7 November 2013

The Gay Marriage registrars unveiled!

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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.

Join the conversation

20
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest
Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd7:39 pm 08 Nov 13

thebrownstreak69 said :

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!

It’s not a insult if its a fact.

Pork Hunt said :

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…

Never a truer word was spoken Porker. The debate is full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing. I doubt if anybody on either side of the issue ever has or ever will change their minds about it. However, it appears that most people support the idea so lets just do it and get on with things.

ScienceRules2:12 pm 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.

Uh, no – it’s being a religious fundamentalist that has convinced you to have no sympathy (or compassion, or belief that minorities deserve basic human rights, etc) for anyone outside your narrow little tribe of god-botherers.

Robertson said :

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.

Keep piling it on. This approach will not win you any friends.

Lol.

You’re obviously never going to change your mind. And why should I bother to try?

If I can’t poke fun at reactionary conservatives living on the wrong side of history, then we might as well turn the internet off here and now.

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.

Keep piling it on. This approach will not win you any friends.

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?

thebrownstreak6912:11 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!

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.

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?

CrocodileGandhi11:25 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.

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.

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.

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

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…

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_Bun7:40 pm 07 Nov 13

I like the threesome of Tart, Roughley and Nourse.

Queen_of_the_Bun7:38 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.

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

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.

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.

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.