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

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.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:

Yes - that is essentially right.


Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:
Yes.  You are absolutely right.  But the 2004 Amendment to the Marriage Act "defined" marriage as being between a man and a woman.  As of 2004 - in Australia - marriage IS what it is because of legislation.  It was defined in legislation.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:

Yes.  And here is the Bill so you can read it yourself.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill/mlab2004287/

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 9:50pm:

Maybe.  I don't know what that is.  Does it have an enormously large penis and get all the chicks?  If so, then yes - that is probably me.

Prevailing wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 10:21pm:

There already has been.  John Howard did in in 2004
Prevailing wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 10:21pm:

Yes yes yes, whatever...but please - tell us more about the fish.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 10:31pm:




1 Subsection 5(1)

Insert:

marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill/mlab2004287/

John Howard is a homosexual hero.  He freed the states to legislate for gay marriage.

Prevailing wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 10:34pm:

Come on.  Focus.  We were discussing fish.  Remember?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 10:34pm:


Don't be stupid. Marriage has always been between men and women, in the West, between one of each.

Howard's spelling it out is not Howard inventing it. Homos have been jumping on the opportunity that it has never been spelled out because it has never been understood otherwise.

Homos being pettyfogging little bush lawyers is not a revelation of a truth hitherto unrecognised. It's being pettyfogging little pricks.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 10:45pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 10:45pm:

THat is your opinion.  I don't think it is a universal opinion.


Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 10:45pm:

Howard's spelling it out enshrined Howard's definition in Federal legislation.  Thereby allowing other definitions to be used in State legislation.

It may "never been understood otherwise" - but when Howard defined it - it allowed it to be understood otherwise in State legislation.

Soren wrote on Aug 30^th, 2012 at 10:45pm:

Whatever.

Note - I have no dog in this fight.  I am not gay.  And while I do not wish to see some Australians discriminated against - I consider gay marriage a fairly minor issue (if a gay person disagrees - fine, I accept your opinion)

However - it is a fascinating legal question.  Whoever came up with the Tasmanian legislation is a dead set genius.  I can't wait to see it go before the High Court (as it certainly will).  I'll be buggered (excuse the expression) if I know how the High Court will decide.  But it is a cracker of a Constitutional question.

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

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


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

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:

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:

What grounds?

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