Australian Politics Forum - Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house

Gist Gold Member Offline I am not a sock, I am a human being! Posts: 5476	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #45 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:17am Bobby. wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 8:03pm: Gist - this is for you: Leave Santa alone bobby.
Back to top	"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration) IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #46 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:23am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 9:34pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 8:57pm:

There is a problem tho. Marriage is controlled by FEDERAL legislation and the states cannot change it. Why do you think there is such discussion on gay marriage in federal parliament? The decision is theirs, not the states.

No - hetrosexual marriage is controlled by FEDERAL legislation. The Marriage Act even has definition that for the purposes of that act - marriage is between a man and a woman.

Therefore - same sex marriage is free to be legislated by the states - as there is no conflict with Federal law.

The decision WAS for the Federal Parliament - right up until the point that the Howard Government decided to specifically define it as being between a man and a woman. Howard is a homosexual hero.

dont give up your day job to be a lawyer - or any job that involves logic.

FEDERAL legislation defines MARRIAGE as a man and a woman. The states cannot over ride that. your supposed 'argument' was a pitiful one.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #47 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:28am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:19pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Legislating for marriage is not a states' rights issue.

State may legislate about anything. So long as it does not conflict with Federal Law

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

There are no state-based marriage acts.

There is one before the Tasmainian Parliament. It concerns same sex marriage.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Any state legislation of same sex marriage will be cancelled out by the federal law.

A same sex marriage act is not cancelled out by Federal Law - because Federal Law specifically defines marriage as being between a man and a woman

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

States cannot make laws contrary to federal law.

The Tasmanian Bill is not contrary to Federal Law. The Federal Law specifically defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Tasmanian law refers to same sex marriage.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Any high court challenge to the Marriage Act will fail on these ground.

What grounds?

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Or rather, any challenge will have to be based on some other grounds, not states' rights.

A States rights are absolute. The Federal Government however is limited to what it may legislate on by the Constitution. The Federal Government has chosen to define what Marriage is in it's Marriage Act. Hence - a State is free to legislate on marriages which do not fit that definition.

good grief... the federal act defines MARRIAGE per se... the tasmanian legislation seeks to illegal REDEFINE marriage in opposition to federal law. IM a little surprised you dont get this. It is after all intuitively obvious to pretty much everyone with an IQ above that of SOB.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #48 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:29am

MOTR wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 12:48am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:19pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Legislating for marriage is not a states' rights issue.

State may legislate about anything. So long as it does not conflict with Federal Law

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

There are no state-based marriage acts.

There is one before the Tasmainian Parliament. It concerns same sex marriage.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Any state legislation of same sex marriage will be cancelled out by the federal law.

A same sex marriage act is not cancelled out by Federal Law - because Federal Law specifically defines marriage as being between a man and a woman

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

States cannot make laws contrary to federal law.

The Tasmanian Bill is not contrary to Federal Law. The Federal Law specifically defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Tasmanian law refers to same sex marriage.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Any high court challenge to the Marriage Act will fail on these ground.

What grounds?

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Or rather, any challenge will have to be based on some other grounds, not states' rights.

A States rights are absolute. The Federal Government however is limited to what it may legislate on by the Constitution. The Federal Government has chosen to define what Marriage is in it's Marriage Act. Hence - a State is free to legislate on marriages which do not fit that definition.

You make a very strong case.

he makes an exceedingly WEAK case. but MOTR, the real question is why you think any case in agreement with your position is inherently a strong one.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #49 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:44am This is a diversion that has no chance of getting through the upper house, the numbers are simply not there - you know, you need to get the numbers right?...move on...
Back to top	I condemn Male Violence Against Women The Government Supports Gynocide There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #50 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:45am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:19pm:

The Federal Law specifically defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Tasmanian law refers to same sex marriage.

Federal law = marriage - man woman
Tasmanian proposal = marriage - same sex.

What's common to both? The notion of 'marriage'. Which definition of 'marriage' trumps the other? the federal law's. SO Tasmanians will have to call it something else because they cannot override a federal law.

Tasmania is not introducing something different, something new, something that doesn't exist in federal legislation. No, Tasmania is introducing a definition that is contrary to federal law and which it cannot override.

For this wheeze to succeed, the federal Marriage Act would have to be altered and the definition concerning man and woman removed. That won't happen until Adam Bandt is PM.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #51 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 10:06am

gold_medal wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:28am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:19pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Legislating for marriage is not a states' rights issue.

State may legislate about anything. So long as it does not conflict with Federal Law

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

There are no state-based marriage acts.

There is one before the Tasmainian Parliament. It concerns same sex marriage.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Any state legislation of same sex marriage will be cancelled out by the federal law.

A same sex marriage act is not cancelled out by Federal Law - because Federal Law specifically defines marriage as being between a man and a woman

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

States cannot make laws contrary to federal law.

The Tasmanian Bill is not contrary to Federal Law. The Federal Law specifically defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Tasmanian law refers to same sex marriage.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Any high court challenge to the Marriage Act will fail on these ground.

What grounds?

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Or rather, any challenge will have to be based on some other grounds, not states' rights.

A States rights are absolute. The Federal Government however is limited to what it may legislate on by the Constitution. The Federal Government has chosen to define what Marriage is in it's Marriage Act. Hence - a State is free to legislate on marriages which do not fit that definition.

good grief... the federal act defines MARRIAGE per se... the tasmanian legislation seeks to illegal REDEFINE marriage in opposition to federal law. IM a little surprised you dont get this. It is after all intuitively obvious to pretty much everyone with an IQ above that of SOB.

Given you have the IQ of a grapeseed that pretty much rules you out then. Cheesy

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

Verge Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6329 Gender:	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #52 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 10:09am If the states have the power to legislate on this, why is a federal matter? Never mind, just seen more posts, got my answer.
Back to top	And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13 IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #53 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 10:23am This is going to make anywhere upto and incuding 10 people very happy.....right up until their politically motivated show-marriages end in divorce within 2 years.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Gist Gold Member Offline I am not a sock, I am a human being! Posts: 5476	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #54 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 10:51am ... wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 10:23am: This is going to make anywhere upto and incuding 10 people very happy.....right up until their politically motivated show-marriages end in divorce within 2 years. Good stuff. Why should they get to miss out on the misery?
Back to top	"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration) IP Logged

Verge Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6329 Gender:	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #55 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:03am So this is what Ive gathered. Feds overule States. Feds are specific in saying Marriage is defined as man and a woman. Only way states can get it through and make it valid is to use another term, such as civil union. Am I on the right track.
Back to top	And why not, if you will permit me; why shouldn’t I, if you will permit me; spend my first week as prime minister, should that happen, on this, on your, country - Abbott with the Garma People Aug 13 IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #56 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:17am

Verge wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:03am:

So this is what Ive gathered.

Feds overule States.

Feds are specific in saying Marriage is defined as man and a woman.

Only way states can get it through and make it valid is to use another term, such as civil union.

Am I on the right track.

Feds only over rule the state where there is a conflict between the legislation.

THe Federal legislation is specific to hetrosexual marriage. It defines marriage that way. Hence there is no conflict with gay marriage

States to not need to use another term. The Federal government can only define the term for the purposes of it's Act. It does not have the power to define a word for all useages.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #57 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:20am

gold_medal wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:28am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:19pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Legislating for marriage is not a states' rights issue.

State may legislate about anything. So long as it does not conflict with Federal Law

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

There are no state-based marriage acts.

There is one before the Tasmainian Parliament. It concerns same sex marriage.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Any state legislation of same sex marriage will be cancelled out by the federal law.

A same sex marriage act is not cancelled out by Federal Law - because Federal Law specifically defines marriage as being between a man and a woman

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

States cannot make laws contrary to federal law.

The Tasmanian Bill is not contrary to Federal Law. The Federal Law specifically defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Tasmanian law refers to same sex marriage.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Any high court challenge to the Marriage Act will fail on these ground.

What grounds?

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Or rather, any challenge will have to be based on some other grounds, not states' rights.

A States rights are absolute. The Federal Government however is limited to what it may legislate on by the Constitution. The Federal Government has chosen to define what Marriage is in it's Marriage Act. Hence - a State is free to legislate on marriages which do not fit that definition.

good grief... the federal act defines MARRIAGE per se... the tasmanian legislation seeks to illegal REDEFINE marriage in opposition to federal law. IM a little surprised you dont get this. It is after all intuitively obvious to pretty much everyone with an IQ above that of SOB.

No. the Federal Act does not define marriage "per se". It defines it specifically for the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961.

The tasmanian legislation does not seek to REDEFINE marriage in opposition to federal law. It uses a different definition of marriage - which means there is no conflict with the Federal act.

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #58 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:23am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:17am:

Verge wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:03am:

So this is what Ive gathered.

Feds overule States.

Feds are specific in saying Marriage is defined as man and a woman.

Only way states can get it through and make it valid is to use another term, such as civil union.

Am I on the right track.

THe Federal legislation is specific to hetrosexual marriage. It defines marriage that way. Hence there is no conflict with gay marriage

Well, that's certainly one of the more idiotic interpretations I've seen.

"heterosexual marriage" is a tautology. There is no other kind, so there is indeed a conflict.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

Quantum

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3373

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #59 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:23am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:17am:

Verge wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:03am:

So this is what Ive gathered.

Feds overule States.

Feds are specific in saying Marriage is defined as man and a woman.

Only way states can get it through and make it valid is to use another term, such as civil union.

Am I on the right track.

Feds only over rule the state where there is a conflict between the legislation.

THe Federal legislation is specific to hetrosexual marriage. It defines marriage that way. Hence there is no conflict with gay marriage

States to not need to use another term. The Federal government can only define the term for the purposes of it's Act. It does not have the power to define a word for all useages.

If this is truly the case then we can throw away the rule book altogether. All anyone has to do is give a different definition to any word in law and then claim that the law doesn't apply. If this gets through it will be a massive Pandora's box for just about any written laws.

Back to top

IP Logged