Australian Politics Forum - Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #75 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 7:53pm

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.

it does not define HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE. it defines marriage PER SE.

Seriously, the concept of this seems to elude you totally.

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 #76 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 7:55pm

Quantum wrote on 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.

Its nothing more than a symbolic act to take attention away from the failed TAS economy and the fact that the greens and labor are well behind in the polls. why else would you try and pass legislation that is illegal and would be thrown out by the high court if they even tried to implement it?

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 #77 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 7:56pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on 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.

now you are just being idiotic. and you do it so well!

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 #78 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 7:58pm

adelcrow wrote on 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

except when it is the taliban or china. in that case the cowardly greens just seem to disappear.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #79 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:13pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 7:53pm:

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.

it does not define HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE. it defines marriage PER SE.

Seriously, the concept of this seems to elude you totally.

It defines "marriage" as being a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. This is a definition specific to the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961.

Just as it defines an "authorised celebrant" as being :
a person authorised to solemnise marriages by virtue of Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part IV

The definition only applies to the Act

Seriously, comprehension of this seems to elude you totally.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #80 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:26pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:13pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 7:53pm:

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.

it does not define HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE. it defines marriage PER SE.

Seriously, the concept of this seems to elude you totally.

It defines "marriage" as being a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. This is a definition specific to the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961.

Just as it defines an "authorised celebrant" as being :
a person authorised to solemnise marriages by virtue of Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part IV

The definition only applies to the Act

Seriously, comprehension of this seems to elude you totally.

death throws of desperation

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #81 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:28am:

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.

You are sh!tting me.

There is no different matter. The matter is 'marriage'. The federal law says that it is between a man and a woman.

That's what marriage is.

Not one type of marriage, not an interpretation among many interpretations, not one of many possible interpretations. No. That's what 'marriage' IS.

Now if you want a state based legislation about 'marriage', that's the federal law you fall in line with. There is no 'other' marriage. That's what marriage is. There is no different matter, there is no different interpretation.

You want to legislate on marriage, make sure your draft legislation understand it as something relating to ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN (count' em, check 'em). That's it. There is neither room, nor invitation to introduce a different meaning to marriage.
Get a smacking grip, man.

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #82 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:42pm

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:28am:

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.

You are sh!tting me.

There is no different matter. The matter is 'marriage'. The federal law says that it is between a man and a woman.

That's what marriage is.

Not one type of marriage, not an interpretation among many interpretations, not one of many possible interpretations. No. That's what 'marriage' IS.

Now if you want a state based legislation about 'marriage', that's the federal law you fall in line with. There is no 'other' marriage. That's what marriage is. There is no different matter, there is no different interpretation.

You want to legislate on marriage, make sure your draft legislation understand it as something relating to ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN (count' em, check 'em). That's it. There is neither room, nor invitation to introduce a different meaning to marriage.
Get a smacking grip, man.

Weird how stupid an interpretation could get. Lets go through the argument just for a laugh.

Marriage act - hey it is about marriage. Not some marriage. Maybe marriage. But marriage. The only marriage.

In THE marriage act, it states "marriage", as to what the act asserts itself, is between a man and a woman.

There is no other marriage. There is no other interpretation. The act of marriage (marriage act), to which there is no other, asserts that marriage is only an act between a man and a woman.

This being a federal act, supersedes all acts.

I know that is pretty much what you said, but found it so desperate for others to argue against, I just had to have my 2 cents.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:57pm by progressiveslol »

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #83 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:42pm

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:28am:

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.

You are sh!tting me.

There is no different matter. The matter is 'marriage'. The federal law says that it is between a man and a woman.

That's what marriage is.

Not one type of marriage, not an interpretation among many interpretations, not one of many possible interpretations. No. That's what 'marriage' IS.

Now if you want a state based legislation about 'marriage', that's the federal law you fall in line with. There is no 'other' marriage. That's what marriage is. There is no different matter, there is no different interpretation.

You want to legislate on marriage, make sure your draft legislation understand it as something relating to ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN (count' em, check 'em). That's it. There is neither room, nor invitation to introduce a different meaning to marriage.
Get a smacking grip, man.

he is starting to lose it. The incredibly obvious is eluding him. the federal marriage act is not about sexuality. it defines marriage s a man and a woman. end of story. MARRIAGE=man+woman. No debate, no discussion. That is why the TAS legislation is inherently illegal because tas has to be in line with superseding federal legislation. it is not an option. It is a constitutional requirement with no other options. By defining marriage as a man and a woman the legally enforcable highest law (federal law) declares gay marriage illegal. it is the same way in which a tasmanian brother cnanot marry his sister (although they still breed nonetheless).

You are being obtuse as well as stubbornly foolish.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #84 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:43pm

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:28am:

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.

You are sh!tting me.

There is no different matter. The matter is 'marriage'. The federal law says that it is between a man and a woman.

Yes. that is right. For the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

That's what marriage is.

For the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961 - yes.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Not one type of marriage, not an interpretation among many interpretations, not one of many possible interpretations. No. That's what 'marriage' IS.

That is what it is for the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961. But there are other interpretations. At least 11 countries around the world allow same sex marriage. They have different interpretations than that defined in the Marriage Act 1961.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Now if you want a state based legislation about 'marriage', that's the federal law you fall in line with. There is no 'other' marriage. That's what marriage is. There is no different matter, there is no different interpretation.

If the Federal Law has confined itself to marriage between a man and a woman - than the States may pass laws about other interpretations of what marriage is.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

You want to legislate on marriage, make sure your draft legislation understand it as something relating to ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN (count' em, check 'em). That's it. There is neither room, nor invitation to introduce a different meaning to marriage.

Will you tell the legislatures of Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden this? Or shall I?

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Get a smacking grip, man.

Is that a proposal!

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #85 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:54pm I would say you can pretty much bet that after the next election the entire public service sector will be sacked in Tasmania and Timber Industry jobs will be back on the menu...
Back to top	I condemn Male Violence Against Women The Government Supports Gynocide There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #86 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:54pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:43pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:28am:

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.

You are sh!tting me.

There is no different matter. The matter is 'marriage'. The federal law says that it is between a man and a woman.

Yes. that is right. For the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

That's what marriage is.

For the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961 - yes.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Not one type of marriage, not an interpretation among many interpretations, not one of many possible interpretations. No. That's what 'marriage' IS.

That is what it is for the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961. But there are other interpretations. At least 11 countries around the world allow same sex marriage. They have different interpretations than that defined in the Marriage Act 1961.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Now if you want a state based legislation about 'marriage', that's the federal law you fall in line with. There is no 'other' marriage. That's what marriage is. There is no different matter, there is no different interpretation.

If the Federal Law has confined itself to marriage between a man and a woman - than the States may pass laws about other interpretations of what marriage is.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

You want to legislate on marriage, make sure your draft legislation understand it as something relating to ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN (count' em, check 'em). That's it. There is neither room, nor invitation to introduce a different meaning to marriage.

Will you tell the legislatures of Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden this? Or shall I?

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Get a smacking grip, man.

Is that a proposal!

just a clue... the laws in other countries are of ZERO effect here. Funny that.

which part of how federal law defines marriage as EXCLUSIVELY (meaning no other option permissable) as a man and woman dont you understand? how in any frame of logic in this universe does seeking to define marriage in any other way NOT contravene the federal definition.

you are either a troll or a moron. It is hard to imagine anyone being quite so stupid.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #87 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:57pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:43pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Now if you want a state based legislation about 'marriage', that's the federal law you fall in line with. There is no 'other' marriage. That's what marriage is. There is no different matter, there is no different interpretation.

If the Federal Law has confined itself to marriage between a man and a woman - than the States may pass laws about other interpretations of what marriage is.

Hey, bozo, back up! There is no room for 'other interpretation' in this jurisdiction.

Read that again until it makes sense to you because evidently, reading it in another 25 posts hasn't made the slightest impact.

So read it again and again before you move to the next line.

Read it again.

And again.

Here it is in red in case black is too ambiguous for you:

There is no room for 'other interpretation' in this jurisdiction.

Sweden and Argentina and the rest of them are not of this jurisdiction.
Here, it's a bloke and a sheila. There's your definition. That's THE definition that rules all other definitions. There is no room for another definition for a State to come up with.
That's the entire point of this definition - to make it unequivocal and rule out ambiguity.

You go ahead and tell the Swedes - the Australians do not recognise the Swedish parliament's decisions as binding in Australia. I am sure they will not be half as smacking surprised as you are.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house
Reply #88 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:04pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:54pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:43pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 11:28am:

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.

You are sh!tting me.

There is no different matter. The matter is 'marriage'. The federal law says that it is between a man and a woman.

Yes. that is right. For the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

That's what marriage is.

For the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961 - yes.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Not one type of marriage, not an interpretation among many interpretations, not one of many possible interpretations. No. That's what 'marriage' IS.

That is what it is for the purposes of the Marriage Act 1961. But there are other interpretations. At least 11 countries around the world allow same sex marriage. They have different interpretations than that defined in the Marriage Act 1961.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Now if you want a state based legislation about 'marriage', that's the federal law you fall in line with. There is no 'other' marriage. That's what marriage is. There is no different matter, there is no different interpretation.

If the Federal Law has confined itself to marriage between a man and a woman - than the States may pass laws about other interpretations of what marriage is.

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

You want to legislate on marriage, make sure your draft legislation understand it as something relating to ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN (count' em, check 'em). That's it. There is neither room, nor invitation to introduce a different meaning to marriage.

Will you tell the legislatures of Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden this? Or shall I?

Soren wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Get a smacking grip, man.

Is that a proposal!

just a clue... the laws in other countries are of ZERO effect here. Funny that.

Yes - funny that. Especially since you have just been trying to convince us of the universally constant definition of the concept of marriage:

You want to legislate on marriage, make sure your draft legislation understand it as something relating to ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN (count' em, check 'em). That's it. There is neither room, nor invitation to introduce a different meaning to marriage

gold_medal wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:54pm:

which part of how federal law defines marriage as EXCLUSIVELY (meaning no other option permissable) as a man and woman dont you understand? how in any frame of logic in this universe does seeking to define marriage in any other way NOT contravene the federal definition.

I don't understand which part of s51 of the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to add its own definition to terms used but not defined in the Constitution.

Could you explain that for us please?

gold_medal wrote on Aug 31^st, 2012 at 8:54pm:

you are either a troll or a moron. It is hard to imagine anyone being quite so stupid.

Yes, it is. I thought I had explained things clearly to you. And I have linked to a similar explanation from a Constitutional Law expert - but still you don't seem to get it.

Perhaps some interpretive dance would help you?

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3897 Gender:	Re: Tasmania gay marriage bill passes lower house Reply #89 - Aug 31^st, 2012 at 9:07pm NEWSFLASH!!!! The tasmanian govt has just decided that the GST rate will be 1/20th. Citing constitutional experts they have declared that the federal govt has no right to define 10% as 1/10th. From now on 10% will be referred to in tasmanian schools as 1/20.
Back to top	IP Logged