Australia court bans gay marriage

[LeCharivari]

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*

.

"fake marriages ... in the military"

I was a bit surprised by that one, but you are technically right with separation allowance. To be fair, though, that's balanced to some extent by field conditions and I've never come across anyone in the military who got married to get "better pay" ..... and that includes anyone in the Oz military, gay or straight (and gays have had equal rights, including to "married" quarters, in the Oz military since 1992)

Edited December 13, 2013 by LeCharivari

[anon8]

Civil rights must be legislated?

Equality under the law is subject to debate?

Equating gay marriage to murder?

You cannot possibly believe all of those things you just said.

He probably really believes what he says. There are people who really think like that.

Have you guys seen a movie 'Deliverance'? It is a very good movie. There is a scene in the movie, a young man in rural Georgia, USA, playing his banjo.

When I hear arguments how I am not equal member of society, and how I dont deserve to have equal rights, I always picture the opponent of equal rights as that dude with a banjo.

[LeCharivari]

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.

(edited)

So many errors of basic FACT that there isn't room to "quote" them all here, so since you seem to delight in questioning other's IQ because of their grasp of "facts" I'll try to go through some of them for you:

"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,"

Thank you for your lack of opposition, but "what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room'" is no more "just homosexuality" than it is heterosexuality - its just sex.

"... 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."

Gays do NOT think they are or pretend to be women. End of story. Men who think they are or pretend to be women are transexuals, not gays, and some are heterosexuals.

"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, it has NOT been the subject of ANY debate in federal parliament for nearly a decade, since "marriage" was re-defined as being between a man and a woman in 2004. That's the problem - the previous government avoided a debate and this one looks like doing the same.

"I see it as point scoring by a minority group. They can have civil unions, and all the rights that go with that, ..."

NO THEY CAN'T!! All they can do is "register" relationships at State level, despite the ACT passing a number of Civil Union acts - and by a bizarre twist, the Civil Union Act in the ACT was repealed automatically when the ACT (briefly) legalized same-sex marriages!

"Incidentally, Australia is not the only country to refuse homosexuals the right to 'marry', but they have the right to civil unions, and all the rights that go with that."

NO "THEY" DON'T!! (see above!).

" 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."

And who would you say is doing that in Oz? David Pocock? Polls in Oz consistently show that some 70% now support gay marriage, and there are no identifiable "leaders", just a lot of supporters.

"Close relatives are not permitted to marry; that's the law, and for good reasons. What about their human rights to marry?"

YES THEY ARE! In Oz first cousins are allowed to marry, as they are in NZ, Canada and nearly all European countries!

If you are going to claim to make "statement(s) of fact" please make them facts, not fiction.

..... and if you are going to promise that "This is going nowhere because I'm responding to the same words, so with one last comment, which I've made several times already, but obviously not comprehended by some, I'm out." please don't disappoint.

Edited December 13, 2013 by LeCharivari

[GrantSmith]

[so many errors of basic FACT that there isn't room to "quote" them all here, so since you seem to delight in questioning other's IQ because of their grasp of "facts" I'll try to go through some of them for you:

"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,"

Thank you for your lack of opposition, but "what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room'" is no more "just homosexuality" than it is heterosexuality - its just sex.

"... 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."

Gays do NOT think they are or pretend to be women. End of story. Men who think they are or pretend to be women are transexuals, not gays, and some are heterosexuals.

"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, it has NOT been the subject of ANY debate in federal parliament for nearly a decade, since "marriage" was re-defined as being between a man and a woman in 2004. That's the problem - the previous government avoided a debate and this one looks like doing the same.

"I see it as point scoring by a minority group. They can have civil unions, and all the rights that go with that, ..."

NO THEY CAN'T!! All they can do is "register" relationships at State level, despite the ACT passing a number of Civil Union acts - and by a bizarre twist, the Civil Union Act in the ACT was repealed automatically when the ACT (briefly) legalized same-sex marriages!

"Incidentally, Australia is not the only country to refuse homosexuals the right to 'marry', but they have the right to civil unions, and all the rights that go with that."

NO "THEY" DON'T!! (see above!).

" 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."

And who would you say is doing that in Oz? David Pocock? Polls in Oz consistently show that some 70% now support gay marriage, and there are no identifiable "leaders", just a lot of supporters.

"Close relatives are not permitted to marry; that's the law, and for good reasons. What about their human rights to marry?"

YES THEY ARE! In Oz first cousins are allowed to marry, as they are in NZ, Canada and nearly all European countries!

If you are going to claim to make "statement(s) of fact" please make them facts, not fiction.

..... and if you are going to promise that "This is going nowhere because I'm responding to the same words, so with one last comment, which I've made several times already, but obviously not comprehended by some, I'm out." please don't disappoint.

Ok, now you're going a tad too far in your assertions here. Allow me to correct you on a few of them, please don't take offence as it's simply just to give you and understanding of the laws...

If you've read my previous posts on this thread, you've seen me mention the "state and territory" scenario. Now, the thing to be mindful of here is that yes, the NT and the ACT have the right to do all the things that the states, however the issue here is that the Federal Government regulate how their laws operate and co-exist. So therefore, if there's a federal precedent in place that opposes the territory legislation (proposed or otherwise) it will get kicked back. This is why the High Court ruled the way it did. It had no choice. A state can legislate changes to state laws but, like all controversial changes to the constitution expect there will be a challenge in the High Court - sound familiar? - though the difference this time is that there is no precedent.

Regarding 'prohibited' relationships, federal legislation states that cousins can marry each other, however, states are entitled to amend this accordingly, I can't find - read: it's late and I'm knackered, perhaps I'll do it tomorrow - anything other than citations of NSW saying it's ok and QLD saying it's a grey area, I'm sure Tasmania's cool with it though

Though to be fair, F4UCorsair didn't define 'close relatives' so technically he's correct, "close relatives" aren't permitted to marry.

For perspective, under Federal (and the odd State) law a "close relative" is defined as a father/daughter, mother/son, grandparent/grandchild scenario.

[LeCharivari]

[so many errors of basic FACT that there isn't room to "quote" them all here, so since you seem to delight in questioning other's IQ because of their grasp of "facts" I'll try to go through some of them for you:

"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,"

Thank you for your lack of opposition, but "what other people do with their bodies when you're not in the room'" is no more "just homosexuality" than it is heterosexuality - its just sex.

"... 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."

Gays do NOT think they are or pretend to be women. End of story. Men who think they are or pretend to be women are transexuals, not gays, and some are heterosexuals.

"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, it has NOT been the subject of ANY debate in federal parliament for nearly a decade, since "marriage" was re-defined as being between a man and a woman in 2004. That's the problem - the previous government avoided a debate and this one looks like doing the same.

"I see it as point scoring by a minority group. They can have civil unions, and all the rights that go with that, ..."

NO THEY CAN'T!! All they can do is "register" relationships at State level, despite the ACT passing a number of Civil Union acts - and by a bizarre twist, the Civil Union Act in the ACT was repealed automatically when the ACT (briefly) legalized same-sex marriages!

"Incidentally, Australia is not the only country to refuse homosexuals the right to 'marry', but they have the right to civil unions, and all the rights that go with that."

NO "THEY" DON'T!! (see above!).

" 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."

And who would you say is doing that in Oz? David Pocock? Polls in Oz consistently show that some 70% now support gay marriage, and there are no identifiable "leaders", just a lot of supporters.

"Close relatives are not permitted to marry; that's the law, and for good reasons. What about their human rights to marry?"

YES THEY ARE! In Oz first cousins are allowed to marry, as they are in NZ, Canada and nearly all European countries!

If you are going to claim to make "statement(s) of fact" please make them facts, not fiction.

..... and if you are going to promise that "This is going nowhere because I'm responding to the same words, so with one last comment, which I've made several times already, but obviously not comprehended by some, I'm out." please don't disappoint.

Ok, now you're going a tad too far in your assertions here. Allow me to correct you on a few of them, please don't take offence as it's simply just to give you and understanding of the laws...

If you've read my previous posts on this thread, you've seen me mention the "state and territory" scenario. Now, the thing to be mindful of here is that yes, the NT and the ACT have the right to do all the things that the states, however the issue here is that the Federal Government regulate how their laws operate and co-exist. So therefore, if there's a federal precedent in place that opposes the territory legislation (proposed or otherwise) it will get kicked back. This is why the High Court ruled the way it did. It had no choice. A state can legislate changes to state laws but, like all controversial changes to the constitution expect there will be a challenge in the High Court - sound familiar? - though the difference this time is that there is no precedent.

Regarding 'prohibited' relationships, federal legislation states that cousins can marry each other, however, states are entitled to amend this accordingly, I can't find - read: it's late and I'm knackered, perhaps I'll do it tomorrow - anything other than citations of NSW saying it's ok and QLD saying it's a grey area, I'm sure Tasmania's cool with it though

Though to be fair, F4UCorsair didn't define 'close relatives' so technically he's correct, "close relatives" aren't permitted to marry.

For perspective, under Federal (and the odd State) law a "close relative" is defined as a father/daughter, mother/son, grandparent/grandchild scenario.

They weren't "assertions", just "FACTS".

I made no mention of the State/Territory difference although it's one I'm not only aware of but have mentioned in this context before, so you're not actually "correcting" me but agreeing with me! ..... and Federal legislation is just that: legislation, not "precedent".

All States/Territories allow first cousin marriages. No amendments or grey areas - you will be wasting your time looking for any actual legislation or judgement that says otherwise, but don't let me stop you looking for uninformed opinions/"citations".

"Close relatives" is a bit of an ambiguous term generally, particularly where marriage is concerned where it may be taken to refer to first cousins, but references to it in Oz law are only really in the context of immigration and they are very specific: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/mr1994227/s1.03.html - spouse/de-facto spouse, parents/step-parents, children/step-children, siblings/step-siblings (not "grandparent/grandchild"). ..... So since you can legally marry a close relative (whether its a step-sibling or a first cousin) F4UCorsair is NOT correct whatever meaning of "close relatives" you choose. Though, to be fair, I think it may have been getting late and you confused "close relatives" with "immediate family".

[F4UCorsair]

the funny thing about most Australian Laws is that they are largely invalid

Australia comes under the rule of common law as we are still under the Commonwealth ie the UK - see our constitution on Wiki

This has not changed and cannot be changed without a referendum by the people to change it.

Several attempts have been made however they failed.

Not deterred, a previous ruling Australian Government changed a few things around and then declared that the commonwealth of Australia becomes the Australian Government - illegal as the referendum was lost.

If you bother to check the Australian Government and Tax office are listed on the stock exchange of the USA - check the SEC listing. In other words the whole thing is a sham!

All rather bizarre eh?

The bottom line is that our constitution (from the Magna Carta) does not have a Bill of Rights and many Judges have argued that this is the problem -

Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason, for example, wrote in 1997:

Australia's adoption of a Bill of Rights would bring Australia in from the cold, so to speak, and make directly applicable the human rights jurisprudence which has developed internationally and elsewhere. That is an important consideration in that our isolation from that jurisprudence means that we do not have what is a vital component of other constitutional and legal systems, a component which has a significant impact on culture and thought, and is an important ingredient in the emerging world order that is reducing the effective choices open to the nation state.

[13]

I won't get into the he said, she said thing again. I've said my bit, and that is (once again) that marriage between same sex people is currently illegal in Australia. We need go no further.

Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, and there is no other document detailing people's rights that could be seen to supersede the laws of the land, so that situation remains.

Now onto the illegality of most laws in Australia. I spent some time chatting about this with my partner, a criminal lawyer, magistrate, and judge at various times of her career, and she said she'd seen it all, challenges as to the validity of laws/regulations/rights by every nut job you could imagine, and none have eve succeeded because the laws of the land are valid. End of story!!

I make one other point regarding public opinion, and the claim that 70% support gay marriage. I think a (large?) part of that 70% are just indifferent, as I am. I have no strong position, such that if there was a referendum (never will be) I wouldn't even bother showing up to vote.

Incidentally, 70%+ are in support of capital punishment, but that's never going to get a run.

[BlackJack]

Mate do ur homework and dont liten to others

People are challenging the law of the land and winning

Google australian government and SEC and then tell us all what u have found

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[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??

I've missed the point?

Dude, really?

You write in complete sentences. You know how to use the internet. You seem like an otherwise competent and capable human. Can you really believe that loony S you just said?

Civil rights must be legislated?

Equality under the law is subject to debate?

Equating gay marriage to murder?

You cannot possibly believe all of those things you just said. There's an angle here. There's a missing piece. No intelligent adult human can miss the dam_n point by such a massive margin... no child could miss the point as badly as you just have. It's embarrassing.

Go clean yourself up, listen to an episode or two of the Savage Lovecast on iTunes, and report back in the morning.

Clean my self up? Listen to episodes on youtube? Dude? All of that?

Thank you so much for the kind words.

I stand by my assertion, that if you believe you have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals do, you are mistaken. It is still illegal under Australian law, and until the law is changed, then it remains so. Go ahead and 'marry' if you wish, but it will have no legal recognition.

As I said in an earlier post, I have no strong position, but for anybody to suggest they have a right when that activity is currently illegal is just absurd.

[BlackJack]

the funny thing about most Australian Laws is that they are largely invalid

Australia comes under the rule of common law as we are still under the Commonwealth ie the UK - see our constitution on Wiki

This has not changed and cannot be changed without a referendum by the people to change it.

Several attempts have been made however they failed.

Not deterred, a previous ruling Australian Government changed a few things around and then declared that the commonwealth of Australia becomes the Australian Government - illegal as the referendum was lost.

If you bother to check the Australian Government and Tax office are listed on the stock exchange of the USA - check the SEC listing. In other words the whole thing is a sham!

All rather bizarre eh?

The bottom line is that our constitution (from the Magna Carta) does not have a Bill of Rights and many Judges have argued that this is the problem -

Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason, for example, wrote in 1997:

Australia's adoption of a Bill of Rights would bring Australia in from the cold, so to speak, and make directly applicable the human rights jurisprudence which has developed internationally and elsewhere. That is an important consideration in that our isolation from that jurisprudence means that we do not have what is a vital component of other constitutional and legal systems, a component which has a significant impact on culture and thought, and is an important ingredient in the emerging world order that is reducing the effective choices open to the nation state.

[13]

I won't get into the he said, she said thing again. I've said my bit, and that is (once again) that marriage between same sex people is currently illegal in Australia. We need go no further.

Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, and there is no other document detailing people's rights that could be seen to supersede the laws of the land, so that situation remains.

Now onto the illegality of most laws in Australia. I spent some time chatting about this with my partner, a criminal lawyer, magistrate, and judge at various times of her career, and she said she'd seen it all, challenges as to the validity of laws/regulations/rights by every nut job you could imagine, and none have eve succeeded because the laws of the land are valid. End of story!!

I make one other point regarding public opinion, and the claim that 70% support gay marriage. I think a (large?) part of that 70% are just indifferent, as I am. I have no strong position, such that if there was a referendum (never will be) I wouldn't even bother showing up to vote.

Incidentally, 70%+ are in support of capital punishment, but that's never going to get a run.

End of story - NOT

its the blind leading the blind and history being written the way the powers that be want it to be.

What we suspect is being stated here is NRGD represents thousands of

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS operating in Australia, WHO are linked to and are sitting

underneath the INTERNATIONALISED CORPORATION umbrella known as

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA registered in the

UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION as 0000805157. See the website

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

CIK (0000805157)

SIC: 8880 - American Depositary Receipts

State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630

Business Address

1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW

C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY

WASHINGTON DC 20036

Your lawyer judge friend knows this however doesnt want to rock the boat and their cushy lifestyle by challenging the constitution or laws of the land.

Just like the Marbo case - things and Laws will change - it just takes time and a judge with gumption to make that change.

The evolution of gay rights have and will change thats for sure.

[F4UCorsair]

the funny thing about most Australian Laws is that they are largely invalid

Australia comes under the rule of common law as we are still under the Commonwealth ie the UK - see our constitution on Wiki

This has not changed and cannot be changed without a referendum by the people to change it.

Several attempts have been made however they failed.

Not deterred, a previous ruling Australian Government changed a few things around and then declared that the commonwealth of Australia becomes the Australian Government - illegal as the referendum was lost.

If you bother to check the Australian Government and Tax office are listed on the stock exchange of the USA - check the SEC listing. In other words the whole thing is a sham!

All rather bizarre eh?

The bottom line is that our constitution (from the Magna Carta) does not have a Bill of Rights and many Judges have argued that this is the problem -

Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason, for example, wrote in 1997:

Australia's adoption of a Bill of Rights would bring Australia in from the cold, so to speak, and make directly applicable the human rights jurisprudence which has developed internationally and elsewhere. That is an important consideration in that our isolation from that jurisprudence means that we do not have what is a vital component of other constitutional and legal systems, a component which has a significant impact on culture and thought, and is an important ingredient in the emerging world order that is reducing the effective choices open to the nation state. [13]

I won't get into the he said, she said thing again. I've said my bit, and that is (once again) that marriage between same sex people is currently illegal in Australia. We need go no further.

Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, and there is no other document detailing people's rights that could be seen to supersede the laws of the land, so that situation remains.

Now onto the illegality of most laws in Australia. I spent some time chatting about this with my partner, a criminal lawyer, magistrate, and judge at various times of her career, and she said she'd seen it all, challenges as to the validity of laws/regulations/rights by every nut job you could imagine, and none have eve succeeded because the laws of the land are valid. End of story!!

I make one other point regarding public opinion, and the claim that 70% support gay marriage. I think a (large?) part of that 70% are just indifferent, as I am. I have no strong position, such that if there was a referendum (never will be) I wouldn't even bother showing up to vote.

Incidentally, 70%+ are in support of capital punishment, but that's never going to get a run.

End of story - NOT

its the blind leading the blind and history being written the way the powers that be want it to be.

What we suspect is being stated here is NRGD represents thousands of

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS operating in Australia, WHO are linked to and are sitting

underneath the INTERNATIONALISED CORPORATION umbrella known as

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA registered in the

UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION as 0000805157. See the website

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

CIK (0000805157)

SIC: 8880 - American Depositary Receipts

State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630

Business Address

1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW

C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY

WASHINGTON DC 20036

Your lawyer judge friend knows this however doesnt want to rock the boat and their cushy lifestyle by challenging the constitution or laws of the land.

Just like the Marbo case - things and Laws will change - it just takes time and a judge with gumption to make that change.

The evolution of gay rights have and will change thats for sure.

I can't see what you are arguing about. I agree with you that it will change, but the only point I am making right now is that homosexual marriage is not a right, and not legal under Australian law, therefore homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Have I said any different from my first post?

It seems that you're backing away from the Australian Government, and Tax Department, being listed on the US stock exchange, and now it's some sort of conspiracy, many companies being an internationalized corporation operating under an umbrella known as the Commonwealth of Australia?? In the words of John McEnroe, "You can't be serious"!!! You can come back with as much data on that as you wish, and I won't even think about responding, let alone give it any thought. All we now need is a murder, by radioactive poisoning, to complete the picture, and conspiracy.

Anyway, that's getting away from the core of the thread, so let me say it again, something I said I wouldn't be doing. Currently same sex marriage is not legal in Australia, therefore homosexual people do not have the same rights as heterosexual. I believe it will change in time. We are on the same page, so bumping away and telling me it will change is achieving nothing, but please, no more conspiracy theories, and intenationalized corporations being called the CofA and listed on the US stock exchange.

Edited December 15, 2013 by F4UCorsair

[Jingthing]

Yes of course it there isn't legal equality, there isn't legal equality.

However, throughout history minority groups striving for equal civil rights have used CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE to move their movements forward. Sometimes that means breaking laws or acting like the laws don't exist as a political statement.

I agree it's only a matter of time before Australia offers marriage equality. They will most certainly beat Russia!

[LeCharivari]

I can't see what you are arguing about.

(edited for brevity)

That makes two of us ..... maybe more.

Quite what Australian taxes, the legitimacy or otherwise of the Australian government, its listing or otherwise on the New York Stock Exchange, etc, etc, have to do with same-sex marriage in Australia (or anywhere else) is beyond me.

[GrantSmith]

Now that's a conspiracy theory!

Perhaps it might end up going the way of the republic debate in Australia.

Put it to a referendum and really let the people decide. I'm sure former PM Kevin Rudd can second UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to attend as an independent observer to ensure fairness...

For now, either wait for a state government to push ahead with it as an agenda item, though given recent events I can't see South Australia focussing on it too much in near future, they've got the motor industry to to look after first...

I don't think Tasmania's got too much on its plate at the moment though, Sarah Hansen-Young loves a good cry as well so I'm sure she can be seconded for the cause..

[BlackJack]

the funny thing about most Australian Laws is that they are largely invalid

Australia comes under the rule of common law as we are still under the Commonwealth ie the UK - see our constitution on Wiki

This has not changed and cannot be changed without a referendum by the people to change it.

Several attempts have been made however they failed.

Not deterred, a previous ruling Australian Government changed a few things around and then declared that the commonwealth of Australia becomes the Australian Government - illegal as the referendum was lost.

If you bother to check the Australian Government and Tax office are listed on the stock exchange of the USA - check the SEC listing. In other words the whole thing is a sham!

All rather bizarre eh?

The bottom line is that our constitution (from the Magna Carta) does not have a Bill of Rights and many Judges have argued that this is the problem -

Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason, for example, wrote in 1997:

Australia's adoption of a Bill of Rights would bring Australia in from the cold, so to speak, and make directly applicable the human rights jurisprudence which has developed internationally and elsewhere. That is an important consideration in that our isolation from that jurisprudence means that we do not have what is a vital component of other constitutional and legal systems, a component which has a significant impact on culture and thought, and is an important ingredient in the emerging world order that is reducing the effective choices open to the nation state. [13]

I won't get into the he said, she said thing again. I've said my bit, and that is (once again) that marriage between same sex people is currently illegal in Australia. We need go no further.

Australia doesn't have a bill of rights, and there is no other document detailing people's rights that could be seen to supersede the laws of the land, so that situation remains.

Now onto the illegality of most laws in Australia. I spent some time chatting about this with my partner, a criminal lawyer, magistrate, and judge at various times of her career, and she said she'd seen it all, challenges as to the validity of laws/regulations/rights by every nut job you could imagine, and none have eve succeeded because the laws of the land are valid. End of story!!

I make one other point regarding public opinion, and the claim that 70% support gay marriage. I think a (large?) part of that 70% are just indifferent, as I am. I have no strong position, such that if there was a referendum (never will be) I wouldn't even bother showing up to vote.

Incidentally, 70%+ are in support of capital punishment, but that's never going to get a run.

End of story - NOT

its the blind leading the blind and history being written the way the powers that be want it to be.

What we suspect is being stated here is NRGD represents thousands of

INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS operating in Australia, WHO are linked to and are sitting

underneath the INTERNATIONALISED CORPORATION umbrella known as

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA registered in the

UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION as 0000805157. See the website

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

CIK (0000805157)

SIC: 8880 - American Depositary Receipts

State location: DC | Fiscal Year End: 0630

Business Address

1601 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW

C/O AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY

WASHINGTON DC 20036

Your lawyer judge friend knows this however doesnt want to rock the boat and their cushy lifestyle by challenging the constitution or laws of the land.

Just like the Marbo case - things and Laws will change - it just takes time and a judge with gumption to make that change.

The evolution of gay rights have and will change thats for sure.

I can't see what you are arguing about. I agree with you that it will change, but the only point I am making right now is that homosexual marriage is not a right, and not legal under Australian law, therefore homosexuals do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Have I said any different from my first post?

It seems that you're backing away from the Australian Government, and Tax Department, being listed on the US stock exchange, and now it's some sort of conspiracy, many companies being an internationalized corporation operating under an umbrella known as the Commonwealth of Australia?? In the words of John McEnroe, "You can't be serious"!!! You can come back with as much data on that as you wish, and I won't even think about responding, let alone give it any thought. All we now need is a murder, by radioactive poisoning, to complete the picture, and conspiracy.

Anyway, that's getting away from the core of the thread, so let me say it again, something I said I wouldn't be doing. Currently same sex marriage is not legal in Australia, therefore homosexual people do not have the same rights as heterosexual. I believe it will change in time. We are on the same page, so bumping away and telling me it will change is achieving nothing, but please, no more conspiracy theories, and intenationalized corporations being called the CofA and listed on the US stock exchange.

better read again

i said OZ does not have a Bill of Rights

a judge has said that OZ should have one

I said OZ - COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA registered in the

UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION as 0000805157

you said "you're backing away from the Australian Government, and Tax Department, being listed on the US stock exchange"

apology accepted

[sustento]

I make one other point regarding public opinion, and the claim that 70% support gay marriage. I think a (large?) part of that 70% are just indifferent, as I am.

Incidentally, 70%+ are in support of capital punishment, but that's never going to get a run.

Indifference is what we need. That's when things start to change - when the majority no longer care.

[F4UCorsair]

Blackjack, you said, post # 69,

If you bother to check the Australian Government and Tax office are listed on the stock exchange of the USA - check the SEC listing. In other words the whole thing is a sham!

I contend that you are now backing away from that assertion. The US Securities Exchange Commission is not the stock exchange. It regulates the stock exchange and securities industry.

sustento, I think if it came to a vote, and it never will, the apathy I show on the issue wouldn't be sustained, in spite of what I think about it. It is an issue that polarizes the community, and I do think that a majority are in favor.

Incidentally, my lawyer partner is adamant that it is not a civil right to marry whomever you choose if that person is of the same gender. She is adamant about supporting same sex marriage, but not as a civil right, because it's not one.

This is all becoming too silly, and I must admit I was warned by a forum member that many of the gay community here are like terriers with a rat in that they just keep yapping at it. He seemed like a thoroughly decent guy from the tone of his messages, and he supports everything I've so far said about homosexual couples not currently having equal rights, and that is the only point I ever wanted to make, but have been sidetracked by rubbish posts time and again.

[Jingthing]

This is getting really twisted, over small semantic points.

OF COURSE the freedom to marry is a civil right, one DENIED same sex couples in most of the world, including Australia at this point.

Bing Dictionary

• civ·il rights

1. basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[ToddWeston]

This is getting really twisted, over small semantic points.

OF COURSE the freedom to marry is a civil right, one DENIED same sex couples in most of the world, including Australia at this point.

Bing Dictionary

• civ·il rights

• basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law.

Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay. I would call classify it as liberty once passed into law or equal right not civil right.

[Jingthing]

Of course it's a choice. A choice denied most of the world's gay people who would choose to marry a person of the same sex if they choose to marry. So I guess you are saying the civil right CHOICE to marry is not BASIC. Fine. I disagree. If it's BASIC for heterosexuals, it's BASIC for homosexuals. Don't even go there that's it's about children. If that was a bar, then why aren't straight married people REQUIRED to have children. Look at another way, if tomorrow in your country they passed a law banning heterosexuals the choice to marry. Now tell me with a straight face that straight people wouldn't be rioting in the streets about their CIVIL RIGHTS being violated. DUH!

Edited December 17, 2013 by Jingthing

[BeforeTigers]

This is getting really twisted, over small semantic points.

OF COURSE the freedom to marry is a civil right, one DENIED same sex couples in most of the world, including Australia at this point.

Bing Dictionary

• civ·il rights

• basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law.

Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay. I would call classify it as liberty once passed into law or equal right not civil right.

Calling sexual orientation a "choice" tells us two things about you:

1. You stopped paying attention to the world around you in like 1973

2. You don't actually know any gay people. Which means you can't possible know what the F you're talking about.

Therefore; your argument is invalid.

Now please, in the name of science and all things holy, go out tonight and prove to the world that you can choose to change your sexuality on command.

We eagerly await your results.

[ToddWeston]

This is getting really twisted, over small semantic points.

OF COURSE the freedom to marry is a civil right, one DENIED same sex couples in most of the world, including Australia at this point.

Bing Dictionary

• civ·il rights

• basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law.

Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay. I would call classify it as liberty once passed into law or equal right not civil right.

Calling sexual orientation a "choice" tells us two things about you:

1. You stopped paying attention to the world around you in like 1973

2. You don't actually know any gay people. Which means you can't possible know what the F you're talking about.

Therefore; your argument is invalid.

Now please, in the name of science and all things holy, go out tonight and prove to the world that you can choose to change your sexuality on command.

We eagerly await your results.

The subject matter was marriage not sexual orientation.

[Jingthing]

Actually, it's about both as the topic is about same sex marriage.

[ToddWeston]

Actually, it's about both as the topic is about same sex marriage.

Oh please, you know full well what my choice comment was about MARRIAGE. You may not like my opinion but there is no need to confuse the issue.

[sustento]

This is getting really twisted, over small semantic points.

OF COURSE the freedom to marry is a civil right, one DENIED same sex couples in most of the world, including Australia at this point.

Bing Dictionary

• civ·il rights

• basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law.

Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay. I would call classify it as liberty once passed into law or equal right not civil right.

Calling sexual orientation a "choice" tells us two things about you:

1. You stopped paying attention to the world around you in like 1973

2. You don't actually know any gay people.

I suspect that the bloke he's been living with for the past 25 years might want to contradict you there

[LeCharivari]

This is getting really twisted, over small semantic points.

OF COURSE the freedom to marry is a civil right, one DENIED same sex couples in most of the world, including Australia at this point.

Bing Dictionary

• civ·il rights

• basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law.

Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay. I would call classify it as liberty once passed into law or equal right not civil right.

So now the Bing Dictionary is the arbiter of what constitutes a "civil right" ?

..... and to be fair to the Bing Dictionary, they DON'T actually "label same sex marriage a civil right" at all!

Personally I'd go for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a bit more of an authority (although I may OF COURSE be wrong), but unfortunately its a bit ambiguous as it refers to "men and women", not "men or women" which is a bit of a stumbling block - and even then some countries apply unchallenged limitations of their own, making it far from "universal".

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a16

[LeCharivari]

This is getting really twisted, over small semantic points.

OF COURSE the freedom to marry is a civil right, one DENIED same sex couples in most of the world, including Australia at this point.

Bing Dictionary

• civ·il rights

• basic rights: rights that all citizens of a society are supposed to have, e.g. the right to vote or to receive fair treatment from the law.

Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay. I would call classify it as liberty once passed into law or equal right not civil right.

Calling sexual orientation a "choice" tells us two things about you:

1. You stopped paying attention to the world around you in like 1973

2. You don't actually know any gay people. Which means you can't possible know what the F you're talking about.

Therefore; your argument is invalid.

Now please, in the name of science and all things holy, go out tonight and prove to the world that you can choose to change your sexuality on command.

We eagerly await your results.

"Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay."

vs.

"Calling sexual orientation a "choice" tells us two things about you:" (etc)

Hmmm ..... I think that total misrepresentation of what was written tells us a couple of things about you!

Like Todd Weston, I was born with my sexual orientation and I chose to have a same-sex marriage.

Sexual orientation and marriage are hardly synonymous.

[F4UCorsair]

Just because they label same sex marriage a civil right doesn't make it so - it's an individual choice straight or gay. I would call classify it as liberty once passed into law or equal right not civil right.

Todd, you are right on the money. I spoke further with my lawyer partner, and marriage is not a civil or human right. The protangonists can mouth that it is as often as they wish, but it is not.

Having said that, it's her view that Australia has a poor record on both, but that doesn't change the basic premise

As has been stated we have no Bill of RIghts, but are signatories to a number of/many conventions, which are then open to interpretation. One of those (and it's not my intention to throw in another red herring) is the UNHCR and our treatment of 'refugees'/illegal arrivals by boat, something about which we argue 'robustly' (current political jargon), she being in favor of taking all who claim refugee status, and I, who am opposed largely on economic grounds because with only 8 million tax payers, we can't afford to keep all comers. Our government contends that it is complying with the convention to which it is a signatory, but the civil libertarians claim it is not.

I agree entirely with you Todd in that it can be seen as a 'liberty' to take up when passed into law, and I believe that is inevitable, rightly or wrongly depending on one's individual belief.

I wish that the choice to exercise voluntary euthanasia was as certain and close.

Before Tigers, Todd didn't call sexual orientation a choice. He said marriage was a choice, straight or gay. This is the problem we're having here, people not reading and comprehending was has been written, and babbling on, heading down the wrong track.

Edited December 17, 2013 by F4UCorsair

[Jingthing]

An interesting comparison of the Australian vs. U.S. situation regarding state's rights:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/12/12/australia_gay_marriage_the_country_bans_it_again.html

The American gay marriage strategy—a state-by-state push, followed by an eventual federal mandate—is messy, tedious, and time-consuming. But it works. Meanwhile, in progressive Australia, not a single gay couple can obtain a certificate that declares them legally married. Wedding bells won’t ring until a strong majority of the entire country pushes through a gay marriage bill, a consummation devoutly to be wished but unlikely to be achieved, at least in the near future. When it does occur, there may still be a few American states holding out against the tide, but we’ll have had some form of marriage for years longer. Different systems, different strategies—and today, I wouldn’t trade our system for the world.