Australian Politics Forum - Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house

Verge

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6329
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #60 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:24am

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.

I thought it has defined the term marriage to be between a man and a woman.

So how can the states use the term marriage in its legislation.

Wouldnt the use of the word "marriage" create conflict between the two legislations due to the different interpreations of the word?

I think this is going to be a pissing contest personally.

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 #61 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:28am

Soren wrote on 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.

Yes. Correct.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:45am:

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.

The powers of the Federal Parliament are specifically defined in Section 51 of the Constitution:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

The ability to define words for general useage is NOT one of these powers.

The Tasmanian Act is not overring any Federal Law. It is legislating on a different matter. Marriage other than between a man and a woman.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:45am:

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.

Yes it is. It is legislating on a different matter. Marriage other than between a man and a woman. This is not what the Federal Legislation covers. Federal Legislation defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:45am:

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.

No. There is no need for this to happen. There is no conflict between the legislations. They legislate for different things.

If the federal Marriage Act were however altered and the definition concerning man and woman removed - then it would potentially overrule the Tasmanian Act.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #62 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:33am

Verge wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:24am:

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.

I thought it has defined the term marriage to be between a man and a woman.

So how can the states use the term marriage in its legislation.

Wouldnt the use of the word "marriage" create conflict between the two legislations due to the different interpreations of the word?

I think this is going to be a pissing contest personally.

No.

When a word is specifically defined in an Act - it means that that definition is specific to that Act.

Section 51 of the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to give a word a specific universal definition

The key to this all will be how the High Court decides what the word "marriage" means in s51 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not define it.

Back to top

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #63 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:46am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:33am:

No.

When a word is specifically defined in an Act - it means that that definition is specific to that Act.

Section 51 of the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to give a word a specific universal definition

The key to this all will be how the High Court decides what the word "marriage" means in s51 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not define it.

On behalf of everyone I'd like to thank you for using some of your precious time as a High Court Barrister and Constitutional Legal Expert to be able to redefine the word marriage in so many different ways.

And using current legal precedent to prove your point instead of the usual convoluted semantics and deliberate misrepresentations so many morons employ to obfuscate their mindless musings, is quite refreshing.

And why yes, I do like to use Sarcastica Bold as my font when replying to your posts. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #64 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 1:29pm

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:46am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:33am:

No.

When a word is specifically defined in an Act - it means that that definition is specific to that Act.

Section 51 of the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to give a word a specific universal definition

The key to this all will be how the High Court decides what the word "marriage" means in s51 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not define it.

On behalf of everyone I'd like to thank you for using some of your precious time as a High Court Barrister and Constitutional Legal Expert to be able to redefine the word marriage in so many different ways.

I have not defined the word "marriage" at all.

And If you would like the opinion of a Constitutional Legal Expert - I can refer you to Anne Twomey:

While the Commonwealth Parliament can only make laws on specific subjects listed in the Constitution, the states have full legislative power to make laws on any subject as long as it is not taken away from them by the Commonwealth Constitution. So if the Constitution only permitted the Commonwealth to make laws in relation to marriage in its traditional sense, this would not stop the states from making laws about other forms of marriage.
http://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-can-tasmania-legalise-same-sex-marriage-8665

Which is essentially what I have been saying.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:46am:

And using current legal precedent to prove your point instead of the usual convoluted semantics and deliberate misrepresentations so many morons employ to obfuscate their mindless musings, is quite refreshing.

I haven't used any current legal precedent to prove my point. Simply the legislation.

Probably best you don't try to use words you don't understand in future.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:46am:

And why yes, I do like to use Sarcastica Bold as my font when replying to your posts. Grin

Good for you

Back to top

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 23818 Carlsbad, CA Gender:	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #65 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 2:06pm Nice to see the main issues affecting every day families are being addressed. Letting poofters play husband and wife... Gotta love the modern world eh?
Back to top	Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #66 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 4:14pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 2:06pm: Nice to see the main issues affecting every day families are being addressed. Letting poofters play husband and wife... Gotta love the modern world eh? Human rights effect us all
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #67 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 4:26pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 1:29pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:46am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:33am:

No.

When a word is specifically defined in an Act - it means that that definition is specific to that Act.

Section 51 of the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to give a word a specific universal definition

The key to this all will be how the High Court decides what the word "marriage" means in s51 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not define it.

On behalf of everyone I'd like to thank you for using some of your precious time as a High Court Barrister and Constitutional Legal Expert to be able to redefine the word marriage in so many different ways.

I have not defined the word "marriage" at all.

And If you would like the opinion of a Constitutional Legal Expert - I can refer you to Anne Twomey:

While the Commonwealth Parliament can only make laws on specific subjects listed in the Constitution, the states have full legislative power to make laws on any subject as long as it is not taken away from them by the Commonwealth Constitution. So if the Constitution only permitted the Commonwealth to make laws in relation to marriage in its traditional sense, this would not stop the states from making laws about other forms of marriage.
http://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-can-tasmania-legalise-same-sex-marriage-8665

Which is essentially what I have been saying.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:46am:

And using current legal precedent to prove your point instead of the usual convoluted semantics and deliberate misrepresentations so many morons employ to obfuscate their mindless musings, is quite refreshing.

I haven't used any current legal precedent to prove my point. Simply the legislation.

Probably best you don't try to use words you don't understand in future.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:46am:

And why yes, I do like to use Sarcastica Bold as my font when replying to your posts. Grin

Good for you

Classic

I even told you I was being sarcastic you still interpreted as a valid and serious reply.

Thanks for posting that link, a very well written hypothesis and interesting read. See when you grab a bit of information and use it out of context to try and support an invalid view, it's best to not post the link. (Just incase I check it for accuracy)

This is the bit you missed at the end, you know where the opinion tends to formalised, the taswegians can do what ever they want it just is not legal precedent and probably not legal.

BTW, since I did actually get a distinction for my law subject, you can rest assured I do know what the word means.

A Tasmanian law permitting same-sex marriage, even if operative, would do little more than facilitate holding a ceremony, drinking champagne and taking photos. It might confer on the parties to a same-sex marriage the status of “married” for the purposes of Tasmanian laws, but it is most unlikely that they would be regarded as legally “married” for the purposes of Commonwealth law or under the law of any other state (unless that state legislated to recognise the status conferred by the Tasmanian law).

It would therefore not attract any legal benefits or status accorded to a married couple outside of those given under Tasmanian law.

There is also a distinct possibility that such a law would be held to be inoperative because it is inconsistent with a valid Commonwealth law. All in all, it is not time for same-sex marriage proponents to crack open the champagne yet.

http://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-can-tasmania-legalise-same-sex-marriage-8665

Back to top

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #68 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 4:36pm ZING
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #69 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 4:39pm

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 4:26pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 1:29pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:46am:

[quote author=697A7979726F74732B2C1B0 link=1346319076/62#62 date=1346376781]

No.

When a word is specifically defined in an Act - it means that that definition is specific to that Act.

Section 51 of the Constitution does not give the Federal Government the power to give a word a specific universal definition

The key to this all will be how the High Court decides what the word "marriage" means in s51 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not define it.

On behalf of everyone I'd like to thank you for using some of your precious time as a High Court Barrister and Constitutional Legal Expert to be able to redefine the word marriage in so many different ways.

I have not defined the word "marriage" at all.

And If you would like the opinion of a Constitutional Legal Expert - I can refer you to Anne Twomey:

While the Commonwealth Parliament can only make laws on specific subjects listed in the Constitution, the states have full legislative power to make laws on any subject as long as it is not taken away from them by the Commonwealth Constitution. So if the Constitution only permitted the Commonwealth to make laws in relation to marriage in its traditional sense, this would not stop the states from making laws about other forms of marriage.
http://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-can-tasmania-legalise-same-sex-marriage-8665

Which is essentially what I have been saying.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:46am:

And using current legal precedent to prove your point instead of the usual convoluted semantics and deliberate misrepresentations so many morons employ to obfuscate their mindless musings, is quite refreshing.

I haven't used any current legal precedent to prove my point. Simply the legislation.

Probably best you don't try to use words you don't understand in future.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:46am:

And why yes, I do like to use Sarcastica Bold as my font when replying to your posts. Grin

Good for you

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 4:26pm:

Classic

I even told you I was being sarcastic you still interpreted as a valid and serious reply.

Goodness, you are obviously far too clever for me.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 4:26pm:

Thanks for posting that link, a very well written hypothesis and interesting read. See when you grab a bit of information and use it out of context to try and support an invalid view, it's best to not post the link. (Just incase I check it for accuracy)

What did I use out of context?
What did I use inaccurately?

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 4:26pm:

This is the bit you missed at the end, you know where the opinion tends to formalised, the taswegians can do what ever they want it just is not legal precedent and probably not legal.

Who mentioned legal precedent?
As to whether it is legal - that will be up to the High Court to eventually decide - as I have already said.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 4:26pm:

BTW, since I did actually get a distinction for my law subject, you can rest assured I do know what the word means.

You should try to demonstrate them by using it correctly.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 4:26pm:

A Tasmanian law permitting same-sex marriage, even if operative, would do little more than facilitate holding a ceremony, drinking champagne and taking photos. It might confer on the parties to a same-sex marriage the status of “married” for the purposes of Tasmanian laws, but it is most unlikely that they would be regarded as legally “married” for the purposes of Commonwealth law or under the law of any other state (unless that state legislated to recognise the status conferred by the Tasmanian law).

It would therefore not attract any legal benefits or status accorded to a married couple outside of those given under Tasmanian law.

There is also a distinct possibility that such a law would be held to be inoperative because it is inconsistent with a valid Commonwealth law. All in all, it is not time for same-sex marriage proponents to crack open the champagne yet.

http://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-can-tasmania-legalise-same-sex-marriage-8665

Yes. All correct.

But as I have already said - as did Ms Twomey - there is nothing at the moment stopping the Tasmanian Parliament from making a law about gay marriage. Whether it will be valid will rely on the High Court's decision about the definition of the word marriage in the Constitution.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:33am:

The key to this all will be how the High Court decides what the word "marriage" means in s51 of the Constitution. The Constitution does not define it.

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 #70 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 5:20pm ZING
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 Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #71 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 5:25pm I don't think you know what zing means.
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 #72 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 5:54pm ... wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 5:25pm: I don't think you know what zing means. Sure I do. It's that sound our brains make when you mistakenly chew on a bit of aluminium foil.
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

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #73 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 6:04pm ... wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 5:25pm: I don't think you know what zing means. zing zing zing went my heart strings?
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #74 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 6:07pm oooh yeah baby.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged