Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

The Gay Marriage registrars unveiled!

By johnboy - 7 November 2013 20

If you’re looking to get gay married the Office of Regulatory Services has released a register of “Marriage Equality Authorised Celebrants”.

Particularly exciting is 007 Gail Nagel, but you’d think No 42 jas got it all figured out.

Big Bang Theory fans will be saddened to hear there’s no 73, it only goes up to 66.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
20 Responses to
The Gay Marriage registrars unveiled!
chewy14 12:15 pm 08 Nov 13

Roundhead89 said :

With the High Court odds-on to throw it out before the first wedding takes place, all I can say to the celebrants is don’t give up your day job.

What if their day job is marriage celebrant?

thebrownstreak69 12:11 pm 08 Nov 13

Jim Jones said :

Robertson said :

It’s nonsense like this (and also the fact that I’m an utter c$ck) that has convinced me to have no sympathy for the homosexual marriage lobby.

Insults! Good work, that will change his mind!

Jim Jones 11:36 am 08 Nov 13

Robertson said :

It’s nonsense like this (and also the fact that I’m an utter c$ck) that has convinced me to have no sympathy for the homosexual marriage lobby.

dtc 11:28 am 08 Nov 13

Robertson said :

Pork Hunt said :

Just give it to them. It’s no different than women or blacks getting the vote ffs…

WTF? Access to marriage bears no relation whatsoever to our democratic right to vote. Nobody needs to be married.

It’s nonsense like this (and “marriage equality) that has convinced me to have no sympathy for the homosexual marriage lobby.

Democractic right to vote? Where does that right come from? I guess the right to allow everyone to be treated equally when it comes to elections?

CrocodileGandhi 11:25 am 08 Nov 13

Robertson said :

Pork Hunt said :

Just give it to them. It’s no different than women or blacks getting the vote ffs…

WTF? Access to marriage bears no relation whatsoever to our democratic right to vote. Nobody needs to be married.

It’s nonsense like this (and “marriage equality) that has convinced me to have no sympathy for the homosexual marriage lobby.

Then I assume you would have been fine with the anti-miscegenation laws in the USA which until 1967 allowed states to prohibit interracial marriage?

Granted, nobody “needs” to be married. However, seeing as we do allow one set of people to get married, it makes little sense to deny another set of people from getting married when there isn’t a single good reason to deny them from doing so.

Robertson 10:20 am 08 Nov 13

Pork Hunt said :

Just give it to them. It’s no different than women or blacks getting the vote ffs…

WTF? Access to marriage bears no relation whatsoever to our democratic right to vote. Nobody needs to be married.

It’s nonsense like this (and “marriage equality) that has convinced me to have no sympathy for the homosexual marriage lobby.

DrKoresh 11:21 pm 07 Nov 13

Roundhead89 said :

With the High Court odds-on to throw it out before the first wedding takes place, all I can say to the celebrants is don’t give up your day job.

I don’t think it’s going to go quite the way you’re hoping it will, all I can say to you is don’t quit your bitching.

watto23 9:14 pm 07 Nov 13

Roundhead89 said :

With the High Court odds-on to throw it out before the first wedding takes place, all I can say to the celebrants is don’t give up your day job.

Odds on… I’ve not heard or read one constitutional lawyer say that. I have heard many say the result will likely overturn the law, but pave the way for a constitutionally consistent law to be introduced by the ACTLA

Pork Hunt 8:00 pm 07 Nov 13

Roundhead89 said :

With the High Court odds-on to throw it out before the first wedding takes place, all I can say to the celebrants is don’t give up your day job.

I hope the High Court does not throw it out, otherwise I will will have to put with this s*** for the rest of my miserable life. Just give it to them. It’s no different than women or blacks getting the vote ffs…

Roundhead89 7:43 pm 07 Nov 13

With the High Court odds-on to throw it out before the first wedding takes place, all I can say to the celebrants is don’t give up your day job.

Queen_of_the_Bun 7:40 pm 07 Nov 13

I like the threesome of Tart, Roughley and Nourse.

Queen_of_the_Bun 7:38 pm 07 Nov 13

Pork Hunt said :

Sorry JB but I can’t fathom what is so significant about 007 or 42. Please enlighten.

Popular culture references. 007 = James Bond. 42 = the meaning of life in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Gallery.

Pork Hunt 6:33 pm 07 Nov 13

Sorry JB but I can’t fathom what is so significant about 007 or 42. Please enlighten.

bigfeet 6:14 pm 07 Nov 13

I’m surprised that quite a few of these seem to based outside the ACT.

I assumed that the actual ceremony with the celebrant officiating would have to take place in the Territory for it to be covered under this Act.

watto23 5:51 pm 07 Nov 13

Wow there are so many there, they must have been forced to join the list. Apparently that is what will happen according to those against this law.

Looks like a few interstate ones willing to visit the ACT to do a gay marriage or 2.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site