Home » Search results for 'Gay marriage '
Search Results for: Gay marriage
This result is precisely what I expected when I wrote may earlier post on the overreach of the Canberra Town council>
The High Court determined that the federal parliament has the power under the Australian constitution to legislate on same-sex marriage, and that whether or not same-sex marriages are legalised is a matter for the federal parliament.
“The Court held that the object of the ACT Act is to provide for marriage equality for same sex couples and not for some form of legally recognised relationship which is relevantly different from the relationship of marriage which federal law provides for and recognises,” the summary judgment said.
“Accordingly, the ACT Act cannot operate concurrently with the federal Act.”
It said because the ACT does not validly provide for the formation of same sex marriages, the whole of the ACT’s Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 has no effect.
Supporters of gay marriage were dismayed at the ruling.
“This is devastating for those couples who married this week and for their families,” Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome said shortly after the decision was handed down in Canberra.
However, he said the ruling was just “a temporary defeat”.
Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Ivan Hinton was one person who took advantage of the ACT laws, marrying his partner Chris Teoh in Canberra last weekend.
“I don’t want to be unmarried this afternoon,” he told reporters outside the High Court.
The Australian Christian Lobby said the ruling upheld the uniformity of marriage laws across the country.
“Marriage between a man and a woman is good for society and beneficial for governments to uphold in legislation,” managing director Lyle Shelton said in a statement.
“It’s about providing a future for the next generation where they can be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible.” Mr Shelton was concerned for same-sex couples who thought they were married under the ACT legislation.
“Understandably they will be disappointed at the decision handed down today and it is unfortunate they were put in this position,” he said.
Human Rights Law Centre spokeswoman Anna Brown said the ruling was a blow to the same-sex couples who had tied the knot in the ACT.
“The outcome has laid responsibility for advancing marriage equality squarely at the feet of the federal parliament,” she said.
ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher said her government had no regrets about pursuing marriage equality.
There are no short cuts to bringing about such a substantive change to our society and anyone who thinks that its a good thing to try to make such changes through the back door opened by an overblown town council are clearly deluded. The high court has spoken and made it clear that the definition of marriage is entirely within the remit of our FEDERAL parliament and the activists that pursued this bit of street theatre should be hanging their heads in shame that they have given Gay marriage advocates such empty and false hope,
Well I’m Cheering a good decision Comrades
- First Australian gay weddings held in capital city (thehimalayantimes.com)
- High Court to rule on same-sex marriages (sbs.com.au)
- First day of gay marriage in ACT (news.smh.com.au)
- First Australian gay weddings held in capital city (cnsnews.com)
- High Court to rule on same-sex marriages (radionz.co.nz)
We could cure the common cold or solve the Gay marriage conundrum by respectively snuffing the snotty and burying the Gay.
My inner libertarian wants to believe that every individual has the right to do with their body what ever they please. However my inner conservative thinks that those who want to have themselves either chemically or surgically disfigured to make them into a simulation of their desired gender are mentally ill and utterly delusional if they think that any amount of “renovation” can ever make them into what they want to be. At the very best they can become a sad parody of their desire. Naturally such radical disfigurement can lead to terrible regrets as this woman from Belgium discovered after she had convinced doctors there to mutilate her body.
This instance of “buyer’s regret” is by no means unique but the fact that this sad woman was Belgian meant that she could get assistance to commit suicide which raises the ethical question for the euthanasia enthusiasts, namely where do they want to draw the line when the mentally ill seek suicide as the final solution to their very poor life choices? Surely the next step in Belgium has to be to start helping the schizophrenics to die when they voices get too loud? or to offer the manic depressives the needle when the lows are to dark? What about those of us with chronic back pain? Are we too going to qualify for the blessing of death? What about athletes who get a nasty sprained ankle surely they too should be put out of the misery of failure when they can not compete? Maybe even sporting teams who suffer the anguish of loosing the grand final should all be given the phenobarbital blessing to save them from the anguish of defeat. (and to improve the sporting gene pool by culling failures ) Why stop there? We could cure the common cold or solve the Gay marriage conundrum by respectively snuffing the snotty and burying the Gay.
Oh hang on this line of argument sounds awfully familiar to me as it should be to any student of history, it is where the well oiled slippery slope could lead too and sadly there are far too many euthanasia enthusiasts who are either uncaring or oblivious to the negative consequences to the changes that achieve their desire to embrace the fleshless arms off death.
Do we really want to go there Comrades?
- Nathan Verhelst Dies By Euthanasia Following Botched Sex Change, As Belgium Debates Extending ‘Death Rights’ To Children (medicaldaily.com)
- Woman elects euthanasia after botched sex change op… (telegraph.co.uk)
- I’m a monster: Belgian man chooses euthanasia after sex change (theprovince.com)
- Failed Sex Change Operation Drives Patient to Employ Medical Euthanasia (darkgovernment.com)
- Netherlands killing the mentally ill and senile (lunaticoutpost.com)
- Deaf Twin Brothers in Belgium Euthanized After Finding Out They Were Also Going Blind (theblaze.com)
- Man chooses euthanasia after botched sex change (smh.com.au)
I have been saying for years that if the proponents of Gay marriage are so sure of the community’s support then they should be advocating for a plebiscite to truly measure the real amount of public support for the the concept of same sex “marriage”. Well it seems that it might even happen if the report in today’s Fairfax press is to be believed:
Personally I doubt that the plebiscite will get up or even be debated in the parliament because neither Labor nor the Coalition are that keen on the “gay marriage” , then again Labor might go for it on the basis that they may get some small amount of positive PR from suggesting that they are putting the question to the people. Its no surprise to me that the Gay marriage advocates like Rodney Croome are less than enthusiastic about the idea because the experience of votes like the one held in California on proposition 8 showed a substantially lower level of public support for Gay marriage than the often claimed 80+% that he and his fellow travellers are so often citing on the issue.
It could be bit more spice into the pot for September 14 but I suspect that when it comes down to it that we won’t be having a plebiscite and that the only reason that this idea is being floated now is that the bit players want an issue to campaign on that will differentiate them from both Labor and the Coalition, the former because Australia’s oldest party has such a stench of death all around them and the later because they have so much momentum that independents will otherwise be consigned to the dustbin of history…
I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
If you have listened to this song before then it should not have escaped your attention that the process of making good gravy is just as important as the nature of the the ingredients I hear the song on the radio this morning as I read Janet Albrechtsen this morning.
Gay marriage is not akin to securing the vote for women or ending apartheid. After all, civil unions are commonplace. Gay couples enjoy the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples. If they don’t they should. But the political battle to claim the word “marriage” for homosexuals is an elite agenda of the political classes for reasons not always honest.
Take the disingenuous claim that traditional marriage is an evil form of discrimination against gays. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Hollingsworth last week, “when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.”
Yet, those who oppose gay marriage for legitimate reasons are too often treated as morally inferior, out-of-date, and worse, bigoted.
Whether it’s a snooty editorial from The New York Times ridiculing the “incoherence” of opposing gay marriage in Hollingsworth or mocking grumbles from the audience on ABC1’s Q&A, too many gay marriage advocates have chosen the wrong way to advance their cause.
Redefining marriage in a way that promotes social cohesion means winning people over with reasoned arguments rather than trying to guilt them into agreeing.
What our activist friends seem to forget is that for the sort of social changes they desire they have to convince rather than coerce a change from those of us who want to see marriage remain as a heterosexual institution.
Patience is a virtue that seems far too removed from the activist mindset, maybe it shouldn’t be so if they want the changes they desire to be enduring accepted and effective.
What is it with the single minded bigotry of Gay marriage advocates? It seems to me that they have totalitarian hearts that ell them that anyone who does not buy into the the entire gay agenda then they are the enemy. Usually I cite our learned friend as a prime example of this but on occasion I think that Darren Hayes has let loose his inner fascist.
As unbeliever I am like a lot of people rather indifferent to the doctrines of most religious faiths and when it comes to the Salvos their good works far out weigh their rather uptight attitude to sex in general. Frankly if Mr Hayes really wants to have a go at God-botherers for their attitude to homosexuality why is he not utterly outraged by Islam? Instead of just objecting to Gay marriage the followers of Islam are instructed that homosexuality is a capital offence and Gays in Iran are regularly hung for just following their nature.
Oh hang on, all of this rancour is rather pointless and its sad that such talented people are deluded enough to think that there will be any change to the marriage act under this or the next government and really what the only reason that this issue gets any kind of a run is to distract the public’s attention from the rather woeful performance of the Gillard Government. But its not just the Gay marriage lobby who have been sucked in by this deliberate strategy, the Greens have been running their campaign on this issue as if it actaully has a chance of getting up. Frankly it would take a shit load political Viagra to harden up enough support to consummate the Gay marriage dream of those like Hayes or our learned friend.
A great piece today in the Oz from my favourite Marxist Brendan O’Neil where he succinctly explains why some otherwise sensible conservatives are taking the plunge to support this seemingly innocuous err, cough, splutter, “reform”.
Of course I expect that our learned friend will be onto this piece like a starving hound would be onto the fox, with a great deal sound a fury (signifying nothing) but we only have to look to Canada to see just how bad the repercussions will be if this so called reform is ever to be made manifest if the activists and fag hags ever get their way.
So lets leave the marriage well enough alone and if homosexual relationships need any sort of legal recognition and social acknowledgement then lets do it through other legal and social instruments like some sort of civil union or relationship register.
I have just read the revelation in the Oz that Tony Abbott’s sister is herself both Gay and in a committed relationship and more importantly that this has not meant that she has become persona non grata at the Abbott household where she has been welcome with her partner on numerous occasions.
Cheers again Comrades
Update the second
As predicted our learned friend has produced a rant about Brendan’s piece in the OZ and also as predicted he is very hound like in his he desire to attack and maul the fox here but I think that he has just ended up with a mouth full of straw and dead air:
Now I am actually a student of our learned friend’s rhetoric and usually he tries to at least find something in the text which he can twist and turn to his purposes but on this occasion he goes one step further and totality invents and argument that O’Neill is not even making:
O’Neill actually argues that – get this – the government stopping trying to encourage gay people to marry straight people (which seems cruel to the straight people who marry them, to be honest) is “an invitation to yet more state interference” in our lives.
Yes, there’s less state control of our lives when the government arbitrarily tells us whether we can marry that man or that woman, purely on the grounds of our gender.
It’s the most bizarre black-is-white up-is-down argument I can remember ever seeing.
I may be wrong, but after reading the O’Neill piece in question five times I can’t find where he argues this at all. of course Our leaned friends fans uncritically accept his argument without question
Worse still our learned friend totally misrepresents O’Neill’s actual argument as well by a mixture of selective misquoting and derision:
Brendan goes on to give us some even sillier stereotyping and false assertions (“A gay relationship is fundamentally one of romantic love, far more so than traditional marriage is”), absurd claims (“In Canada… the words husband and wife, even mother and father, have been airbrushed from official life”) and dishonest strawmen (“Collapsing together every human relationship under a mushy and meaningless redefinition of ‘marriage’”), but that backwards freedom-is-slavery line appears to be his main point, and, unlike the above common furphies, a line I’ve never seen before.
If our learned friend had actaully done some research about the situation in Canada he would discover that there is nothing made of straw or dishonest about the way that official nomenclature has been altered in reference to family and parental roles in the wake of gay marriage there. Unlike our learned friend Brendan O’Neill actaully knows what he is talking about when it comes to the situation in Canada.
The rest of Sear’s rant is just his typical foaming at the mouth wild hound dog raving he is desperately trying to get a mouthful of that O’Neill fox but all he has managed to get is teeth around is a few handfuls of rather rank straw. In typical totalitarian style he declares himself winner as if asserting something will make it so and all the while the fox is sitting there doing a bit of indifferent grooming and leading the chorus of laughter at our learned friend’s foolishness. What a lovely way to wake up to a beautiful day!
Cheers times three Comrades
- CLE on Same Sex Marriage and Civil Unions (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- The U.K.’s Marriage Equality Debate Heats Up (newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com)
- Homosexual Partnership. (iangardnerdotcom.wordpress.com)
- “Why gay marriage is a very bad idea” (ebougis.wordpress.com)
- What Effect Will Gay Marriage Have? (queerlandia.com)
- Gay marriage: The fight is on, but who is calling the shots? (independent.co.uk)
The misplaced wedding bouquet blues, or our learned friend keeps flogging that poor dead gay marriage nag
What is it about Gay marriage that so rings the bell of our learned friend?
The nub of the issue that drives him to write post after post about it?
It can’t be anything practical because one of the few things that Brother Number One did while in office, that I fully endorse, was to remove 180 or so instances where federal law discriminates against same sex couples. Perhaps its the rather desperate prospects for the Labor governemnt and the inability of the Greens to forceto move on the issue no matter how close such a change is to the heart of .
So having worn out all of his arguments based upon any sort of logic he resorts to a sort of dark sarcasm which of course in his usual style does not quite hit its mark:
You would have thought that a Sensitive New Age Lefty would think twice about using the quite sweet story of two people in their twilight years finding love for his own political agenda, Ah no, not our Jezza, he will grind the bones of any story if it helps further the cause of same sex marriage.
There is an irony here though insofar as our learned friend has been twice married and has not as yet produced any offspring (well some of us should be thankful for that 😉 )so were his sarcastic scenario to be real he himself would be denied the joys of state sanctioned nuptials, maybe that is why he feels such empathy for those who now can dare to speak the name of their love?
- Archbishop warns clergy gay marriage is a ‘radical step’ (independent.co.uk)
- ‘Gay marriage is madness’: Catholic cardinal slams government’s plans for same-sex weddings (mirror.co.uk)
- Gay marriage is now the issue through which the elite advertises its superiority over the redneck masses (blogs.telegraph.co.uk)
- Kirk Cameron Tells Piers Morgan Homosexuality is ‘Unnatural,’ ‘Destructive’ (inquisitr.com)
- Cardinal Keith O’Brien: Same Sex Marriage Is A Grotesque Subversion, A Great Wrong! (deaconjohnspace.wordpress.com)
Life must be a barrel of laughs if you are a Green Gay activist because it looks to me that the Gay marriage push has just crashed into the reality that the people do not actaully support any change to the marriage act as so may proponents of Gay marriage have been insisting . If nothing else the greens parliamentary stunt of a making the members seek the mood of their electorates on the issue seems to have gone really bad for the Greens with nearly two thirds of the members reporting that the people do not support any change to the act:
I do note that there is a fair bit more support for civil unions for homosexual couples according to the Age piece that I cite above so It looks to me that As the Labor party makes a move to give its members a conscience vote the efforts to bring about Gay Marriage in this country will amount to nothing. Is anyone really surprised by this? I for one am not especially when you take into account that a homosexual couple are treated the same way as a heterosexual couple by Centerlink, the tax office and for the purposes of inheritance (a good reform from Labor on that* 😉 )
I must say that I thought that this quote from Graham Perrett is particularly stupid
But Queensland Labor MP Graham Perrett, a Catholic, pointing to bullying and suicides, said it was ”time for everybody, every adult in Australia to be given the same opportunity … to wake up with their own loved one”.
Its stupid because there is absolutely no legal reason that would prevent a gay person doing what Graham Perrett thinks is a problem for homosexual couples who don’t need to be married to sleep together as often as they please.
* I am praising Labor for something here 🙂