US envoy confident Australia will manage gay marriage debate

[samran]

Dont they have equal rights already with regard to tax laws and welfare laws.but now they want to marry,just tell me whose going to be mummy and whose going to be daddy?

Marraige is an institution to foster and nurture children in the ways of female and male,one is supposed to compliment the other,so please leave marriage alone as it is meant to be,and let same sex relationships be as they are in a defacto status just as heterosexual couples do who decide not to marry.

Equality in every walk of life is just a dream,no one is really equal as we are all different.Different in our intelligence,different in the way we have been raised and the environment we have been brought up in.Communism tried to change all that but it did n't work.

Equality under the law. Let them have the choice to decide if they want to remain defacto or not.

Who gives a toss who's going to be the mummy or the daddy? How about being a good parent for starters, which many 'mummy's and daddys' can't even pass muster on, but are allowed to be parents anyway...

Yes i agree the family unit is being destroyed by selfishness and ability to divorce at ease,however,children need what mother's and father's have to offer to grow into healthy adults,and who is to say that "the gays" are going to stay in a loving relationship either

So what you really have issues then is no fault divorce. Been around since the early 70s in Australia.

If you're proposing taking Australia back to the 1950's, then be my guest and run for parliament.

Edited July 10, 2015 by samran

[Linky]

And the funny thing is PM Abbott's sister is a lesbian. Poor PM must be so confused.

[thaibeachlovers]

What happens if the church, which refuses to marry a gay couple, is then taken to court by the couple under discrimination laws?

Is church forced to conduct a ceremony?

Not just the Church- florists, caterers etc as well. In the US they have been prosecuted for refusing to do the job- great way to start your marriage, prosecuting someone for their concience!

[Jingthing]

For their bigotry more like it. A public business should not discriminate on race so why OK for orientation?

[thaibeachlovers]

For their bigotry more like it. A public business should not discriminate on race so why OK for orientation?

They are doing so based on their religious beliefs, but it appears the US is now prosecuting people for following their religious tenents. So much for freedom of religion.

[Jingthing]

For their bigotry more like it. A public business should not discriminate on race so why OK for orientation?

They are doing so based on their religious beliefs, but it appears the US is now prosecuting people for following their religious tenents. So much for freedom of religion.

No you're wrong. It's based on local ordinances. Not national law. You're just trying to justify bigotry. Do you think it's OK to not sell a cake to people because they are black?

Talking about public shops and services. Actual religious bodies are a different thing.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

For their bigotry more like it. A public business should not discriminate on race so why OK for orientation?

They are doing so based on their religious beliefs, but it appears the US is now prosecuting people for following their religious tenents. So much for freedom of religion.

No you're wrong. It's based on local ordinances. Not national law. You're just trying to justify bigotry. Do you think it's OK to not sell a cake to people because they are black?

Talking about public shops and services. Actual religious bodies are a different thing.

Last time I looked there was no religion that discriminated against people based on skin colour.

You are trying to confuse the issue, which is that some people follow religions that say homosexuality is a sin, including the Muslim religion. There are plenty of florists around- why prosecute them instead of finding another one? It's just being nasty and a bad way to start a marriage.

It's exactly things like this that turn undecided people against homosexual marriage.

Edited July 10, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[Jingthing]

Mormons used to. They evolved.

Cakes? Maybe the bigots have the best ones in town?

Edited July 10, 2015 by Jingthing

[teatree]

For their bigotry more like it. A public business should not discriminate on race so why OK for orientation?

I don't agree with them, but I support their right to have a belief that is contrary to mine.

If I ran a poster printing company and the local Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton or whatever, campaign wanted me to print some election posters I think I should have the right to decline. If the local fox hunting club wanted me to provide leaflets I should have the right to decline.

If a bakery does not want to provide a cake towards an activity they do not support then they should have the right to decline.

People have a right to be gay and to get married, but people also have the right to a belief, no matter how different it is to yours.

Preventing someone from having their belief because it is different to yours is not very 'Liberal' is it?

[Jingthing]

This right wing obsession on cakes is really silly. It's not a very big issue really. It's been overblown about a million percent. However, there is a difference between not selling food to a random customer because they're seen to be gay and catering a gay wedding. The former is not defensible in any way whatsover.

[AYJAYDEE]

For their bigotry more like it. A public business should not discriminate on race so why OK for orientation?

I don't agree with them, but I support their right to have a belief that is contrary to mine.

If I ran a poster printing company and the local Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton or whatever, campaign wanted me to print some election posters I think I should have the right to decline. If the local fox hunting club wanted me to provide leaflets I should have the right to decline.

If a bakery does not want to provide a cake towards an activity they do not support then they should have the right to decline.

People have a right to be gay and to get married, but people also have the right to a belief, no matter how different it is to yours.

Preventing someone from having their belief because it is different to yours is not very 'Liberal' is it?

so would I have the right to refuse service to blacks or jews if my beliefs required it?

[Jingthing]

Intolerance of intolerance isn't intolerance. It's the morally correct position.

If someone is acting in a racist way it is not "liberal" to say that's OK, that's how you feel, it is "liberal" to condemn that and try to limit such bigoted behavior.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Jingthing

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts removed. I believe this thread is about Australia. Please stay on topic.

[relocate]

The bible one of the supporting documents for the australian constitution? You are having a laugh...

No, if you actually bother to read the constitution and read through the supporting documents you will see the bible is one of the supporting documents to be used to define meaning.

Read, research before you make a comment on something you clearly know very little about.

Um, how did this little line make its way into the consitution then? I'm sure that is in the bibe too right?

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Congratulations you have scanned through the constitution to find something that mentions religion. Now as per my last comment, read the constitution and the listed supporting documents and you will find your answer.

I am not going to do the research for you. Before you make statements like you did you should first research. Again, Research and you will find it and realize that the government nor the high court has a right to make any law regarding definition of marriage.

And like any law that effects the Australia public and the way of life why wouldn't if come down to a referendum?? Shouldn't we have a say in the laws being created? or are you suggesting that we should all just be told what to do and what rights we have???

Sorry but I don't believe in living like cattle. Read and research the constitution.And after that make up your mind on what you want. Live like cattle or live like a human!

[AYJAYDEE]

massive waste of time the "gay marriage debate". The government has no authority to approve it, nor does the high court. It is in the constitution so it has to be a referendum.

The high court can only review the interpretation of the constitution if it is not clear. What most people are forgetting is the constitution states that if clarification is required you must review the supporting documents. The bible is one of the supporting documents and it clearly states the definition of marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't care who wants to get married to who. I do care about protecting and ensuring something as important as the constitution is respected and not simply removed from the law making process all together. They have already breached the constitution on many occasions, will this be another breach aka illegal law????

nowhere does it say that everything in the bible is to be taken as gospel truth

[samran]

The bible one of the supporting documents for the australian constitution? You are having a laugh...

No, if you actually bother to read the constitution and read through the supporting documents you will see the bible is one of the supporting documents to be used to define meaning.

Read, research before you make a comment on something you clearly know very little about.

Um, how did this little line make its way into the consitution then? I'm sure that is in the bibe too right?

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

Congratulations you have scanned through the constitution to find something that mentions religion. Now as per my last comment, read the constitution and the listed supporting documents and you will find your answer.

I am not going to do the research for you. Before you make statements like you did you should first research. Again, Research and you will find it and realize that the government nor the high court has a right to make any law regarding definition of marriage.

And like any law that effects the Australia public and the way of life why wouldn't if come down to a referendum?? Shouldn't we have a say in the laws being created? or are you suggesting that we should all just be told what to do and what rights we have???

Sorry but I don't believe in living like cattle. Read and research the constitution.And after that make up your mind on what you want. Live like cattle or live like a human!

Feel free to challenge this constitutionality of federal parliament changing the 1961 marriage act if you want. After all, it is your right.

[relocate]

massive waste of time the "gay marriage debate". The government has no authority to approve it, nor does the high court. It is in the constitution so it has to be a referendum.

The high court can only review the interpretation of the constitution if it is not clear. What most people are forgetting is the constitution states that if clarification is required you must review the supporting documents. The bible is one of the supporting documents and it clearly states the definition of marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't care who wants to get married to who. I do care about protecting and ensuring something as important as the constitution is respected and not simply removed from the law making process all together. They have already breached the constitution on many occasions, will this be another breach aka illegal law????

nowhere does it say that everything in the bible is to be taken as gospel truth

AYJAYDEE, I have done my research and read the supporting documents. I am not religious therefor have probably spent more time researching the bible that most christian's. I find it hard to believe that people still think the world is only a few thousand years old regardless of what science has shown.

I never said everything in the bible is to be taken as gospel truth. Don't blame me for something I had nothing to do with. The constitution was written long before I was born. All I have done is research it.

[lostboy]

massive waste of time the "gay marriage debate". The government has no authority to approve it, nor does the high court. It is in the constitution so it has to be a referendum.

The high court can only review the interpretation of the constitution if it is not clear. What most people are forgetting is the constitution states that if clarification is required you must review the supporting documents. The bible is one of the supporting documents and it clearly states the definition of marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I really don't care who wants to get married to who. I do care about protecting and ensuring something as important as the constitution is respected and not simply removed from the law making process all together. They have already breached the constitution on many occasions, will this be another breach aka illegal law????

nowhere does it say that everything in the bible is to be taken as gospel truth

AYJAYDEE, I have done my research and read the supporting documents. I am not religious therefor have probably spent more time researching the bible that most christian's. I find it hard to believe that people still think the world is only a few thousand years old regardless of what science has shown.

I never said everything in the bible is to be taken as gospel truth. Don't blame me for something I had nothing to do with. The constitution was written long before I was born. All I have done is research it.

So you have been researching since July last year and after 6 months, that is the answer you have on the issue? Maybe it is time to find other pursuits to occupy your time. Also better be careful, spend too much time with your head in the constitution and its supporting documents and Australia will go ahead and legalise same sex marriage around you.

Arguments about same sex marriage do not rise to the level of Constitutionality. They are simply a matter of respect for another individual and respect for diversity. If a supporting document that predates 1901 does not reinforce that concept, then trash it. That is, after all, what the High Court is for. You think former Chief Justice Michael Kirby wouldn't have loved to get his teeth into this issue when he sat on the court?

I don't know why you resurrected a dead thread to tell people that you read the Australian constitution. You have something against same sex marriage? You have something against LGBT people? Then come out of the closet and be honest about it.