ACT passes historic same-sex marriage laws

The ACT has become the first jurisdiction in Australia to legalise same-sex marriage.
The Labor Government passed its Marriage Equality Same-Sex Bill in the Legislative Assembly with the help of Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury.

The laws will allow an authorised celebrant to marry gay couples within the ACT, regardless of where they live.

“There is no longer any excuse, if there ever was, to discriminate against same-sex couples in our community,” Chief Minister Katy Gallagher told the Assembly.

more…

and as predicted the Federal Government is expected to ask High Court to overturn laws

and without realizing it the Liberals are violating peoples rights, over gender equality and also violating peoples rights over what is a natural process that occurs during birth

Most gay people are gay at birth, due to epigenetics and DNA expression, which happens during the early stages of birth in the womb

Scientists confirm that homosexuality is not genetic – but it arises in the womb

A team of international researchers has completed a study that suggests we will probably never find a ‘gay gene.’ Sexual orientation is not about genetics, say the researchers, it’s about epigenetics. This is the process where DNA expression is influenced by any number of external factors in the environment. And in the case of homosexuality, the researchers argue, the environment is the womb itself.

The Epigenetic Key

Writing in The Quarterly Review of Biology, researchers William Rice, a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Urban Friberg, a professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, believe that homosexuality can be explained by the presence of epi-marks — temporary switches that control how our genes are expressed during gestation and after we’re born.

more….

I support gay rights as a human rights activist, I am not gay myself, but as I see it the Federal Government are violating peoples rights over this issue and these politicians who voted against gay marriage rights in federal parliament have become human rights abusers due to negligence, ignorance and religious interference.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I support gay rights as a human rights activist, I am not gay myself, but as I see it the Federal Government are violating peoples rights over this issue and these politicians who voted against gay marriage rights in federal parliament have become human rights abusers due to negligence, ignorance and religious interference.

It is inane for any individual or group to decide the personal preferences of others.

Bingo.

All people should be treated equally; it’s ridiculous that in 2013, we’re still disallowing basic human rights for people to love whomever they love, and to be treated fairly and without prejudice.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I support gay rights as a human rights activist, I am not gay myself, but as I see it the Federal Government are violating peoples rights over this issue and these politicians who voted against gay marriage rights in federal parliament have become human rights abusers due to negligence, ignorance and religious interference.

How do you feel about polygamy?

Divine Angel said:

All people should be treated equally; it’s ridiculous that in 2013, we’re still disallowing basic human rights for people to love whomever they love, and to be treated fairly and without prejudice.

The current laws don’t prohibit any one individual from loving any other individual – what the current marriage laws do do is make if far harder for gay couples that have lived defacto for less than two years to be recoginised as a being in a ‘registered relationship’ (married or defacto). The flip side to this is that a married hetro couple enjoy this status instantly and this is where the problem lies.

morrie said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I support gay rights as a human rights activist, I am not gay myself, but as I see it the Federal Government are violating peoples rights over this issue and these politicians who voted against gay marriage rights in federal parliament have become human rights abusers due to negligence, ignorance and religious interference.

How do you feel about polygamy?

the same way most people feel about straw man arguments, I would imagine

morrie said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I support gay rights as a human rights activist, I am not gay myself, but as I see it the Federal Government are violating peoples rights over this issue and these politicians who voted against gay marriage rights in federal parliament have become human rights abusers due to negligence, ignorance and religious interference.

How do you feel about polygamy?

Or polyandry :)

diddly-squat said:

morrie said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I support gay rights as a human rights activist, I am not gay myself, but as I see it the Federal Government are violating peoples rights over this issue and these politicians who voted against gay marriage rights in federal parliament have become human rights abusers due to negligence, ignorance and religious interference.

How do you feel about polygamy?

the same way most people feel about straw man arguments, I would imagine

Its a question, not an argument.

sibeen said:

morrie said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I support gay rights as a human rights activist, I am not gay myself, but as I see it the Federal Government are violating peoples rights over this issue and these politicians who voted against gay marriage rights in federal parliament have become human rights abusers due to negligence, ignorance and religious interference.

How do you feel about polygamy?

Or polyandry :)

Yes, that. :)

morrie said:

diddly-squat said:

morrie said:

How do you feel about polygamy?

the same way most people feel about straw man arguments, I would imagine

Its a question, not an argument.

Then I would ask how is it even relevant to the conversation?

diddly-squat said:

morrie said:

diddly-squat said:

the same way most people feel about straw man arguments, I would imagine

Its a question, not an argument.

Then I would ask how is it even relevant to the conversation?

Sorry your honour.

morrie said:

diddly-squat said:

morrie said:

Its a question, not an argument.

Then I would ask how is it even relevant to the conversation?

Sorry your honour.

so is it, or is it not relevant to the conversation?

morrie said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I support gay rights as a human rights activist, I am not gay myself, but as I see it the Federal Government are violating peoples rights over this issue and these politicians who voted against gay marriage rights in federal parliament have become human rights abusers due to negligence, ignorance and religious interference.

How do you feel about polygamy?

I have no problem with polygamy, if people want to have that sort of relationship, and its consensual, go for it

it makes divorce a lot more complicated

its personally not for me though

diddly-squat said:

morrie said:

diddly-squat said:

Then I would ask how is it even relevant to the conversation?

Sorry your honour.

so is it, or is it not relevant to the conversation?

It seems to be opposed on much the same grounds as CN outlined. So I was interested to know his opinion.

morrie said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I support gay rights as a human rights activist, I am not gay myself, but as I see it the Federal Government are violating peoples rights over this issue and these politicians who voted against gay marriage rights in federal parliament have become human rights abusers due to negligence, ignorance and religious interference.

How do you feel about polygamy?

The Australian Governernment (through C’link) treats traditional unions, same sex unions and polys the same.

Personally, I have no problems with same sex unions, but am disappointed it was such a big issue at the election where there were other far more important issues that should have been debated.

CrazyNeutrino said:

morrie said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I support gay rights as a human rights activist, I am not gay myself, but as I see it the Federal Government are violating peoples rights over this issue and these politicians who voted against gay marriage rights in federal parliament have become human rights abusers due to negligence, ignorance and religious interference.

How do you feel about polygamy?

I have no problem with polygamy, if people want to have that sort of relationship, and its consensual, go for it

it makes divorce a lot more complicated

its personally not for me though

and it should be legalized for those that want it,

their rights are being violated as well

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Am disappointed it was such a big issue at the election where there were other far more important issues that should have been debated.

hear hear.

CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

morrie said:

How do you feel about polygamy?

I have no problem with polygamy, if people want to have that sort of relationship, and its consensual, go for it

it makes divorce a lot more complicated

its personally not for me though

and it should be legalized for those that want it,

their rights are being violated as well

The real issue is that our rights are being violated on more damaging and more subtle levels every day and you hear nobody crying foul.

Well progressive religious groups like the Mormons have championed polygamist rights for ages.
It’s the secular humanists who are holding back progress in this new human rights issue.
And by the way I’m not a polygamist but I think they have rights and have been treated appallingly by main stream society.

Still anyone’s guess as to whether it will survive a Vatican challenge:

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.’

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/act-to-protect-marraige-bill-from-federal-challenge/5037000

Peak Warming Man said:

Well progressive religious groups like the Mormons have championed polygamist rights for ages.
It’s the secular humanists who are holding back progress in this new human rights issue.
And by the way I’m not a polygamist but I think they have rights and have been treated appallingly by main stream society.

You’re just gunning for laws that will let you marry your Triton.

>It seems to be opposed on much the same grounds as CN outlined. So I was interested to know his opinion.

Polygamy is not legally recognised for people of any sex. Monogamous marriages are recognised but only in regard to opposite sex couples. So there’s a clear and unjustifiable state of inequality in relationship to conventional marriage.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I have no problem with polygamy, if people want to have that sort of relationship, and its consensual, go for it

it makes divorce a lot more complicated

its personally not for me though

I could use a Harem full of university educated, ninja trained women. It’s all about the sense of security you understand,,,,,,,,,,

roughbarked said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Am disappointed it was such a big issue at the election where there were other far more important issues that should have been debated.

hear hear.

yes I would agree with that

but consider that these matters are really human rights matters

same for personal drug use, medicinal cannabis use, euthanasia etc

these are basic human rights matters and should for all purposes be done and dusted

but when we have mums and dads becoming elected into councils, state governments and federal parliament with little to no training in making good laws

well what do you expect,

I expect the outcome to be poor law makers, what else

so they really need some training in human rights, ethics logic and good law making

but its, something at the moment which does not exist, it just feels arbitrary!

>in relationship to

I meant to say in regard to, but we’re discussing relationships :)

if these politicians want to be good law makers

then do the required research properly

don’t just follow party lines or go by what he or she said

do the actual research required

I really do dislike arbitrary law

Self service same sex science forum

wookiemeister said:

Self service same sex science forum

That’s one too many esses

roughbarked said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Am disappointed it was such a big issue at the election where there were other far more important issues that should have been debated.

hear hear.

every thing is an ‘important issue’ to someone.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

Carmen_Sandiego said:

Am disappointed it was such a big issue at the election where there were other far more important issues that should have been debated.

hear hear.

every thing is an ‘important issue’ to someone.

This is why we have lobby groups…

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

hear hear.

every thing is an ‘important issue’ to someone.

This is why we have lobby groups…

it’s all just a damn popularity contest with you kids.

I was excited. Such good news.

I wonder if Tony Abbott will claim parliamentary expenses to attend his sister’s upcoming wedding?

neomyrtus_ said:

I wonder if Tony Abbott will claim parliamentary expenses to attend his sister’s upcoming wedding?

It’s a community event you see..

poikilotherm said:

neomyrtus_ said:

I wonder if Tony Abbott will claim parliamentary expenses to attend his sister’s upcoming wedding?

It’s a community event you see..

Tony Abbott doesn’t so much as lose a sister so much as gain a sister in law. Oh happy happy joy joy happy families!

I just hope that in gay marriages they remove the line “with this ring I thee wed”.

Peak Warming Man said:

I just hope that in gay marriages they remove the line “with this ring I thee wed”.

You, PWM, like Brian are a very naughty boy :)

In order to get the funding to mount this legal challenge, does the Coalition need to get the consent of parliament?

dv said:

In order to get the funding to mount this legal challenge, does the Coalition need to get the consent of parliament?

Tony’s got a mandate you know.

dv said:

In order to get the funding to mount this legal challenge, does the Coalition need to get the consent of parliament?

Probably not. It would be up to the Attorney-General would be my guess. They’d be able to find the resources within their budget.

If I was a student of Law I would be seeking out the legal minutiae of same-sex marriage and euthanasia – For therein lies several careers worth of fiduciary success and renown with no expectation of any result.

Rule 303 said:

If I was a student of Law I would be seeking out the legal minutiae of same-sex marriage and euthanasia – For therein lies several careers worth of fiduciary success and renown with no expectation of any result.

As they say, the law is an ass.

party_pants said:

dv said:

In order to get the funding to mount this legal challenge, does the Coalition need to get the consent of parliament?

Probably not. It would be up to the Attorney-General would be my guess. They’d be able to find the resources within their budget.

Ah well, at least he won’t be wasting his time improving the legal system or defending human rights.

Brandis as AG.

Can you even believe that shit?

dv said:

party_pants said:

dv said:

In order to get the funding to mount this legal challenge, does the Coalition need to get the consent of parliament?

Probably not. It would be up to the Attorney-General would be my guess. They’d be able to find the resources within their budget.

Ah well, at least he won’t be wasting his time improving the legal system or defending human rights.

Well yeah. I haven’t been following it all that closely, but it seems the biggest objection to the ACT law is that it conflicts with or tries to have the opposite effect of existing Federal laws, not anything to do with conservative views against gay marriage of course.

I expect the High Court will strike the ACT laws down, on the strict matter of law.

party_pants said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

Probably not. It would be up to the Attorney-General would be my guess. They’d be able to find the resources within their budget.

Ah well, at least he won’t be wasting his time improving the legal system or defending human rights.

Well yeah. I haven’t been following it all that closely, but it seems the biggest objection to the ACT law is that it conflicts with or tries to have the opposite effect of existing Federal laws, not anything to do with conservative views against gay marriage of course.

I expect the High Court will strike the ACT laws down, on the strict matter of law.

Aye, specifically Marriage Amendment Act 2004.

party_pants said:

I expect the High Court will strike the ACT laws down, on the strict matter of law.

My understanding is that where state and federal laws conflict, the state law wins. Dunno whether that applies to Territory laws, but I think it’s within the spirit that it should.

Rule 303 said:

party_pants said:

I expect the High Court will strike the ACT laws down, on the strict matter of law.

My understanding is that where state and federal laws conflict, the state law wins. Dunno whether that applies to Territory laws, but I think it’s within the spirit that it should.

Wasn’t that why my mother kept asking me to take her to Darwin when euthenasia was available?

Rule 303 said:

party_pants said:

I expect the High Court will strike the ACT laws down, on the strict matter of law.

My understanding is that where state and federal laws conflict, the state law wins. Dunno whether that applies to Territory laws, but I think it’s within the spirit that it should.

Nah – the opposite.

S109 of the Big C

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid

party_pants said:

Rule 303 said:

party_pants said:

I expect the High Court will strike the ACT laws down, on the strict matter of law.

My understanding is that where state and federal laws conflict, the state law wins. Dunno whether that applies to Territory laws, but I think it’s within the spirit that it should.

Nah – the opposite.

S109 of the Big C

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid

Which was what I had to tell my mother.

roughbarked said:

Wasn’t that why my mother kept asking me to take her to Darwin when euthenasia was available?

It sounds like that’s a fair bet, yeah. Did you know she was hoping to go down that path?

Rule 303 said:

roughbarked said:

Wasn’t that why my mother kept asking me to take her to Darwin when euthenasia was available?

It sounds like that’s a fair bet, yeah. Did you know she was hoping to go down that path?

She told me often enough.

party_pants said:

S109 of the Big C

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid

Ahh, Wow. I wonder how that got reversed in my memory.

Actually, I learnt general Law from Jim Kennan’s wife. I think that’s explains a lot.

;-)

There are or were several QC’s bearing my family name which isn’t common in Australia.

Strangely enough, I’ve never met any of them.

>Marriage Amendment Act 2004

Howard was worried that too many people seemed to be getting married, particularly too many people who weren’t tory voters. Including some people who weren’t even anti-gay. So the idea was to redefine marriage as an institution fit only for right-wing scum and religious fanatics.

He may well have got away with it, long enough to see human niceness foiled for the entire span of his own earthly time wastage.

Bubblecar said:

He may well have got away with it, long enough to see human niceness foiled for the entire span of his own earthly time wastage.

And thus we live on the constant promise of jam tomorrow.

I can only hope his death comes shortly.

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

He may well have got away with it, long enough to see human niceness foiled for the entire span of his own earthly time wastage.

And thus we live on the constant promise of jam tomorrow.

I can only hope his death comes shortly.

Frankly, I am appalled at this sort of comment.

morrie said:

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

He may well have got away with it, long enough to see human niceness foiled for the entire span of his own earthly time wastage.

And thus we live on the constant promise of jam tomorrow.

I can only hope his death comes shortly.

Frankly, I am appalled at this sort of comment.

At least it is made public. How many decisions are made in which people are calculated as an inconvenience and their comfort inconsequential?

roughbarked said:

dv said:

In order to get the funding to mount this legal challenge, does the Coalition need to get the consent of parliament?

Tony’s got a mandate you know.

I didn’t know he was gay

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

In order to get the funding to mount this legal challenge, does the Coalition need to get the consent of parliament?

Tony’s got a mandate you know.

I didn’t know he was gay

Closet queen.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

Tony’s got a mandate you know.

I didn’t know he was gay

Closet queen.

His lip-synching is crap. “Sashay AWAY ABBOTT!!”

:P

wookiemeister said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

In order to get the funding to mount this legal challenge, does the Coalition need to get the consent of parliament?

Tony’s got a mandate you know.

I didn’t know he was gay

Hahahahaha!

man-date

I geddit.

Very clever. :) :)

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

I didn’t know he was gay

Closet queen.

His lip-synching is crap. “Sashay AWAY ABBOTT!!”

:P

My call is that when Abbott is found to be wrong about acc, he should spend his retirement touring RSL clubs with a complete drag medley plus a specially crafted number highlighting his former obnoxiousness. Accountability has to start somewhere.

morrie said:

Rule 303 said:

Bubblecar said:

He may well have got away with it, long enough to see human niceness foiled for the entire span of his own earthly time wastage.

And thus we live on the constant promise of jam tomorrow.

I can only hope his death comes shortly.

Frankly, I am appalled at this sort of comment.

+1
No one hates like the left does.

Peak Warming Man said:

morrie said:

Rule 303 said:

And thus we live on the constant promise of jam tomorrow.

I can only hope his death comes shortly.

Frankly, I am appalled at this sort of comment.

+1
No one hates like the left does.

Is that surprising when the lefty philosophy is that all deserve equal opportunity and their opposition basically believes that only those who are willing to crush others to get what they want deserve anything?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

I didn’t know he was gay

Closet queen.

His lip-synching is crap. “Sashay AWAY ABBOTT!!”

:P

RIFF! You surprise me….. but I love RP so don’t fuck it up :P

Arts said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

Closet queen.

His lip-synching is crap. “Sashay AWAY ABBOTT!!”

:P

RIFF! You surprise me….. but I love RP so don’t fuck it up :P

I know a genuine community leader when I see one. ;)

No idea who or what RP is.

roughbarked said:

No idea who or what RP is.

Let’s just say that Abbott would be mortified if subjected to RP’s authority.

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

No idea who or what RP is.

Let’s just say that Abbott would be mortified if subjected to RP’s authority.

I can imagine his cabinet

I might start watching question time with more enthusiasm

Arts said:

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

No idea who or what RP is.

Let’s just say that Abbott would be mortified if subjected to RP’s authority.

I can imagine his cabinet

I might start watching question time with more enthusiasm

imagining that brought tears to my eyes and I nearly choked. I think MP’s would actually choke

>Most gay people are gay at birth, due to epigenetics and DNA expression, which happens during the early stages of birth in the womb

In fact i’d take the argument to humans being bisexual in some way largely neglected or unspeakable. We all have a history of male and female parents, grandparents etc going way back and the DNA and expression can’t be so different.

I’d say heterosexuality is a form of bisexuality. Like when a female enjoys intimacy with a male the female is getting as close as she can in a way to experiencing the male expression, which often leads to recombined DNA (offspring), but for the most part we indulge because it is enjoyable (necessity even some may say).

So, how does the gay expression go if the argument starts from heterosexuals are in a very real sense bisexual? Probably a better way to understand the variability.

You know guys don’t simply like boobs etc because they hung from them when a baby. Nah, each male could have easily been a girl instead, has lots of female ancestors going way back before Eve and has more than a hint of an ancestral memory of what it is to be female, for what it could have been to be female.

Probably it is a distortion to think in terms of hetero and gay etc. There’s probably another perspective to be had.