Marriage Equality

[WorkingClassRugger]

I'm hoping his sister can talk some sense into Mr Rabbit.

The only greater love than that between siblings, even if they hate each other, is the love between mother and child.

I wouldn't count on it. In the fluff piece by 60 minutes a few months ago you could quite clearly see he wasn't that comfortable in the presence of his sister's partner. He's not going to be swayed too easily. I may be wrong but I don't think so.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

The Gays and Lesbians of Australia will simply cross the Tasman to get married under a jurisdiction that allows this to happen.

Ignoring the moral/religious argument, how much money will our economy lose?

Does NZ need any more private foreign aid from us?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The Gays and Lesbians of Australia will simply cross the Tasman to get married under a jurisdiction that allows this to happen.

Ignoring the moral/religious argument, how much money will our economy lose?

Does NZ need any more private foreign aid from us?

They could but they shouldn't have to. We're a supposedly secular society and yet we continue to discriminate against a sizable segment of that society.

 

[Scoey]

I don't think many voters went into yesterday's poll considering policy or issues such as marriage equality. Otherwise I think the election would have been very different. They more or less tired of the disunity within the Labor party and wanted them out. So I don't think it was a reflection of the sentiment of the electorate regarding this issue.

Regardless of the sentiment of the electorate, anyone who voted for Abbott gave him a mandate that Australia doesn't want gay marriage. Voting for a party that you disagree with the policies of is just stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Regardless of the sentiment of the electorate, anyone who voted for Abbott gave him a mandate that Australia doesn't want gay marriage. Voting for a party that you disagree with the policies of is just stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mate, if you asked many voters for the policy reasons they voted either way yesterday you'd likely not witness a great deal of scrutiny on many of their considerations.

 

[It is what it is]

Yesterday's vote was about picking your poison.

 

[Scoey]

Mate, if you asked many voters for the policy reasons they voted either way yesterday you'd likely not witness a great deal of scrutiny on many of their considerations.

No I agree. I just think its incredibly stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Scoey]

Yesterday's vote was about picking your poison.

It was what it was, It is what it is. ;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

No I agree. I just think its incredibly stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sometimes I can understand the point of view of those who think voluntary voting is the way to go but I cannot reconcile the prospect of a government being elected without the majority support of those who they are supposed to represent.

 

[Runner]

Why? Did we call the taps and doors something differet when we decided to let coloured folk use the same ones as whites? Did we call voting something else when we decided to let women do it as well??

Was not trying to offend.
But sometimes there needs to be a compromise so things get done. I suspect lots of religious institutions get caught up in the terms.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Was not trying to offend.
But sometimes there needs to be a compromise so things get done. I suspect lots of religious institutions get caught up in the terms.

But we supposedly live in a secular society free of any influence of religious agenda. If so, then why should there be a need to compromise?

It's not like any bill introduced into parliament by any reasonable MP (Moana Pasifika) would require any religious institution to perform the ceremony. To me marriage is a union of two consenting individuals who love one another and are committed to one another who may or may not choose to raise a family in that environment. If they chose to do so.

The term 'marriage' isn't the exclusive property of any one organisation or belief system, well not as far as I am aware. To insult a same sex couple by tentatively labeling their union as a "Civil Union" while mandating that only heterosexual couples have the right to refer to their union as a marriage still suggests inequality poorly masked as tolerance and not acceptance.

I will go as far as to say that those arguing against marriage equality are increasingly out of touch with in particular the youth vote extending to Gen Y (not excluding those from the older generations, but in my experience its within these groups that the concept has already achieved mainstream acceptance and support) and their sentiments and sensibilities on the subject. In particularly religious leaders who claim to speak for all their flock.

Take the Catholic Church for example, in which I was raised. Most Catholic raised individuals I know are supportive of marriage equality as we fail to see its threatening influence over what we were taught. There shouldn't be a need to compromise when we are talking about basic human rights in a nation such as ours.

 

[Runner]

Not

But we supposedly live in a secular society free of any influence of religious agenda. If so, then why should there be a need to compromise?

It's not like any bill introduced into parliament by any reasonable MP (Moana Pasifika) would require any religious institution to perform the ceremony. To me marriage is a union of two consenting individuals who love one another and are committed to one another who may or may not choose to raise a family in that environment. If they chose to do so.

The term 'marriage' isn't the exclusive property of any one organisation or belief system, well not as far as I am aware. To insult a same sex couple by tentatively labeling their union as a "Civil Union" while mandating that only heterosexual couples have the right to refer to their union as a marriage still suggests inequality poorly masked as tolerance and not acceptance.

I will go as far as to say that those arguing against marriage equality are increasingly out of touch with in particular the youth vote extending to Gen Y (not excluding those from the older generations, but in my experience its within these groups that the concept has already achieved mainstream acceptance and support) and their sentiments and sensibilities on the subject. In particularly religious leaders who claim to speak for all their flock.

Take the Catholic Church for example, in which I was raised. Most Catholic raised individuals I know are supportive of marriage equality as we fail to see its threatening influence over what we were taught. There shouldn't be a need to compromise when we are talking about basic human rights in a nation such as ours.

But we live with political parties that have variuos institutions on both sides of the divide having influence.
Real politics rather than a hope and desire.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

I agree Runner. And while were at it, why should the healthcare agreement in my relationship be given the same label as gay couples? Instead of "spousal health cover", it should be called "civil partner health cover".

And what about pensioners? Why should their relationship be given the same label as gay couples when it comes to receiving their superannuation or pension? Gay pensioner couples should be called "two retired citizens in a particular civil agreement".

Any others you think I should add? I don't feel they've compromised enough, we might not get this bill through yet.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

It appears that the ACT Legislature is keen to call the Commonwealth Govt Bluff and push for same sex marriage in the ACT.

Seemingly you will soon be going to Fyshwick for more than porn and fireworks.

If Same Sex Marriage is recognised in the ACT, what will be the status of couples from interstate who legally "tie the knot" in the ACT in their "home" jurisdiction?

Presumably there is some piece of law or regulation in each State that establishes the criteria for formal recognition of interstate or overseas marriages.

Would the "Marriage" only be recognised in the ACT, and no change "back home"?

 

[Ruggo]

Is this where Kevin Andrews steps up as the moral crusader and introduces a private members bill to squash the Territories legislation given they are constitutionally second class?

 

[Hugh Jarse]

ACT have done it, but for how long? Subject to High Court challenge.

NSW apparently due to debate it in the Upper House very soon.

 

[ChargerWA]

I think the ACT legislation is doomed. But the NSW one has promise. But the need to create a separate category of marriage to sidestep the federal government is abysmal.

The Libs need to allow a conscience vote and get on the right side of history.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think the ACT legislation is doomed. But the NSW one has promise. But the need to create a separate category of marriage to sidestep the federal government is abysmal.

The Libs need to allow a conscience vote and get on the right side of history.

Doomed is right and therefore the ACTs position is only justified on the basis that having the stoush will make Abbott the focus of the debate - pretty good political approach, IMO.

 

[fatprop]

Doomed is right and therefore the ACTs position is only justified on the basis that having the stoush will make Abbott the focus of the debate - pretty good political approach, IMO.

there was a piece on the ABC from a prof who editied the bill

Professor George Williams, a constitutional law expert at the University of New South Wales, advised legislators in the territory to change the wording of the bill to withstand any challenge from the Commonwealth.
He told RN Breakfast that while he expects the law has a reasonable prospect of surviving a constitutional challenge, more could be done to mitigate the risk.
‘The amendments they’ve proposed I think are good,' Mr Williams told Breakfast.
‘They’ve essentially made a judgement call... they think they’ve done enough.
‘I personally hope they’re right, but certainly from my point of view I would have liked to have seen them do a little bit more to maximise the chances of success.’
The bill was renamed in recent days, with the original title, the ‘Marriage Equality Bill’, changed to the ‘Marriage Equality Same-Sex Bill’.
Mr Williams' advice relied on the assumption that the High Court would find the Federal Marriage Act applies only to heterosexual couples, meaning the ACT marriage laws should seek to cover only same-sex marriages.
‘It’s a technical legal change,' Mr Williams said.
‘The original approach in the ACT bill was essentially to allow people to marry who just aren’t covered by federal laws. You need to do it separately, independently, and as a result you need to set up your own special form of same-sex marriage.
‘We know the ACT has the power to do this. In a federation, the states and the territories as well as the Commonwealth can pass laws on this, so it’s a shared responsibility. The only question is one of inconsistency.’
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...-marraige-bill-from-federal-challenge/5037000

so it will be interesting to see how they/if they dodge

‘Section 109 of the Constitution makes it clear that if a state passes a law that is inconsistent with that Commonwealth law it will be found invalid.'

 

[Braveheart81]

Doomed is right and therefore the ACTs position is only justified on the basis that having the stoush will make Abbott the focus of the debate - pretty good political approach, IMO.

I agree.

I think it is another important stepping stone on the path though.

It helps take the debate from sections of the public lobbying politicians to State/Territory politicians/governments lobbying the Federal government.