• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Marriage Equality

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ruggo

Mark Ella (57)
Section 109 is only one avenue for the Commonwealth. Being a territory it's legislative powers can be over-ruled anyway.
 

Round 15

Bob McCowan (2)
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. ;)
 

Round 15

Bob McCowan (2)
I don't have a problem with people who are not for gay marriage. Nor do i think their is anything wrong with people who support gay marriage. However, what I do know, is that Australia has a great deal of people who for religious and cultural reasons, don't want gay marriage. Does not mean they will vote a govt out who support it. However, I bet that is in the back of our pollies minds when giving their point of view.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
I do find it interesting that none of the supporters of gay marriage have wanted a referendum over the right
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
I do find it interesting that none of the supporters of gay marriage have wanted a referendum over the right

I would say that most proponents of marriage equality don't consider it a constitutional issue. The constitution grants power over marriage and divorce to the Commonwealth and I don't think there is a need to change it.

Most proponents of marriage equality also consider it a human rights issue that over time should be legislated by the government preferably through bi-partisan agreement or alternatively with a conscience vote.
 

fatprop

George Gregan (70)
Staff member
I would say that most proponents of marriage equality don't consider it a constitutional issue. The constitution grants power over marriage and divorce to the Commonwealth and I don't think there is a need to change it.

Most proponents of marriage equality also consider it a human rights issue that over time should be legislated by the government preferably through bi-partisan agreement or alternatively with a conscience vote.



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
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
California is a good example, the referendum (citizen initiated) was not successful and did not go at all on normal party lines.

The California referendum was successful. It was instigated by people against sam-sex marriage and sought to make only a marriage between a man and a woman recognised in California.

This was ultimately ruled unconstitutional and same-sex marriages have returned to California.

This issue is steadily gaining more popular support. Proposition 8 got up 52.25 - 47.75 in 2008. I would guess that 5 years later, the same referendum would fail.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
Click on this thread thinking it was all about equal rights in marriage.
Wifes get alot of freedom.
Husband need to put in alot of leg work to get a leave pass for the rugby.
 

matty_k

Peter Johnson (47)
Staff member
Assuming that the High Court side with the ACT what would be the government's next move (assuming they can make one)?
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Assuming that the High Court side with the ACT what would be the government's next move (assuming they can make one)?


Well, hopefully they'll just take their lumps and shut up. If the High Court rules in constitutionally valid then there's not much they can do.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
That's what I was hoping.


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.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Well, hopefully they'll just take their lumps and shut up. If the High Court rules in constitutionally valid then there's not much they can do.

Really?
The could amend the marriage act to make it clearer for one thing.
Then there's s 122 of the Constitution:
122 Government of territories
The Parliament may make laws for the government of any territory surrendered by any State to and accepted by the Commonwealth, or of any territory placed by the Queen under the authority of and accepted by the Commonwealth, or otherwise acquired by the Commonwealth, and may allow the representation of such territory in either House of the Parliament to the extent and on the terms which it thinks fit.

And the Act by which the ACT actually has the right ot make its own laws could be amended: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00134/Html/Text#_Toc353261682
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Really?
The could amend the marriage act to make it clearer for one thing.
Then there's s 122 of the Constitution:


And the Act by which the ACT actually has the right ot make its own laws could be amended: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00134/Html/Text#_Toc353261682


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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top