Australia court bans gay marriage

[webfact]

Australia high court overturns ACT gay marriage law

Australia's High Court has overturned legislation allowing gay marriage in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

The ACT parliament passed a bill in October making the territory the first part of Australia to legalise same-sex weddings.

But the national government challenged the decision, saying it was inconsistent with federal laws.

Some 27 couples who married since the law came into effect last weekend will now have their unions declared invalid.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25344219


-- BBC 2013-12-12

[Scott]

2 steps forward, one step back.

[BeforeTigers]

Childish, superstitious, cowardly, immature fascists.
aka: People that spend any time at all worrying about what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room.

[OZEMADE]

Why do they have to get married, can't they live in a defacto relationship, or just live together.

The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship is that it would still not be recognised in the eyes of the law.

In other words if you say on a legal document that you are in a defacto relationship with a same sex partner, ie a stat dec.

I dont believe it would be recognised, if they don't recognise the marrige as of the courts decision.

[Jingthing]

Why does anyone need to get married?

It's a choice.

Available for heterosexuals.

Not available for homosexuals.

The better moral path is EQUALITY of choice.

[bangkokheat]

oz is becoming a communistic country, get out while you can

[Torrens54]

Oh, how positively DWEDFULL!!! This will cause a bit of flouncing about and finger pointing....reckon all those who "tied the knot" will have to Live In Sin while someone gets the Oz High Court to play ball.

[Suradit69]

Why do they have to get married, can't they live in a defacto relationship, or just live together.

The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship is that it would still not be recognised in the eyes of the law.

In other words if you say on a legal document that you are in a defacto relationship with a same sex partner, ie a stat dec.

I dont believe it would be recognised, if they don't recognise the marrige as of the courts decision.

Because in most places there are a host of rights that are assumed in marriage and not in de facto relationships. Rights regarding visitation and decision making in hospitals when one partner is seriously ill. Rights regarding inheritance and property jointly owned. And quite often tax considerations given couples that are legally married but denied de facto partnerships. And even the rights associated with divorce that a de facto relationship would not guarantee.

As JT says, if the option is available to breeders, why is it denied to others?

Oh, how positively DWEDFULL!!! This will cause a bit of flouncing about and finger pointing....reckon all those who "tied the knot" will have to Live In Sin while someone gets the Oz High Court to play ball.

"This will cause a bit of flouncing about and finger pointing ..."

Not to mention a bit of moronic drooling and pavement-scraped knuckles amongst the open-mouth-breathers.

[Dr Robert]

This is an utterly dreadful decision by the high court, albeit inevitable given the point of law it was challenged on. I see this as a wonderful opportunity that has been squandered. This is not an issue about sexuality. It is about the right to equality for all people under the law. I feel very sad that people in here would gloat or take the opportunity to express wanton hatred. We all deserve better.

[squarethecircle]

Why does anyone need to get married?

It's a choice.

Available for heterosexuals.

Not available for homosexuals.

The better moral path is EQUALITY of choice.

My opinion:

Both sides should compromise on civil unions. Same sex couples get legal recognition and benefits, the religionists and traditionalists keep their sanctity of marriage.

[BeforeTigers]

Why does anyone need to get married?

It's a choice.

Available for heterosexuals.

Not available for homosexuals.

The better moral path is EQUALITY of choice.

My opinion:

Both sides should compromise on civil unions. Same sex couples get legal recognition and benefits, the religionists and traditionalists keep their sanctity of marriage.

Ah yes, separate but equal.

Now where have I heard that before?

[falangadang]

oz is becoming a communistic country, get out while you can

Correction on the "becoming" part there cobber!

Seriously though,... its more like a fascist police state than a communist state!

[Jingthing]

Why does anyone need to get married?

It's a choice.

Available for heterosexuals.

Not available for homosexuals.

The better moral path is EQUALITY of choice.

My opinion:

Both sides should compromise on civil unions. Same sex couples get legal recognition and benefits, the religionists and traditionalists keep their sanctity of marriage.

Ah yes, separate but equal.

Now where have I heard that before?

Separate isn't always equal.

So there are different levels:

Separate with fewer rights

Separate but the same rights but still ... separate

FULL equality, exact same choices

[stoffel45]

2 steps forward, one step back.

More often than not - it is good to take a step back when you are on the brink of a chasm.

Well done the Aussies.

[Jingthing]

2 steps forward, one step back.

More often than not - it is good to take a step back when you are on the brink of a chasm.

Well done the Aussies.

Yes it is well known that when a tiny percentage of people in a country who happen to be an unpopular minority marries -- massive floods, volcanoes, and earthquakes inevitably follow.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Jingthing

[sustento]

2 steps forward, one step back.

More often than not - it is good to take a step back when you are on the brink of a chasm.

Well done the Aussies.

[pacovl46]

Why do they have to get married, can't they live in a defacto relationship, or just live together.

The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship is that it would still not be recognised in the eyes of the law.

In other words if you say on a legal document that you are in a defacto relationship with a same sex partner, ie a stat dec.

I dont believe it would be recognised, if they don't recognise the marrige as of the courts decision.

"Why do they have to get married?"

Hm, let's see. They're probably in love with each other and came to the conclusion that it's time to tie the knot. Heterosexuals have the human right to get married and since homosexuals are just as much human as heterosexuals, they should have the right to get married, too. Who are we to say who's allowed to tie the knot and who isn't?! And who are we to impose such fundamental decisions on them? No one should have that right!!! I think this decision is absolutely pathetic!!!

[alyx]

2 steps forward, one step back.

Unfortunately, One step forward and TWO steps backward

[Jingthing]

They could learn a thing or two from New Zealand.

[sangfroid]

oz is becoming a communistic country, get out while you can

It is and I did!!

[GrantSmith]

2 steps forward, one step back.

'Cos opposites attract, isn't that what the great Paula Abdul sang

Unfortunately, the Court can only rule on the law.

Tasmania's still got their bit of legislation which only failed at the upper house level, but it seems the ACT was always going to fail in the High Court as the legislation was based on the federal legislation that had been shutdown last year. Thus giving the High Court precedent.

Tassie's version is apparently different. Given they are a state and not a territory the legislation doesn't follow the federal version and thus precedent is not set.

So all is not lost...

[LeCharivari]

Why do they have to get married, can't they live in a defacto relationship, or just live together.

The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship is that it would still not be recognised in the eyes of the law.

In other words if you say on a legal document that you are in a defacto relationship with a same sex partner, ie a stat dec.

I dont believe it would be recognised, if they don't recognise the marrige as of the courts decision.

Incorrect.

In Oz a gay "defacto relationship" IS "recognised in the eyes of the law" for virtually all the same rights as marriage: immigration, adoption, pensions, etc, etc.

"The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship", at least for gays who want to formalise their relationship, is that it isn't a marriage.

[LeCharivari]

Why do they have to get married, can't they live in a defacto relationship, or just live together.

The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship is that it would still not be recognised in the eyes of the law.

In other words if you say on a legal document that you are in a defacto relationship with a same sex partner, ie a stat dec.

I dont believe it would be recognised, if they don't recognise the marrige as of the courts decision.

Because in most places there are a host of rights that are assumed in marriage and not in de facto relationships. Rights regarding visitation and decision making in hospitals when one partner is seriously ill. Rights regarding inheritance and property jointly owned. And quite often tax considerations given couples that are legally married but denied de facto partnerships. And even the rights associated with divorce that a de facto relationship would not guarantee.

As JT says, if the option is available to breeders, why is it denied to others?

Oh, how positively DWEDFULL!!! This will cause a bit of flouncing about and finger pointing....reckon all those who "tied the knot" will have to Live In Sin while someone gets the Oz High Court to play ball.

"This will cause a bit of flouncing about and finger pointing ..."

Not to mention a bit of moronic drooling and pavement-scraped knuckles amongst the open-mouth-breathers.

As pointed out above, Oz isn't "most places". We've already got that "host of rights". What Oz gays want is to have our right to them recognized.

[Jingthing]

Why do they have to get married, can't they live in a defacto relationship, or just live together.

The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship is that it would still not be recognised in the eyes of the law.

In other words if you say on a legal document that you are in a defacto relationship with a same sex partner, ie a stat dec.

I dont believe it would be recognised, if they don't recognise the marrige as of the courts decision.

Incorrect.

In Oz a gay "defacto relationship" IS "recognised in the eyes of the law" for virtually all the same rights as marriage: immigration, adoption, pensions, etc, etc.

"The only thing wrong with a defacto relationship", at least for gays who want to formalise their relationship, is that it isn't a marriage.

Not fully equal. Almost there. I can see there is less urgency for a change to marriage in Australia because they do already have ALMOST equality. This is completely different than the situation of the U.S., where anything other than marriage is atrociously unequal.

Such reforms however, do not completely equalise treatment for same-sex couples, who for instance, do not have the same rights and entitlements as married heterosexual couples do with respect to workers' compensation death benefits, pensions for the partners of Defence Force veterans and access to carer's leave.^[5] Despite large equality of rights, Australia does not have a national registered partnership, civil union or same-sex relationship scheme.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia

[LeCharivari]

2 steps forward, one step back.

'Cos opposites attract, isn't that what the great Paula Abdul sang

Unfortunately, the Court can only rule on the law.

Tasmania's still got their bit of legislation which only failed at the upper house level, but it seems the ACT was always going to fail in the High Court as the legislation was based on the federal legislation that had been shutdown last year. Thus giving the High Court precedent.

Tassie's version is apparently different. Given they are a state and not a territory the legislation doesn't follow the federal version and thus precedent is not set.

So all is not lost...

Agreed.

The thread title is incorrect: the Court didn't "ban gay marriage" - they deemed the ACT law contrary to Federal legislation, which it obviously was. It looked doomed from the start ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/647961-australian-senate-vote-to-not-recognise-overseas-gay-marriages/ ).

The Tassie law (or any others) could be treated differently, but it looks unlikely and as if a Federal solution/vote is going to be needed - correctly in my view. What the ACT law and its overturning has done is make this more of an issue, and put pressure on there being a Federal vote on it.

[GrantSmith]

Agreed.

The thread title is incorrect: the Court didn't "ban gay marriage" - they deemed the ACT law contrary to Federal legislation, which it obviously was. It looked doomed from the start ( http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/647961-australian-senate-vote-to-not-recognise-overseas-gay-marriages/ ).

The Tassie law (or any others) could be treated differently, but it looks unlikely and as if a Federal solution/vote is going to be needed - correctly in my view. What the ACT law and its overturning has done is make this more of an issue, and put pressure on there being a Federal vote on it.

Indeed it is a bit misleading, but nevertheless, those are the rules etc...

The ACT and NT will always find it hard to pass groundbreaking legislation especially if there's a federal precedent. Which is where the 'States' have the advantage...

The ruling sort of makes it an issue due in part that the capital of the ACT being the capital of Australia...

It's not going to come up in the federal parliament for the foreseeable future given who's in charge, unless he has a massive change of heart...

The tassie law will be treated differently as would similar legislation from the other 5 states. An attempt from the NT to do the same, would have the same fate as it's ACT sibling...

I think SA is the only other state that isn't coalition aligned currently - but they're a largely rigidly conservative state no matter the political affiliation - that could attempt legislation on the matter - so it probably would be a tough sell.

Ironically, Victoria's a bit of a swinger, so it might not be too long (next year perhaps) that the government might change, which would then give it bigger momentum. NSW has a few more decades to go before a change of government would see it as being a viable option that and Fred Nile's surely on his last legs...

It will happen, the same as any other awkward constitutional changes occurred (rights of women to vote, aboriginal people entitled to vote, mabo etc). Right time, right place and all that...

Edited December 12, 2013 by GrantSmith

[KuhnPaen]

Personally, I think we should just ban marriage altogether. It has proven to be a sham time and time again. I speak out of bitter failure and envy of the few success stories I have ever seen--namely couples that were codependent and their "secret" to living together for 30 years, was the occasional affair and/or not talking to each other.

How many hetero women marry men for their money? Or marry men on their death bed to steal their kids inheritance (Anna Nicole Smith), or stay on the payroll just long enough like a jaded cop waiting for their pension so they can file for divorce after hitting the 10 year mark so they can take half the guys/girls stuff? Don't even get me started on fake marriages for immigration, or in the military so they can get better pay.

Yeah, marriage, it's truly a "sacred institution". I can see why they want to keep gays from marrying.

Besides, their might be an invasion of ladyboys into the Western world if all the punters start bringing them home on fiance visas.

--rant over--

*going to go Skype with my future ex-wife now*

.

[Jingthing]

Marriage is what it is, good, bad, and indifferent. The global gay civil rights movement for marriage equality is about equal civil rights and the SAME CHOICES for gay people and not necessarily an endorsement that everyone should actually be getting married.

[F4UCorsair]

Childish, superstitious, cowardly, immature fascists.

aka: People that spend any time at all worrying about what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room.

You've missed the point entirely.

It's not a matter of 'what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room'.......that's just homosexuality, something to which I'm not opposed, not for me, but I don't deny others the right to do what they choose.

What is happening here is an attempt to change the law to permit same sex marriage, and currently the law states that marriage is between a man and a woman, not another man who thinks he is/pretends to be a woman.

I was listening to a gay on talkback radio yesterday, and he said it was his legal right to marry his bf, so that means I lave a legal right to kill somebody or rob a bank?? Marriage between same sexes is STILL ILLEGAL!!!

Currently the law DOES NOT permit same sex marriage, and in a democracy, that change must be legislated. The process has been subject of rigorous debate, or as is the current politicians cliche, robust debate, and it's failed the get over the hurdle. No doubt that gays will continue the fight.

I see it as point scoring by a minority group. They can have civil unions, and all the rights that go with that, defacto unions, or just plain live together, have kids through surrogate mothers, but they want to push a point that I see as achieving very little.

We've seen this point scoring by other minority groups over the years, such as the disabled. I don't think anybody would deny the disabled a bit of extra help, but for the movement to suggest that EVERY retail outlet should have a ramp so they can access the premises is a bit silly, yet that's what's happening. I've seen small business owners say they don't want to spend three grand on a ramp, and then widen the aisles in their shop for wheelchair access, in the off chance that they may recover some of it from disabled people. They'd prefer to forego that tiny volume of business and not make the changes.

Jingthing, my observation is that they currently have the same rights through mechanisms such as those above, just not the name 'marriage'.

The problem with minority groups is that they have a small win, they want more, and they then feel they can start dictating the terms to the bulk of the population. All these groups have a leader/spokesperson, and he/she's usually running an agenda, and seeking his/her 15 minutes of fame, basking in the limelight.

We haven't seen the backside of this issue yet. Is there a pun in there??

Edited December 12, 2013 by F4UCorsair

[sustento]

Childish, superstitious, cowardly, immature fascists.

aka: People that spend any time at all worrying about what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room.

You've missed the point entirely.

It's not a matter of 'what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room'.......that's just homosexuality, something to which I'm not opposed, not for me, but I don't deny others the right to do what they choose.

What is happening here is an attempt to change the law to permit same sex marriage, and currently the law states that marriage is between a man and a woman, not another man who thinks he is/pretends to be a woman.

I was listening to a gay on talkback radio yesterday, and he said it was his legal right to marry his bf, so that means I lave a legal right to kill somebody or rob a bank?? Marriage between same sexes is STILL ILLEGAL!!!

Currently the law DOES NOT permit same sex marriage, and in a democracy, that change must be legislated. The process has been subject of rigorous debate, or as is the current politicians cliche, robust debate, and it's failed the get over the hurdle. No doubt that gays will continue the fight.

I see it as point scoring by a minority group. They can have civil unions, and all the rights that go with that, defacto unions, or just plain live together, have kids through surrogate mothers, but they want to push a point that I see as achieving very little.

We've seen this point scoring by other minority groups over the years, such as the disabled. I don't think anybody would deny the disabled a bit of extra help, but for the movement to suggest that EVERY retail outlet should have a ramp so they can access the premises is a bit silly, yet that's what's happening. I've seen small business owners say they don't want to spend three grand on a ramp, and then widen the aisles in their shop for wheelchair access, in the off chance that they may recover some of it from disabled people. They'd prefer to forego that tiny volume of business and not make the changes.

Jingthing, my observation is that they currently have the same rights through mechanisms such as those above, just not the name 'marriage'.

The problem with minority groups is that they have a small win, they want more, and they then feel they can start dictating the terms to the bulk of the population. All these groups have a leader/spokesperson, and he/she's usually running an agenda, and seeking his/her 15 minutes of fame, basking in the limelight.

We haven't seen the backside of this issue yet. Is there a pun in there??

So you don't believe in equal rights?