16 September 2013

Simon gets to be the Rainbow Warrior

| johnboy
Join the conversation
75
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]

Join the conversation

75
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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/

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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 birdie9:52 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

wildturkeycanoe7:19 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.

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 birdie11:15 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)

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.

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. 🙂

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.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd9:18 pm 19 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

Darkfalz said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Do you have sources for any of that drivel?

Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216
McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop: 252-253

Also,

After the Ball; Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen; Doubleday, 1989

“the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%…Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an ‘open relationship,’ for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples”

Peer reviewed articles in scientific journals only please.

chewy14 said :

davo101 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

What if a person could show a court that the animal likes it and it is consensual?

Given that this would be equivalent to finding a dog that can play chess I would say the world would be stunned.

Is that why Joel Monaghan’s dog made international news?

Dogs suck at playing chess.

davo101 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

What if a person could show a court that the animal likes it and it is consensual?

Given that this would be equivalent to finding a dog that can play chess I would say the world would be stunned.

Is that why Joel Monaghan’s dog made international news?

Ronald_Coase6:41 pm 19 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

Darkfalz said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Do you have sources for any of that drivel?

Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216
McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop: 252-253

Also,

After the Ball; Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen; Doubleday, 1989

“the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%…Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an ‘open relationship,’ for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples”

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

But may I humbly suggest that you talk through your arse, and people of your ilk often belueve that the arse is not designed for this purpose.

May I also suggest that many if not most male heterosexual couples don’t use the same avenue for nightly pleasure.

Apologies for typos!

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), but most eventually wind up settling down in monogamous relationships as priorities shift towards family, companionship and common goals (ie. home ownership) over just sex. Same reason support for gay marriage is high with young people and tapers off rapidly after that as priorities change. I’m sure there’s some level of companionship in long term homosexual relationships, even if they are open, but if you take away the fidelity and the children I just don’t see what purpose marriage serves beyond that.

Darkfalz said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Do you have sources for any of that drivel?

Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216
McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop: 252-253

Also,

After the Ball; Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen; Doubleday, 1989

“the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%…Many gay lovers, bowing to the inevitable, agree to an ‘open relationship,’ for which there are as many sets of ground rules as there are couples”

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Do you have sources for any of that drivel?

Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216
McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop: 252-253

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….

Christwire is a satirical website that publishes blog-style articles that highlight excesses of American Christian conservatives”.[1][2][3][4]

“Like similar satirical websites, Christwire’s stories have often erroneously been taken at face value.”

thebrownstreak694:26 pm 19 Sep 13

davo101 said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

What if a person could show a court that the animal likes it and it is consensual?

Given that this would be equivalent to finding a dog that can play chess I would say the world would be stunned.

wildturkeycanoe said :

but genitalia is designed for two things, one being for reproductive purposes and the second for removing waste from the body.

Oh my.

Well I for one would be VERY interested in a dog that can play chess. Where can I find such a creature?

davo101 said :

Given that this would be equivalent to finding a dog that can play chess I would say the world would be stunned.

You sure? Isn’t a leg humping dog implying consent?

wildturkeycanoe said :

What if a person could show a court that the animal likes it and it is consensual?

Given that this would be equivalent to finding a dog that can play chess I would say the world would be stunned.

wildturkeycanoe said :

but genitalia is designed for two things, one being for reproductive purposes and the second for removing waste from the body.

Oh my.

wildturkeycanoe said :

… 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. …

On the other hand, those born with a genetic condition called “laziness” preventing them from ever working are rewarded by the government with a lifetime of free housing and a fortnightly cash bonus to spend on booze and fags, whereas the rest of us not afflicted by this “laziness” gene are instead slapped with hefty annual tax bills to pay for the above.

It’s a bit rich that our society rewards the lazy but seeks to punish others just because they are a bit perverse.

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.

Exactly. It’s designed to feed into the left’s obsession with Abbott and him being a “bigot” because he doesn’t bend over (ahem) to appease gays. Local government trying to score cheap political points on the federal government (I’m sure the ACT and Bandt’s electorate will be mighty impressed, the rest of the country not so much).

watto23 said :

Its a political stunt as well to oppose it.

Upholding long standing federal laws is not a “stunt”, I assure you.

watto23 said :

So simple way to make it go away is to just legislate it and stop been a bunch or paranoid selfish conservatives.

We just had 3 years of Labor and then another 3 years of GreensLabor government, but you blame “conservatives”?

wildturkeycanoe said :

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?

Yes.

wildturkeycanoe2:01 pm 19 Sep 13

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.

Spitfire3 said :

If you read sections 51, 52, 109 and 118 of the constitution, you’ll come to the conclusion that the ACT can indeed legislate for same-sex marriage.

If you read those sections of the constitution you’ll arrive at precisely the opposite conclusion. Keep in mind that the ACT is not a state. It’s a territory, and it does not have the same legislative rights as a state does.

Regarding what the Federal Government says: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/prime-minister-tony-abbott-flags-challenge-to-act-samesex-marriage-bill-20130919-2u0z0.html

Much the same as previous governments.

milkman said :

As much as some people will be outraged, I tend to agree. We have long waiting times at hospitals, schools with all sorts of issues, crappy roads and cost of living pressures. Gay marriage is something that effects a small minority, and while thier needs definitely need to be considered, this issue is now at the point of wasting time and resources that could be better spent solving bigger problems.

Agree its a wastre of time and money, so just legislate it and move on. The only reason people are againsty it is because they have issues with homosexuality and think depriving them of marriage will make them turn straight or something.

Right now gay families exist. They are living in the same streets and suburbs as us all. what difference to society does it make to not let them get married. In fact if the ACT does legislate the laws and they stand, we’ll have a tourism industry booster too and think of all the extra money those in the wedding industry can make.

Girt_Hindrance10:47 am 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/

THAT was the funniest thing I’ve ever seen linked on this site. Most hilariously, they probably believe most of that crap is true.

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/

If you read sections 51, 52, 109 and 118 of the constitution, you’ll come to the conclusion that the ACT can indeed legislate for same-sex marriage.

So if your argument against SSM is waste of resources, you would be doing the taxpayer a far bigger disservice by pushing for a high court challenge to the ACT’s new law when we have it.

milkman said :

Darkfalz said :

gazket said :

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

What concerns me is that the desire for marriage for most campaigners is completely token. If you take the two gentlemen on the stage for a moment, they don’t really look the monogamous type to me. There’s plenty of research and data that says monogamy amongst gays is rare, and number of sexual partners is high (and that, even where marriage is legal, these marriages tend to be of the “open” variety). So it’s more of a desire for token, symbolic victory than a practical one with an actual need.

My serious question is, don’t state and territory governments have more important things to do than these kinds of stunts when marriage is a federal issue governed by federal laws? Is it really what the taxpayers are paying them for to essentially stage social political protests on behalf of a tiny minority?

Didn’t work for Rudd, and GreensLabor already hold government in Canberra. There are no more votes in this tired issue.

As much as some people will be outraged, I tend to agree. We have long waiting times at hospitals, schools with all sorts of issues, crappy roads and cost of living pressures. Gay marriage is something that effects a small minority, and while thier needs definitely need to be considered, this issue is now at the point of wasting time and resources that could be better spent solving bigger problems.

As was said elsewhere – you’re absolutley right. Opposing it is now wasting time and resources that could be spent solving bigger problems. So why bother opposing it?

What concerns me is that the desire for marriage for most campaigners is completely token. If you take the two gentlemen on the stage for a moment, they don’t really look the monogamous type to me. There’s plenty of research and data that says monogamy amongst gays is rare, and number of sexual partners is high (and that, even where marriage is legal, these marriages tend to be of the “open” variety). So it’s more of a desire for token, symbolic victory than a practical one with an actual need.

My serious question is, don’t state and territory governments have more important things to do than these kinds of stunts when marriage is a federal issue governed by federal laws? Is it really what the taxpayers are paying them for to essentially stage social political protests on behalf of a tiny minority?

I was going to write a long and thought-out response to this, but hey, obvious troll is obvious. Suggest you talk about your “research” to my many gay mates in monogamous long-term relationships and my many straight mates in all kinds of messy relationships… stereotyping yay.

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.

Darkfalz said :

gazket said :

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

What concerns me is that the desire for marriage for most campaigners is completely token. If you take the two gentlemen on the stage for a moment, they don’t really look the monogamous type to me. There’s plenty of research and data that says monogamy amongst gays is rare, and number of sexual partners is high (and that, even where marriage is legal, these marriages tend to be of the “open” variety). So it’s more of a desire for token, symbolic victory than a practical one with an actual need.

My serious question is, don’t state and territory governments have more important things to do than these kinds of stunts when marriage is a federal issue governed by federal laws? Is it really what the taxpayers are paying them for to essentially stage social political protests on behalf of a tiny minority?

Didn’t work for Rudd, and GreensLabor already hold government in Canberra. There are no more votes in this tired issue.

As much as some people will be outraged, I tend to agree. We have long waiting times at hospitals, schools with all sorts of issues, crappy roads and cost of living pressures. Gay marriage is something that effects a small minority, and while thier needs definitely need to be considered, this issue is now at the point of wasting time and resources that could be better spent solving bigger problems.

Darkfalz said :

gazket said :

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

What concerns me is that the desire for marriage for most campaigners is completely token. If you take the two gentlemen on the stage for a moment, they don’t really look the monogamous type to me. There’s plenty of research and data that says monogamy amongst gays is rare, and number of sexual partners is high (and that, even where marriage is legal, these marriages tend to be of the “open” variety). So it’s more of a desire for token, symbolic victory than a practical one with an actual need.

My serious question is, don’t state and territory governments have more important things to do than these kinds of stunts when marriage is a federal issue governed by federal laws? Is it really what the taxpayers are paying them for to essentially stage social political protests on behalf of a tiny minority?

Didn’t work for Rudd, and GreensLabor already hold government in Canberra. There are no more votes in this tired issue.

Its a political stunt as well to oppose it. Those against use absurd arguments as to why it shouldn’t happen. The standard family one is well countered, by the fact that these families exist already. If there are no votes in it, why do they oppose even a conscience vote. Its all fear and paranoia. So simple way to make it go away is to just legislate it and stop been a bunch or paranoid selfish conservatives.

Again, i ask, if the family next door is already a gay couple with children, how does the fact whether they are married or not affect you or anyone else?

gazket said :

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

Happens between Man and Woman too. In fact, its a traditional contraceptive. Conservatives take note.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd6:55 pm 18 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

gazket said :

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

What concerns me is that the desire for marriage for most campaigners is completely token. If you take the two gentlemen on the stage for a moment, they don’t really look the monogamous type to me. There’s plenty of research and data that says monogamy amongst gays is rare, and number of sexual partners is high (and that, even where marriage is legal, these marriages tend to be of the “open” variety). So it’s more of a desire for token, symbolic victory than a practical one with an actual need.

My serious question is, don’t state and territory governments have more important things to do than these kinds of stunts when marriage is a federal issue governed by federal laws? Is it really what the taxpayers are paying them for to essentially stage social political protests on behalf of a tiny minority?

Didn’t work for Rudd, and GreensLabor already hold government in Canberra. There are no more votes in this tired issue.

Do you have sources for any of that drivel?

Also, what does monogamous look like?

IrishPete said :

Diggety said :

Sort of reminds me of the Marrickville councillors trying to implement foreign policy.

Referee!

Perhaps Diggety would like to elaborate, but I saw Marrickville’s plans as no different to Councils having a “no nuclear” policy, or a “buy free range eggs” policy, or policies to avoid buying products from sweatshops. I wasn’t in Oz in the period, but I wonder did Councils pass motions and take actions against the South African regime during the apartheid era?

The objectors to what Marrickville tried to do were mainly pro-Israeli – if a Council, or anyone else, tried to take similar actions against Iran or the Palestinians, they would be supporting it.

Ironically my browser’s spellchecker tried to tell me that Marrickville is meant to be “marriageable”.

IP

Well I’m of the firm belief that the trade of goods and services between two consenting parties is up to those two parties* (apart from extreme circumstances of course). So whichever level of government trying to implement a racist and discriminatory choice on my behalf and without my explicit agreement can go f**k themselves, especially when their primary function consists of tasks such as taking the bins out on time.

Simon’s – and Marrickville’s – proposal is just politicking. The former proposal (noting the scope of Territory governments) I think just further politicises the issue, which I believe is a bad idea when we are at the stage of bringing the issue into an accepted mainstream view.

* Which is one of two reasons I support gay marriage.

Whilst the timing does look like a bit of a political stunt, it IS time to stop treating this issue as a well worn political football. Politicians (and self-important religious figures) should be taken out of the equation by putting it to a national referendum, saving both major parties the embarrassment of having to make a decision. I don’t pretend I am qualified to preach on marriage, having failed once, (in fact, all my siblings and parents have also failed at it) but if any two people are prepared to commit to each other, I extend them best wishes, but then again marriage is an institution and who wants to be committed in an institution?

Here_and_Now6:02 pm 18 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

There’s plenty of research and data that says monogamy amongst gays is rare, and number of sexual partners is high (and that, even where marriage is legal, these marriages tend to be of the “open” variety).

Ah, plenty of research and data. Now we’re getting somewhere. Could you provide particulars and sources for the rest of us? If there are any published peer-reviewed conclusions to go with them, we’d be able to see more of your point illustrated.

(Don’t worry, I know that any research and studies will include their citations and references, so we’ll all be able to delve into how their data was collected and collated, as well as the usual information of sample size, selection nature and wide-range sampling.)

gazket said :

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

What concerns me is that the desire for marriage for most campaigners is completely token. If you take the two gentlemen on the stage for a moment, they don’t really look the monogamous type to me. There’s plenty of research and data that says monogamy amongst gays is rare, and number of sexual partners is high (and that, even where marriage is legal, these marriages tend to be of the “open” variety). So it’s more of a desire for token, symbolic victory than a practical one with an actual need.

My serious question is, don’t state and territory governments have more important things to do than these kinds of stunts when marriage is a federal issue governed by federal laws? Is it really what the taxpayers are paying them for to essentially stage social political protests on behalf of a tiny minority?

Didn’t work for Rudd, and GreensLabor already hold government in Canberra. There are no more votes in this tired issue.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Darkfalz said :

Why didn’t they try this stunt when Rudd/Gillard/Rudd were in power? Oh, because it’s a political stunt to try to whip up hate against the Federal Liberal government for doing what the ALP one would have done too? It’s these short sighted troublemakers that are the reason there is still no federal civil union law, which would most likely pass with ease.

Did you you read the rest of the comments? Posts #10 thru #14 deal with the issue of a same-sex marriage bill indeed having been introduced during the period of Labor Federal Government, as well as changes to legislation making it harder to overturn ACT legislation as well as legal opinions in regards to s51.

So it would seem, that with a change of Government and changes to the mechanics, now is indeed the right time to re-introduce same-sex marriage legislation.

Yes, when the Labor party platform was no. It changed to a conscience vote later (despite Gillard’s own vote of no) and then we had Rudd changing to yes for political purposes.

Here_and_Now5:06 pm 18 Sep 13

gazket said :

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

Well, I’m sure everyone whose hearts were filled with hope for marriage equality instantly saw the error of their ways because someone wrote that ‘exhaust pipe’ thing on the internet.

I had thought I’d be strong in my stand, but then I saw the inspired lack of punctuation and I was turned. Turned, I tell you.

(Parts of this may be less than accurate.)

beardedclam said :

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/bishop-calls-for-a-moratorium-20130917-2txlx.html

I play footy, drink, do illegal stuff, catholic, but not practicing. I grew up in the country with traditional catholic teachings. I have always held the opinion marriage is a catholic church thing and gay people can have a civil union but not call it a marriage because homosexuality is not endorsed by the church so they cant use the term marriage. I always thought the term marriage came from the bible. That seemed fair to me. Until reading this article.
The words of Pat Power, the priest that conducted my first communion years ago,
”I think it is really important to honour homosexual people and to understand that if that is their orientation, that is how God has made them,’…
”If they are expressing their sexuality in a particular way, I don’t know I would want to be too judgmental about that. I think God is often kinder in any judgments that would be made than sometimes other Christians are.” Those words mean alot to me, just relating it to the catholic beliefs and traditions.
I have always thought about how it affects me and what I think. The number one”rule” in church was God is everything and the number one. I have never considered God created people this way because thats how he wanted it.
In that case, to a catholic traditionalist, if God made them that way it must be good. You cant pick and choose when you want to believe God, if you are a catholic he is there all the time and he creates everything for a reason. Catholics are meant to be understanding, not one eyed and choose when to call on God for weight in an argument.
I now believe that gay people should be able to get married if that is what they choose.

Agree, I think everyone should have the equal opportunity of an expensive divorce. As far as the Catholic moral stance, I shall never forget when a (Catholic) mate in SA, was going through the preliminaries of marrying a divorced lady, the Catholic priest gave them both a really hard time. My mate was bitter, but doubly bitter when the same Catholic priest was exposed as a kiddie fiddler.

Ghettosmurf874:23 pm 18 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

Why didn’t they try this stunt when Rudd/Gillard/Rudd were in power? Oh, because it’s a political stunt to try to whip up hate against the Federal Liberal government for doing what the ALP one would have done too? It’s these short sighted troublemakers that are the reason there is still no federal civil union law, which would most likely pass with ease.

Did you you read the rest of the comments? Posts #10 thru #14 deal with the issue of a same-sex marriage bill indeed having been introduced during the period of Labor Federal Government, as well as changes to legislation making it harder to overturn ACT legislation as well as legal opinions in regards to s51.

So it would seem, that with a change of Government and changes to the mechanics, now is indeed the right time to re-introduce same-sex marriage legislation.

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

Why didn’t they try this stunt when Rudd/Gillard/Rudd were in power? Oh, because it’s a political stunt to try to whip up hate against the Federal Liberal government for doing what the ALP one would have done too? It’s these short sighted troublemakers that are the reason there is still no federal civil union law, which would most likely pass with ease.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/bishop-calls-for-a-moratorium-20130917-2txlx.html

I play footy, drink, do illegal stuff, catholic, but not practicing. I grew up in the country with traditional catholic teachings. I have always held the opinion marriage is a catholic church thing and gay people can have a civil union but not call it a marriage because homosexuality is not endorsed by the church so they cant use the term marriage. I always thought the term marriage came from the bible. That seemed fair to me. Until reading this article.
The words of Pat Power, the priest that conducted my first communion years ago,
”I think it is really important to honour homosexual people and to understand that if that is their orientation, that is how God has made them,’…
”If they are expressing their sexuality in a particular way, I don’t know I would want to be too judgmental about that. I think God is often kinder in any judgments that would be made than sometimes other Christians are.” Those words mean alot to me, just relating it to the catholic beliefs and traditions.
I have always thought about how it affects me and what I think. The number one”rule” in church was God is everything and the number one. I have never considered God created people this way because thats how he wanted it.
In that case, to a catholic traditionalist, if God made them that way it must be good. You cant pick and choose when you want to believe God, if you are a catholic he is there all the time and he creates everything for a reason. Catholics are meant to be understanding, not one eyed and choose when to call on God for weight in an argument.
I now believe that gay people should be able to get married if that is what they choose.

Diggety said :

Sort of reminds me of the Marrickville councillors trying to implement foreign policy.

Referee!

Perhaps Diggety would like to elaborate, but I saw Marrickville’s plans as no different to Councils having a “no nuclear” policy, or a “buy free range eggs” policy, or policies to avoid buying products from sweatshops. I wasn’t in Oz in the period, but I wonder did Councils pass motions and take actions against the South African regime during the apartheid era?

The objectors to what Marrickville tried to do were mainly pro-Israeli – if a Council, or anyone else, tried to take similar actions against Iran or the Palestinians, they would be supporting it.

Ironically my browser’s spellchecker tried to tell me that Marrickville is meant to be “marriageable”.

IP

It wouldn’t be such a big issue if they just passed the law in the federal government. There is absolutely no valid reason why it shouldn’t be the case. Several state governments have looked at doing this as well, so its not like it won’t happen.

Me personally, I couldn’t care less if a gay couple gets married or not, but i can’t imagine being in a situation where something is denied to me because of who I am.

Its a just word used to describe two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together.

Sort of reminds me of the Marrickville councillors trying to implement foreign policy.

Mysteryman said :

DrKoresh said :

Roundhead89 said :

. During the six years of the Federal Labor/Greens government the local mob did not attempt to bring in gay marriage once, yet within days of the Liberals taking office we now have this gay marriage proposal.

Um, yes they did, right after K.Rudd was first elected if I’m remembering correctly. The Federal government intervened and overturned the bill though, obviously..

My mistake! You’re right. Rudd overturned one as well.

I thought so, but I wasn’t going to argue. Thanks for double-checking, it’s nice to be vindicated 😀

Roundhead89 said :

It sounds like the local Labor/Greens government is not so much interested in equality but bringing on a scrap with the Tories on the Hill. During the six years of the Federal Labor/Greens government the local mob did not attempt to bring in gay marriage once, yet within days of the Liberals taking office we now have this gay marriage proposal. A lot of people should be feeling very cynical at the moment.

DrKoresh referred to the previous attempt while Labor was in power federally. Of course, since then, two things have changed. One is that for ACT legislation to be disallowed, it must now be struck down in both the House of Reps and the Senate; the Federal Government can no longer do so on its own.

The second is that there have been legal opinions in relation to what the marriage power in section 51 of the Constitution means. For those who don’t know, s51 lists those powers that rest with the Federal Parliament rather than the States, and s51(xxi) says “Marriage”. Those opinions are likely to be relied upon in other jurisdictions too. I haven’t read them, but essentially the argument goes:

Proponent of marriage equality: “We want federal recognition of same-sex relationships as marriage.”
Opponent: “You can’t change the definition of marriage.”
Prop: “So the reference to marriage in the constitution is to opposite-sex marriage?”
Opp: “Yes.”
Prop: “So the constitution says nothing about same-sex marriage?”
Opp: “Definitely not!”
Prop: “So the power to legislate in respect of same-sex marriage has not been given to the Commonwealth in the constitution?”
Opp: “That’s right, it hasn’t.”
Prop: “So, therefore, it must be a power that remains with the States. I’m off to them!”
Opp: “That’s not what I meant…”

Of course, that turns the marriage equality proponent into someone who is now campaigning for same-sex marriage under a different system, and not for marriage equality at all. Winning the argument in the High Court could result in two systems permanently; surely not the result being sought.

DrKoresh said :

Roundhead89 said :

. During the six years of the Federal Labor/Greens government the local mob did not attempt to bring in gay marriage once, yet within days of the Liberals taking office we now have this gay marriage proposal.

Um, yes they did, right after K.Rudd was first elected if I’m remembering correctly. The Federal government intervened and overturned the bill though, obviously..

My mistake! You’re right. Rudd overturned one as well.

DrKoresh said :

Roundhead89 said :

. During the six years of the Federal Labor/Greens government the local mob did not attempt to bring in gay marriage once, yet within days of the Liberals taking office we now have this gay marriage proposal.

Um, yes they did, right after K.Rudd was first elected if I’m remembering correctly. The Federal government intervened and overturned the bill though, obviously..

No, they didn’t. That was the Howard government.

I agree with roundhead89 on this. It’s less a case of the ACT government caring about what its constituency thinks, and more a case of them attempting to cause controversy for the newly elected Liberal federal government. And it’s ridiculously transparent.

Roundhead89 said :

. During the six years of the Federal Labor/Greens government the local mob did not attempt to bring in gay marriage once, yet within days of the Liberals taking office we now have this gay marriage proposal.

Um, yes they did, right after K.Rudd was first elected if I’m remembering correctly. The Federal government intervened and overturned the bill though, obviously..

Here_and_Now12:15 pm 16 Sep 13

Darkfalz said :

Oh, look. “Diversity”. Hooray.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Mysteryman said :

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

Which part of s51 are you talking about?

Relying on the ‘marriage power’ is fraught with danger for anti same sex marriage proponents.

The circus continues.
FYI, the relevant provision in the Self Government Act says:

28 Inconsistency with other laws

(1) A provision of an enactment has no effect to the extent that it is inconsistent with a law defined by subsection (2), but such a provision shall be taken to be consistent with such a law to the extent that it is capable of operating concurrently with that law.

Will this be defended by the ACT Solicitor General, who in his first legal outing turned up to the High Court on the wrong day? See: http://the-riotact.com/high-court-to-act-solicitor-general-why-are-you-here/68353

I better leave this one alone

It sounds like the local Labor/Greens government is not so much interested in equality but bringing on a scrap with the Tories on the Hill. During the six years of the Federal Labor/Greens government the local mob did not attempt to bring in gay marriage once, yet within days of the Liberals taking office we now have this gay marriage proposal. A lot of people should be feeling very cynical at the moment.

Nice socks…

Well, Canberrans all over town will be rejoicing now that their lives have been symbolically improved as Barr and the bureaucrats who support him continue to draw their comfortable salaries. How much did this gesture cost in time and effort, courtesy of ratepayers?

These people need to get their noses out of people’s bedrooms and back into those oh-so-suburban and beige issues that matter to ordinary punters.

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

Oh, look. “Diversity”. Hooray.

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.