything they want as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone.” I have a long list of things I’d like to have made legal while we are at it.

No sex for you for other then the purposes of reproduction.
Personally I think it’s a great way to express our love for each other but I’m so not ready for children (Apparently the shiny things are required first)

LSWCHP 11:12 pm 19 Sep 13

Thumper said :

Without pointing out the obvious, anyone can see where Corbell is coming from and where this will all end.

Ask yourself, why didn’t Corbell introduce this six months ago? A year ago? Two years ago? Because the Rudd/ Gillard government would have crushed it and it wouldn’t look good for him to criticise his federal colleagues.

However, now with a tory government in power, he can introduce it, watch it get crushed, and then have a bleat about the evil federal liberal party and how they hate gay people, equality, etc etc etc.

I’m all for the advent of gay marriage, but I’m cynical as to Corbell’s timing.

As I said before, I’d like to see all the states working constructively towards gay marriage, rather than petty gotchya politics.

Such cynicism in one so young! 🙂

But seriously folks…surely Corbell can’t possibly think this blundering clumsy wankfest is a piece of masterful Machiavellian subtlety that nobody will see through? Even I can see what he’s up to, and I’m an engineer, not a politician.

LSWCHP 11:07 pm 19 Sep 13

Robertson said :

gazket said :

how a man can find love in another mans exhaust pipe is beyond me. sicko’s

It’s far, far worse than you thought:

http://christwire.org/2011/06/14-outrageous-secrets-that-a-homosexual-will-never-tell-you/

Larf? I nearly sh*t!!

I think that website shows that there are actually sane people hidden in obscure parts of America, for which we should all be grateful.

Thank you Robertson, for brightening my day immeasurably. 🙂

Spitfire3 9:52 pm 19 Sep 13

Mysteryman said :

Presumably the ever-so-clever ACT Labor party doesn’t quite understand section 51 of the Australian constitution.

Presumably you didn’t read as far as section 52 of the constitution. It lists the things that the commonwealth has exclusive power to legislate over. Marriage isn’t there.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site