Australia reverses gay marriage law less than a week after first weddings

Page 1 of 2
#2
I don't really care because I'm not gay and it doesn't affect me, but it's sure caused a huge outrage amongst the community, not to mention i keep hearing about it all over Facebook today.
#3
The comment section in that link is so full of cuntbags.

ALL OUR PROBLEMS HAPPEN BECAUSE OF TEH GAYS
I have no sig
#4
It was always going to happen. Federal law trumps state law.

The situation isn't ridiculous. It just confirms what should have already been painstakingly obvious. Gay marriage needs federal backing to be successful. Of course the conservative govt is going to resist it.
RIP Gooze

cats
#5
Quote by Mr Winters
The comment section in that link is so full of cuntbags.


I went and had a look.


"Music snobbery is the worst kind of snobbery. 'Oh, you like those noises? Those sounds in your ear? Do you like them? They're the wrong sounds. You should like these sounds in your ear.'"
- Dara O'Briain
#7
Those comments aren't a surprise at all. Funny how Australia always claims to be this accepting laid back country when in reality after living here 21years I can actually realize we're possibly one of the most racist and bigoted countries ever. It's disgusting to hear the things that surprisingly A LOT of Australians say. For any Australian to say that the country isn't full of racist pricks is just ignorant. Not saying everyone is a massive dickhead, but a shocking amount are.
Last edited by vayne92 at Dec 12, 2013,
#8
Quote by vayne92
I don't really care because I'm not gay and it doesn't affect me, but it's sure caused a huge outrage amongst the community, not to mention i keep hearing about it all over Facebook today.

Way to care about your fellow man. I bet even the queerest homosexual is more of a man than you are.

EDIT:

Furthermore, this is not the fault of the legal system, they're just interpreting the law as it stands right now (which is their only competence). I suppose the parliament should initiate some changes.
Last edited by The_Casinator at Dec 12, 2013,
#9
Quote by The_Casinator
Way to care about your fellow man. I bet even the queerest homosexual is more of a man than you are.


It's more so that i prefer to stay out of most things political. It's impossible to please all parties. One right creates another wrong. People are never satisfied with political outcomes. Most the time it actually feels like people legitimately think the government is this sinister and vindictive entity that has a personal vendetta against the entire country and just want to piss off as many people as they can. I try not to be one of these people and i am generally pretty confident with the choices the Australian government makes.
Last edited by vayne92 at Dec 12, 2013,
#10
Don't know shit about laws and such but can't they just amend the Marriage Act to stating marriage is a union between two human beings?
Sincerely,
Shitstirrer
#11
Quote by macaroni
Don't know shit about laws and such but can't they just amend the Marriage Act to stating marriage is a union between two human beings?

Yes, they could. But why would a conservative government with a large christian constituency want to do that?

The state government tried to legalise gay marriage. The federal government said 'lol, no you don't'.
RIP Gooze

cats
#12
Quote by Mr Winters
The comment section in that link is so full of cuntbags.

ALL OUR PROBLEMS HAPPEN BECAUSE OF TEH GAYS

pesky brits
#13
Quote by vayne92
It's more so that i prefer to stay out of most things political. It's impossible to please all parties. One right creates another wrong. People are never satisfied with political outcomes. Most the time it actually feels like people legitimately think the government is this sinister and vindictive entity that has a personal vendetta against the entire country and just want to piss off as many people as they can. I try not to be one of these people and i am generally pretty confident with the choices the Australian government makes.

That's a fair position.
#14
Thanks Tony Abbot now I've got to listen to the gay's bitch about not been able to get married again.
#16
Quote by captainsnazz
see me after class

Do you want me to bring the "hair conditioner"
#18
They've still got civil partnerships though, right? That's basically the same thing.

I have no problem with gays but I actually think marriage is, by definition, something between different-sex couples.
I have nothing important to say
#19
Sometimes things don't go your way, that's democracy.

Just keep fighting for it and eventually it'll happen. Sounds like they need it to be backed by the federal government.
"If God exists, there's no way he is French" - Andrea Pirlo

S A D B O Y S
#20
Why the fvck marriage matters that much? A lot of hetero couples avoid it intentionally.Seems that this is just another "give me that,its mine aswell!".
im all for tolerance etc yet this just confuses me.
#21
Quote by Elderer
Why the fvck marriage matters that much? A lot of hetero couples avoid it intentionally.Seems that this is just another "give me that,its mine aswell!".
im all for tolerance etc yet this just confuses me.

It's called actual equality
It's more so that i prefer to stay out of most things political. It's impossible to please all parties. One right creates another wrong
If your position is homophobia it's not important to please you
#22
Quote by mulefish
It was always going to happen. Federal law trumps state law.

The situation isn't ridiculous. It just confirms what should have already been painstakingly obvious. Gay marriage needs federal backing to be successful. Of course the conservative govt is going to resist it.

My understanding is that it is entirely possible to enact legislation that runs concurrently with Federal law and be constitutional. They attempted a similar sort of thing in 2006 but the Fed did not provide law-making powers at the time to the ACT or something.

Though apparently it's impossible. Well, least we know where we stand
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
#23
well Australia isnt the only one atm-just a few days ago India banned homosexual marriages.
#24
Quote by Cianyx
My understanding is that it is entirely possible to enact legislation that runs concurrently with Federal law and be constitutional.

It is. But not when it directly runs against federal law. Federal law dictates that a marriage is between a man and a woman. The proposed state law went directly against this, which is why it was deemed unconstitutional.
RIP Gooze

cats
#25
I meant that it is not necessarily as obvious as it seems. If they were merely attempting to contradict the commonwealth then sure it'd get thrown out.
| (• ◡•)| (❍ᴥ❍ʋ
#26
Illegal marihuana, possibly jail or death sentence?

No gay marriage?

Outrageous education prices?

Is our country going to shit because we do allow this stuff? Apparently we're doing quite good in almost every branch of society.

I see this is not causative of one to the other, but I do see that the general dutch mentality is open minded and "sober" about things, even willing to take advice of a hobo if his logic is sound.

Take an example of when you keep things social and don't go anal about stuff your country does not break down.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Dec 12, 2013,
#27
Quote by vayne92
It's impossible to please all parties. One right creates another wrong. People are never satisfied with political outcomes.

So are you advocating moral relativism?

Here's how to tell if people have a moral point about any specific behaviour:
1. Is the behaviour intrinsically harmful to those who engage in it?
2. Is the behaviour intrinsically harmful to recipients of that behaviour?
3. Does the behaviour require the violation of informed consent in one or more parties to the behaviour?

If the answer is "no" to all of the above, then anyone calling it morally relevant is an idiot. I don't think it right that we take idiots seriously. Ignore references to what is "normal" or "natural", if it doesn't meet the aforementioned criteria it can't be wrong.
#28
I don't quite understand why universal marriage rights doesn't just get put into international human rights.
...Stapling helium to penguins since 1949.
#29
Quote by Todd Hart
I don't quite understand why universal marriage rights doesn't just get put into international human rights.


Because gays are the new jews and everyone seems to hate them.

Ya'll niggas need civil rights laws yo.
Most of the important things


in the world have been accomplished


by people who have kept on


trying when there seemed to be no hope at all
#32
the High Court is independent from the government
not going viral


Hot E-Cousin of rjaylaf

Non Evil E-Twin of stealstrings

E-NEMESIS of deathdrummer
#33
Quote by JackSaints
They've still got civil partnerships though, right? That's basically the same thing.


"Equal but separate" is not the same thing as actual equality.

I have no problem with gays but I actually think marriage is, by definition, something between different-sex couples.


Why do you think this?
"Music snobbery is the worst kind of snobbery. 'Oh, you like those noises? Those sounds in your ear? Do you like them? They're the wrong sounds. You should like these sounds in your ear.'"
- Dara O'Briain
#34
I think it's awful that they annulled each and every one of those marriages. To my knowledge that doesn't even happen in America whenever a judge or local government or whatever decides to repeal same sex marriage

/] 三方 [\
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#35
I think it's sad that anyone requires the approval of government to legitimize love.
Quote by CodChick


Seriously, I'm not a fan of iphones and guitars mixing.
#36
Quote by ecvMatt
I think it's sad that anyone requires the approval of government to legitimize love.

I think it's sad that anyone conflates "love", a human emotion that is culturally ubiquitious, with the construct of "marriage", a social and legal contract with social and legal benefits.
#38
I'm all for homosexual marriage being legal everywhere, but can someone clarify whether a civil partnership in Australia has the same legal standing as a marriage? Does it include the same tax breaks/inheritance laws/legal rights as a marriage? Does it give the spouse power of attorney and health care coverage (if shared coverage is a thing there)?

In my opinion if civil partnership grants the same rights and privileges as marriage, it's just splitting hairs over a word; if it doesn't, the homosexual community of Australia deserves to have equal rights to marriage. The second that marriage became a legal standing instead of just a social one is when everyone began to deserve right to marry. If it remained a religious ritual then using religion as a means to deny marriage would be acceptable, similar to how a secular person would not be able to have a Jewish church-sanctioned Bar Mitzvah or a secular person accomplishing Hajj would be without meaning to Islamic leaders without that person accepting the religion as a whole. As soon as marriage was given legal privileges it became a legal right to any citizen of any country that recognizes it as a legal bond.
Page 1 of 2