Jump to content
AccessDenied

Gay Marriage.

Recommended Posts

For someone that champions a free market with little-to-no government intervention, you're surprisingly willing to have the government sticking its nose between people's legs.

Actually he's willing to have God stick its nose between people's legs, not the government.

 

Yeah, using the force of law as his corporeal implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To quote an old joke: '[fajw] is someone who wants the government to be just small enough to fit into the bedroom.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fajw, are you expressing your own personal convictions, or what you want/expect the Govt to uphold via the law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-12/same...ermined/5153378

 

"But today, the High Court in Canberra ruled that only the federal Parliament has the power to make marriage laws, declaring the ACT's same-sex marriage law invalid."

Its a shame it got knocked back, going to weddings is fun and a whole lot of people are missing out on a good party.

 

The High Court had no choice or wiggle room here. This was always about state law versus federal law and not at all about gay marriage. The ACT even had legal advice telling them not to proceed because this is exactly what would happen. IMO they unfairly built up the hopes of those gay couples.

 

On the positive side it keeps gay rights in the public arena, though it's done at the expense of the gay couples who went ahead with their marriage.

 

Yep, the High Court couldn't have ruled otherwise really.

They ruled (if I understand it correctly) that the Federal and State laws were incompatible. They weren't ruling on whether the Federal law was fair, on whether it was legal, or whether the federal government can claim that their law CAN be applied to the states over the top of the state law. None of those were the topics of the court action.

 

I don't believe the ACT built up hopes. I think the thirty or so couples that married knew what was going to happen. It was entirely political. In my experience, it simply fuels the feeling that the Federal laws are out of touch with the community standards of the majority of constituents. If Abbott thought there was a chance they could with a plebiscite, they'd have put one up under Howard to nip this in the bud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-12/same...ermined/5153378

 

"But today, the High Court in Canberra ruled that only the federal Parliament has the power to make marriage laws, declaring the ACT's same-sex marriage law invalid."

Its a shame it got knocked back, going to weddings is fun and a whole lot of people are missing out on a good party.

 

The High Court had no choice or wiggle room here. This was always about state law versus federal law and not at all about gay marriage. The ACT even had legal advice telling them not to proceed because this is exactly what would happen. IMO they unfairly built up the hopes of those gay couples.

 

On the positive side it keeps gay rights in the public arena, though it's done at the expense of the gay couples who went ahead with their marriage.

 

Yep, the High Court couldn't have ruled otherwise really.

They ruled (if I understand it correctly) that the Federal and State laws were incompatible. They weren't ruling on whether the Federal law was fair, on whether it was legal, or whether the federal government can claim that their law CAN be applied to the states over the top of the state law. None of those were the topics of the court action.

 

I don't believe the ACT built up hopes. I think the thirty or so couples that married knew what was going to happen. It was entirely political. In my experience, it simply fuels the feeling that the Federal laws are out of touch with the community standards of the majority of constituents. If Abbott thought there was a chance they could with a plebiscite, they'd have put one up under Howard to nip this in the bud.

 

First off, I Am Not A Lawyer. If you're planning on challenging any marriage laws (in either direction), consult a real lawyer, not an internet message board.

 

You're pretty much right TinBane, except for the applicability to the various States. The Cth can make laws regarding the various things listed in s51 of the Constitution. One of those powers is "s51(xxi): Marriage." Under s109, Cth legislation trumps State legislation*. So if a State tried to pull the same stunt (basically, redefine Marriage as between two people of the same sex, recreate the provisions that apply federally to straight marriages, then claim that it's not inconsistent because you could apply either system as appropriate), they would receive the same judicial beatdown. Any State law that tries to redefine "marriage" is likely to fall afoul of this.

 

*The relevant provision for a territory is elsewhere, but that's besides the point for applicability to the States.

 

You are correct that legally, there was no other possible outcome, though.

 

As to building up hopes, I agree. I'd be VERY surprised if any of the people who got married didn't know that it was a stunt and was unlikely to be upheld.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well, so the general consensus could be that it keeps the cogs greased and the wheels of the various courts turning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if they could just change the Commonwealth Marriage Act to allow some small measure of devolved definition or additional definitions to the States and Territories. Abbott gets to keep his old fashioned sensibilities while letting the States have a small measure of leeway. If the majority/all decide to enable same sex marriage options, then it could be rolled up Federally again and the States wear all of the religious voting bloc risk, rather than the Commonwealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if they could just change the Commonwealth Marriage Act to allow some small measure of devolved definition or additional definitions to the States and Territories. Abbott gets to keep his old fashioned sensibilities while letting the States have a small measure of leeway. If the majority/all decide to enable same sex marriage options, then it could be rolled up Federally again and the States wear all of the religious voting bloc risk, rather than the Commonwealth.

 

Or just broaden the terms of the existing de facto legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want the Government meddling in a dozen amended laws, rather than just one, then sure, I guess you can trust them to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if they could just change the Commonwealth Marriage Act to allow some small measure of devolved definition or additional definitions to the States and Territories. Abbott gets to keep his old fashioned sensibilities while letting the States have a small measure of leeway. If the majority/all decide to enable same sex marriage options, then it could be rolled up Federally again and the States wear all of the religious voting bloc risk, rather than the Commonwealth.

 

Or just broaden the terms of the existing de facto legislation.

 

Just so long as they're ( the same sex couples ) not allowed the same deal as you hey Director ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One good thing (for gay couples) which came out of the decision was the finding by the majority that the Federal Government does have the power to legislate for gay marriage - i.e. extend the current definition of marriage to include gay couples. This was seemingly to head off any challenge brought by religious groups in future on the grounds that the constitution only provided powers with respect to marriage as it was understood at Federation.

 

"The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable. Section 51(xxi) is not to be construed as conferring legislative power on the federal Parliament with respect only to the status of marriage, the institution reflected in that status, or the rights and obligations attached to it, as they stood at federation."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×