Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

1 May 2018: Daily flights Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Well that didn’t take long. Challenge to Gay Marriage kicks off tomorrow

By johnboy - 24 October 2013 71

The Christian Lobby is celebrating the swift turning wheels of reactionary justice as the High Court takes a directions hearing three days after the ACT Legislative Assembly passed Gay Marriage laws:

The High Court hearing into the ACT’s Marriage Equality Same-Sex Bill is expected to begin tomorrow after the Commonwealth lodged a writ of summons in the High Court challenging the law. The federal government says the bill is inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act and the Family Law Act. It’s requested the High Court to expedite a hearing into the legislation.

ABC News is reporting a judge has listed the matter for hearing tomorrow afternoon. Earlier today The Canberra Times reported on the writ, which includes a proposed timeline for the matter to be heard. It sets out a one or two day hearing of the full court as early as November 26.

“The Commonwealth contends that the proceeding should be heard at the earliest possible date, to reduce or avoid the uncertainty that will hang over the validity of the ACT Marriage ACT,” the writ says. “That uncertainty is exacerbated to the extent that persons may wish to enter into marriages under the ACT Marriage Act before its validity is determined.”

The ACT’s Chief Minister Katy Gallagher and Attorney-General Simon Corbell continue to defend the ACT bill saying it has a high chance of surviving. Legal advice prepared for the ACL suggests the bill is inconsistent with the constitution.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
71 Responses to
Well that didn’t take long. Challenge to Gay Marriage kicks off tomorrow
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Masquara 1:15 pm 04 Nov 13

Isn’t Abbott (cleverly) using Turnbull to shepherd through a conscience vote some time during this term of government? Now that anti-marriage-equality Julia Gillard is out of parliament, I think the legislation stands a much better chance.

Robertson 12:15 pm 04 Nov 13

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/orthodox-rabbi-declares-ban-on-soy-as-it-makes-students-gay/story-fni0xs63-1226751197358

“In the Hebrew religious news website BaOlam Shel Haredim the Israel-based Gur Hasidic sect rabbi Abraham Benjamin Silberberg yesterday declared eating soy-based products would lead to “gay sexual activity” and that even a once-a-week dose would “cause unwanted arousal”.”

c_c™ 3:51 pm 26 Oct 13

So I was going to keep to the legal side of the argument because a) I have no personal interest in the topic, so law is the only thing I really feel able to speak about on it, and b) because the moral arguments always go no where.

But inevitably morality and religion are where this thread has ended up. And it’s worth noting three things about what can be observed of some contributors to this thread:

1. They have a rose coloured view of traditional marriage and societal norms to the point of being delusional. Religion is a terrible moral guide, and it has often been at the heart of conflict and harm to humanity.

2. They also have a distorted view of STI rates in the community, for while there has always been a skew towards HIV in the homosexual community, that can largely be explained by scientific reasons rather than behavioural reasons. On the other hand, rates of STIs such as chlamydia are rising significantly, mainly in heterosexuals in their 40s and later and in younger people, owing to increased risk taking behaviours and lack of awareness.

3. Some people have jack all knowledge of legal history, for the institution of marriage has long changed over time. Women once lacked separate legal personality once they were married, and divorce was once unheard of and often not available at all. Courts and law reform have changed that, arguably eroding the institution of marriage more so than anything proposed now, but doing so rightfully for the previous conception of marriage subjugated women and made them property, not equals.

Deref 1:52 pm 26 Oct 13

gooterz said :

By the same logic what does marriage give same sex couples that laws don’t already do?

The same basic human rights that you (assuming that you’re heterosexual) and I have?

Of course I’m extrapolating from such past examples as giving women and Aborigines the vote and allowing black and white people to marry. But I suppose you’re opposed to them, too.

Minz 11:13 am 26 Oct 13

gooterz said :

what does marriage give same sex couples that laws don’t already do?

It makes a statement that the government believes that homosexual people are not a lower class than heterosexual people. As you said, it’s only a statement, but it does give the government an important opportunity to provide leadership rather than the usual followership. Exciting, no?

Minz 11:11 am 26 Oct 13

Darkfalz said :

Minz said :

Further, please do not include any “oh, won’t somebody think of the children?!?” responses. There has been significant research into the topic, and it shows that the kids are just fine

Thanks for telling me what examples I am allowed to include or not, but no. Most promoted studies are cherry picked families from gay literature. The study by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas is probably the most exhaustive and objective, and found that kids were worse off in a wide range of areas. You don’t need a study or statistics to know that in every single instance where a gay couple is raising kids, the kids are missing at least one of their biological parents in their household, and influence from at least one gender. Ignoring any other factors, that in itself is significant.

Legalising marriage is a bit like the legal sale of tobacco. If someone wanted to bring tobacco on the market today, it would never be allowed. But because it’s out there, and people are using , we can’t repeal its sale, not without a large number of people feeling very hard done by. This is why it’s a very serious change and why legislation which is essentially about trying to score political points on their federal opponents is a disgrace.

Have you actually read Regnerus’ study? Had you done so, you likely would’ve noticed that it doesn’t apply to the argument here. Why? Well, his study and conclusions simply don’t relate to this question! Regnerus looked at the adult outcomes of children whose parents had one or more homosexual relationships, not children of homosexual parents in long-term relationships, which what we’re talking about with gay marriage. He didn’t separate these two things or even acknowledge that they are different.

Regnerus also failed to control his outcomes for family socioeconomic status, which is strongly associated with all of the adverse outcomes in children that he described. As such, his results would have to be considered with a very large amount of caution even if they were related to the question of interest! In fact, given that this is such a large omission, characterising Regnerus’ study as either “objective” or “exhaustive” is simply incorrect. He either does not understand his subject area, or he is biased.

So, as I say, you need to be careful in what studies you use – there is a heck of a lot of very poor scholarship out there on this topic!!

Aeek 12:02 am 26 Oct 13
gooterz 11:37 pm 25 Oct 13

Deref said :

ScienceRules said :

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Refresh our memory. Just dot point form will do nicely. Remember, you’re answering the question “How does the implementation of marriage equality actually, measurably and negatively effect my marriage?”

Have at it!

🙂 Yes – please. I look forward to it.

By the same logic what does marriage give same sex couples that laws don’t already do?

Sam sex marriage is a statement about same sex relationships, most see this as an end to same sex discrimination but it won’t.

CraigT 7:35 pm 25 Oct 13

Darkfalz said :

I’m also of the firm belief that if we can hold out for another decade or so, and we see the impacts on other countries and the statistics behind gay marriage, parenting etc. the fad will pass.

Exactly, now that all the paedophiles are being outed instead of protected and so are no longer able to provide new recruits, within a generation homosexuality should pretty much fade away and we will no longer have to listen to this demented nonsense about men getting married to men.

milkman 6:51 pm 25 Oct 13

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

Darkfalz said :

Dilandach said :

No one has *ever* answered the question “How does someone getting married to the same sex that you have no connection to at all in the ACT impact you any more than someone getting married to the same sex in Europe, NZ or the US?” An actual tangible impact. You can be the first, take the challenge and answer it.

A common fallacy. Plenty of people have answered that question, including me. Whether you like or accept the answers are however not up to me.

Well you’ll have no trouble copy and pasting your response then. Remember, ‘actual tangible impact’ and why overseas gay marriage hasn’t had a supposed tangible impact on you, marriages and society.

😉

There are plenty of case studies about the impacts gay marriage has had on places like Canada and states like Massachusetts. It didn’t end at gay marriage for those places – it was followed up by more and more homosexual propaganda being introduced into school curriculum as well as legal challenges to churches and the like. You can’t stop activists being activists by giving them what they claim to want, because they’ll just move on to something more extreme.

It boils down to the kind of society you want to live in and you want your children to grow up in. Families are, after all, the basis of society. I prefer predictability and structure and I believe children benefit from that. Having a mum and a dad. The hedonistic “anything goes” approach typified by gay marriage puts all of the emphasis on the desires of adults, not the needs of children or the cohesion of community and society at large. And I think kids should learn about it when they are ready to deal with such subjects (ie. late teens) and not by having propaganda rammed down their throats in primary school. School is no place to be promoting the gay agenda under the auspices of “tolerance”.

There’s no legal benefit to marriage. Virtually all rights and responsibilities given by marriage apply equally to de-facto domestic partners, including homosexual ones. Marriage is a structure set up on the basis of (ostensibly) guaranteeing stability to children by two adults signifying an intention to stay together.

There’s a reason, for example, AIDS spread like wildfire through the gay community when it first reared its head, and why infection rates are still higher in the gay community. Every single study on sexuality has found that promiscuity is the norm for homosexuals. Fidelity is virtually unknown in the gay community and is in many instances openly ridiculed.

Gay marriage is therefore entirely political. There’s significant evidence that the majority of gay marriages, even where they are legal, are not faithful, and most are in fact entirely “open” marriages.

Fundamentally changing the institution of marriage, the roles and importance of parents, and the concept of family is not something we should enter into just because one vocal minority group wants to claim victory over these things (and many will, amongst themselves, admit that this is what it’s all about – Masha Gessen for example).

I can, and have, write paragraph after paragraph on the subject. People can believe what they want to believe and I object to the name calling and hyperbole from both sides of the argument. This is real world, practical stuff that impacts the society my kids will grow up in and worth fighting for.

I don’t agree with all of this, but this is a well written response, and represents much better thinking than most of what we’ve seen here from the ‘waaaah yor a biggot’ crowd.

c_c™ 6:22 pm 25 Oct 13

gooterz said :

Religion gives marriage its power…

Which religion is that? The one that says a rapist is obliged to marry their victim? The one that says divorce isn’t allowed? The one set up by the guy who liked chopping women’s heads off because he actually wanted to be able to divorce? The one that defines women as the property of the husband and to not be seen by mean other than their husband?

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