Marriage Equality

[Gnostic]

Well, I would suggest that the reason it is not being pushed is that the proponents would not be confident of success.

California is a good example, the referendum (citizen initiated) was not successful and did not go at all on normal party lines.

The argument on human rights grounds is moot as gays ain't really being discriminated against in any onerous way because governments have already legislated equal rights where it really counts

Its only judged as non-onerous by those who have not suffered the discrimination in question.

Any Law which separates people based on gender, race, disability or sexual preference sets a foundation for the next step of the process of discrimination and gives legitimacy to those who wish to marginalise the different/unacceptable or those seeking to maintain their own precarious position.

It may well be superficial (not really counting or onerous) to those it doesn't effect, to those it does it is a reminder everyday they are equal up to a point.

It is a fundamental reason why I will never support any organisation that engages in any program of affirmative action, they undermine the cause they seek to promote and the people they employ under those scheme never gain real legitimacy.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

They could but they more than likely won't. A High Court challenge that fails will be seen as an indictment of their position. To then go ahead and amend the marriage act in a manner that looks to exclude a segmnt of the community would be viewed as a serious case of sour grapes and I would wager likely to find its way back to the High Court in a challenge that if they ruled against the governments objection on this occassion would likely once again end poorly for them.

I don't disagree.
But in digging out the self government act I noted a specific provision preventing the ACT government legislating to permit euthanasia - a response to a specific policy IIRC espoused at a particular time.
Unless the HCA find against the ACT any remedy involves commonwealth legislation with a retrospective element.
Based on the transcript of argument I'm betting on the Commonwealth.

 

[Ruggo]

Assuming that the High Court side with the ACT what would be the government's next move (assuming they can make one)?

They would have to re introduce legislation that would nullify the High Courts interpretation.

Scary thought is actually the parliament might succeed in doing so. What I hope is that those opposed just lay responsibility for the outcome on the court, in an attempt to save face and we all move on from the issue.

 

[Ruggo]

Frankly, I find the whole challenge a little absurd. The entire argument against it is outdated and based at its root in prejudice.

They aren't asking to be married in a Church not that I think many would mind. So the whole religion side of it is void.

I think you have just summed up the entire constitution sir.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Not having a go at same sex couples. If they want to marry, then good luck to them. I know a divorce lawyer who is all for it.

I don't have anything against gay marriage.

Everyone should have the right to be miserable ....

Same Sex couples are just like the rest of the population. Stress with rearing children, Relationships breaking down. Fairly normal.

From NZ Herald on line.

Civil-union poster couple part
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11168868

 

[fatprop]

Any Law which separates people based on gender, race, disability or sexual preference sets a foundation for the next step of the process of discrimination and gives legitimacy to those who wish to marginalise the different/unacceptable or those seeking to maintain their own precarious position.

True, and I personally don't care who gets married, my point is that despite the "enlightened" elites seeing no issue with legalisation I wouldn't be surprised to see it not being successful in an open public vote.

The suburbs are quite more conservative when you combine the religious and many of the new immigrant populations. (as happened in California where the religious combined with Blacks and the Hispanics - the later two generally democratic voters)

 

[Inside Shoulder]

For some reason the HCA website seem unable to cope:

 

[Hugh Jarse]

With the ACT marriages from last weekend now ruled invalid by the High Court, it could save a lot of stress, and drama, in the event of a relationship breakdown.

 

[Ruggo]

I heard some christian lobby protester outside the high court say the decision was gods will. I have one question. If I was to knock that bigoted scumbags head off, will that be Gods will?

 

[Lindommer]

God forbid we bring the crazy Christians into this, Ruggo.....

 

[Ruggo]

God forbid we bring the crazy Christians into this, Ruggo...

It reminds me of what Ghandi said. "I like your Christ but I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are nothing like your Christ."

I feel sorry for the Christians out there that don't shove their faith down peoples throats. There are plenty of them and I know a few who's faith I highly respect.

 

[Ruggo]

Anybody catch the Stephen Fry documentary "Coming Out" on the ABC last night?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Anybody catch the Stephen Fry documentary "Coming Out" on the ABC last night?

Recorded it and waiting for a lull in the tennis viewing of others. Any good?

 

[Ruggo]

I thought it was good.

 

[fatprop]

It reminds me of what Ghandi said. "I like your Christ but I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are nothing like your Christ."

I feel sorry for the Christians out there that don't shove their faith down peoples throats. There are plenty of them and I know a few who's faith I highly respect.

I was reading a piece on Obama's spin on gay marriage.

Last year he started talking about committed monogamous relationships

"I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married," Mr. Obama said in an interview with Robin Roberts broadcast in a special report this afternoon. More from the interview will be broadcast tonight and tomorrow morning.

So, he uses his personal experience (making people think of their gay friends) and then takes part of the e "Christian" ideal of "committed monogamous relationships".

 

[GaffaCHinO]

 

[Runner]

Why not just call it a civil union and forget about the word marriage.

Use marriage for two persons of opposite sex marrying and civil union for gay marriage.

I remember when people didn't care and just lived together.

 

[Braveheart81]

Why not just call it a civil union and forget about the word marriage.

Use marriage for two persons of opposite sex marrying and civil union for gay marriage.

I remember when people didn't care and just lived together.

Why differentiate? They're the same thing. A couple of consenting adults wanting to confirm their relationship commitment.

 

[ChargerWA]

Why not just call it a civil union and forget about the word marriage.

Use marriage for two persons of opposite sex marrying and civil union for gay marriage.

I remember when people didn't care and just lived together.

Holy fuck, are you the Mayor from South Park? Next you will suggest they can just be called "butt buddies".

If you call it something else, you are discriminating against same sex couples because you are saying that they can't have what you have because they are somehow different (and let's be honest, you really mean less) than what you are.

 

[Runner]

Holy fuck, are you the Mayor from South Park? Next you will suggest they can just be called "butt buddies".

If you call it something else, you are discriminating against same sex couples because you are saying that they can't have what you have because they are somehow different (and let's be honest, you really mean less) than what you are.

Now your just offensive.

No gents I support their position but sometimes to get ahead you needd to compromise.