It was always going to end in tears

THE High Court has unanimously struck down the ACT’s gay marriage laws.

The decision will mean that about two dozen week-old marriages have no legal effect.

I reckon there are now 20 devastated couples who had gotten married on the basis of the ACT law. Whatever the merits of gay marriage are the hippy progressives in the ACT parliament have used those people as political footballs. That is disgraceful.

Politicians in the States and Territories (not to mention the Feds) should know section 109:

109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Then there is section 51 (xxi) – the federal parliament has the power to makes laws regarding marriage.

This entry was posted in Federal Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

126 Responses to It was always going to end in tears

  1. Fisky

    As a supporter of gay marriage, no other decision could have been reached by the High Court. Highly irresponsible of the ACT Left to do this.

  2. Infidel Tiger

    The homos should sue the ACT parliament for deceptive conduct.

  3. Fisky

    Every Leftist parliamentarian in the ACT should be forced to refund the flights and wedding expenses of the gay couples who flew over there expecting to be married.

  4. Steve of Glasshouse

    I’d love to see the legal advice that was used by the ACT government in the first instance.

  5. Fisky

    If the ACT parliament contradicted legal advice, they should be imprisoned for fraud.

  6. Percy

    The ACT Gov is entirely to blame here yet I fear this result will make them more popular. The Libs need to get on air and start beating ACT Labor around the head with this ASAP

  7. Michel Lasouris

    So, sexual deviants cannot get ‘married’, eh? Not that I care a jot who does what, with what, and to whom, or even when.
    BUT I do care that, when asked if I’m married, I’m obliged to say ‘ Yes”…..”to a woman”
    If the sexual deviants want to sully the word ‘marriage’ so be it. It is only a word. But let the vast majority of sexually normal people adopt another word to signify that their union is heterosexual.
    Then let’s see if the sexual deviants then try to adopt that word.
    Any ideas for a suitable soubriquet?

  8. Infidel Tiger

    I imagine quite a few of them were deflowered on that special night too. How does one get that back?

    What a cruel hoax the ACT parliament played on the homo community.

  9. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Were they just hoping they could roll a few judges their way? With no proper legal grounds?
    Leftists have shown us so often that they think an inconvenient law should not apply to them.
    It’s good to see that the High Court has not gone down that track.

  10. Fisky

    There must have been thousands of wedding guests in total who flew over for the big day, including pensioners and veterans on limited incomes. Really disgraceful for the ACT parliament to do this.

  11. Fisky

    I imagine quite a few of them were deflowered on that special night too. How does one get that back?

    Did you see the group photo? Most of them were in their 40s. They had all been saving themselves for decades, but the Left ruined it for them!!

  12. papachango

    @Michel Lasouris

    If you’re worried about distinguising your ‘normal’ marriage from gay marriages, you just need to come up with a retronym like ‘acoustic guitar’ or ‘snail mail’

    Might I suggest ‘classical marriage’. After all we came up with ‘classical liberal’ when the Amercian lefties hijacked the word ‘liberal’

  13. Rabz

    The decision will mean that about two dozen week-old marriages have no legal effect.

    They never were “marriages” in the first place. Must this loathsome leftist idiocy infest every aspect of the reporting of this disgraceful, ridiculous garbage?

    The arrogant, posturing, block headed narcissistic idiots in the ACT municipal council responsible for this disgraceful sham should be held individually liable for the cost of the High Court action.

    What an absolute bloody disgrace.

  14. Infidel Tiger

    Did you see the group photo?

    Certainly put to bed the old stereotype that gays are stylish.

  15. Sinclair Davidson

    Michel Lasouris – it is unnecessary to refer to people as deviants.

  16. mmxx

    ACT government reportedly had sought legal advice to the effect that its legislation on this matter could co-exist with the existing federal law. So they pressed on in full self-adulation mode. Bunch of no-hoper “progressives”! ACT government should stick to its local government-type role and not play with messing up people’s lives all around Australia.

  17. David

    Whether you support “Gay Marriage” or vehemently oppose it is largely irrelevant to a bigger issue and that is the attempt to usurp the legislative prerogative of the Commonwealth. Whether it was by the Socialist Municipal Council of Canberra or some other entity it should be a salutary reminder to stay within your own remit.

  18. boy on a bike

    Certainly put to bed the old stereotype that gays are stylish.

    And thin.

  19. KC

    There was no way that the High Court could have come to any other decision than the one they did. Yes the ACT Opposition should seek to have the Government table its legal advice and face the consequences when the Legislative Assembly next meets – on 25 February 2014 (!)

  20. Rococo Liberal

    it is unnecessary to refer to people as deviants

    But it is fun. :)

  21. Baldrick

    Cue feigned outrage towards the Coalition from people who wanted to use their ‘marriage’ as a political statement instead of waiting for the High Courts decision.

  22. Darryl

    Just posted this comment of the ABC for the sake of rational detate and to give the people bashing the Libs over the decision to test the matter in court something to consider;
    Without entering into the debate surrounding equality and discrimination, it is important to remember that this case tested an important constitutional point. S.109 of the Commonwealth Constitution holds that State laws cannot be inconsistent with Commonwealth powers identified under S.51 (Powers of the parliament) that include marriage (xxi). The important test in relation to inconsistency goes beyond marriage equality, as S.51 also contains external affairs provisions (xxix) taken to include Australia’s international treaty obligations (arising from the Franklin Dams case). Thus if the Commonwealth had not challenged the ACT marriage laws, or the High Court had found in favour of the ACT, the way would be open for states to enact legislation that may be inconsistent in a range of areas, including disability discrimination, taxation and environmental protection.
    This is not to hold a view on the merits or otherwise of the ACT law, but the Federal Government (of any political persuasion) was correct to challenge this law to ensure certainty and consistency – the debate needs to be held at the Federal level, as I’m sure it will now do.

  23. Tom

    the hippy progressives in the ACT parliament have used those people as political footballs. That is disgraceful.

    No, it’s not. Every one of these clowns was a mentally ill leftard activist who knew he/she/it was signing up for the circus. They now have a grievance like Numbers plus added celebrity they can use for self-aggrandisement for the rest of their lives.

  24. iamok

    This is simply yet ANOTHER gotcha by Labor. Clearly Abbott is blah blah blah. Yeah right, this was going to happen from day one.

  25. Empire Strikes Back

    Infidel Tiger
    #1107749, posted on December 12, 2013 at 1:10 pm

    Some people are still eating lunch champ.

  26. ar

    I reckon there are now 20 devastated couples who had gotten married on the basis of the ACT law

    Not to mention the OUTRAGE!

  27. Rococo Liberal

    The interesting thing here will be the content of the judgment. The HCA has held that the ACT can’t rule on marriage. The Oz report also seemed to say that the HCA used the term ‘marriage equlaity’ in its judgment. Does that mean than the HCA has swallowed the gay lobby’s cant? However, it also seems that the HCA may be be friendly to the Rococo Liberal solution, ie.e that the feds create a new kind of registerd union for gay couples and then give the partners of those unions the same legal rights and privileges as the spouses of marriages.

    By the way, the fact that you have to put the word ‘gay’ in front of the word’marriage’ shows that a union between two gays is not a marriage as far as the world is concerned.

  28. Michel Lasouris

    Sinc. Sorry if you were offended. I meant that gay and lesbian practitioners deviate from the practices accepted as normal by the vast majority of the animal world, including humans.
    And , Pappachango, please give this proposal a bit more thought; something novel, a snappy one word descriptor perhaps.

  29. Fisky

    Sadly, Tom is right. Anyone who knows the ins and outs of the gay community can tell you all those couples were hardened Communists making a political point. They weren’t real weddings at all.

    This was very damaging for us genuine grassroots gay rights activists.

  30. Kaboom

    Note that I am not channeling Bill Ludwig.

    I have maintained for years that I fully support Gay Marriage. After all, why should the poofs be happy all their lives?

  31. DMS

    I am fine with gay marriage, mostly under libertarian justification etc., but this was actually grandstanding. The c’wealth had little choice but to take the action they did (including for clarity on unrelated future inconsistent law, as above), and the court had to find as they did.

    All pointless.

  32. candy

    I think same sex couples more than anything want the word “marriage”, and “union” or anything like that will never be enough.

  33. .

    Sinc

    Marriage is also a Commonwealth head of power.

    What will happen in Tasmania? They were trying something similar.

  34. Rococo Liberal

    Candy, why do you think the gay lobby wants the word ‘marriage’ to be applied to gay unions?

  35. Sinclair Davidson

    . – Yes indeed. See the reference to section 51 (xxi) in the actual post.

  36. H B Bear

    … it is unnecessary to refer to people as deviants.

    I think he meant people who chose to live in the ACT.

  37. Pedro

    The losing argument was not that crappy, though I thought they’d lose.

    “Whatever the merits of gay marriage are the hippy progressives in the ACT parliament have used those people as political footballs. That is disgraceful.”

    I can’t see that that’s fair. The people who got married surely knew they were test cases and were happy with the risk.

  38. Cold-Hands

    ML, why abandon marriage? The onus is on the gay community to coin a word applying to their unions, not for the majority to cede a word, ignoring custom, traditional usage and a body of literature that goes back over a millenium.

  39. Rococo Liberal

    All of the gays I know are against gay marriage on the basis that it makes gays normal and dull like everyone else. They don’t mind the idea of the law recognising their unions so that they get some benefits as far as inheritance, tax and super goes, but they don’t want to have anything to do with such a quintessentially straight insititution s marriage. They don’t need it. They are happy with their partners and can have committment ceremponies if they so desire.

    In fact they find it strange that some gays are so keen on ‘normalising’ homosexuality whilst at the same time still wanting the privilege to be seen by society as hip and edgy. Bourgoise Bohemians is what one gay friend calls the gay lobbyists

  40. H B Bear

    Every one of these clowns was a mentally ill leftard activist who knew he/she/it was signing up for the circus.

    Exactly. This was a Green-Left Punch and Judy (well really a Punch and Punch) show, a homo pantomime put on for the benefit of the ALPBC-Fauxfacts love media, so the people of Newtown, Brunswick and Fitzroy can hiss at the hetero-normative hegemony.

  41. Ant

    Expect to see a flurry of “oh, you poor things” interviews on the ABC with those illegitimately married couples.

  42. candy

    Candy, why do you think the gay lobby wants the word ‘marriage’ to be applied to gay unions?

    Rococo Liberal
    They talk about “marriage equality”. Perhaps it’s to be “married”, to have a “marriage certificate” and so on is what they desire, not the words “registered union”. It’s all wrapped up in the word “marriage”!

  43. A Lurker

    I am a traditionalist and a social conservative, and as you may have guessed, I support marriage to remain as is, as between a man and a woman. The state of marriage (keeping in mind cultural differences in ceremonies) as being between a man and a woman has worked for the last few thousand years and I see no reason why it shouldn’t remain so for the next few thousands of years. As they say – why fix what ain’t broke. That being said, I am sympathetic to homosexual couples who do want some kind of formalised ceremony – but all I can say is that there is a plethora of words in the dictionary to choose from to name their ceremony/relationship without having to co-opt the word ‘marriage’, a word that has ancient and firm links between a man and a woman committing themselves to each other and to any children that might eventuate from their union.

    In my opinion the action of the ACT Parliament was to try to force the hand of the Federal Government, to try and force through changes to the marriage laws by guilting them into making fundamental changes through emotional blackmail.

    Today on Facebook I’ve read one (evidently demented) contributor who was calling for the assignation of Tony Abbott because of this decision by the High Court.

  44. Andrew

    Great news. The Constitution preserved and the institution of marriage protected.

  45. C.L.

    You’re now a “gay rights activist,” Fisk?

  46. Robert O.

    I think it was a political statement that was doomed to fail. I haven’t a problem with people who want to live together, that is their perogative and many prominent people do. In fact my neighbours were a couple of chaps. But a lot of people are traditionalist and I share these views.

  47. Sinclair,
    s109 only applies to the states,not the territories.In the case of the ACT it is s28 of the ACT Self Government Act which applies.
    There are differences between s109 and s28 which are noted in this paper:
    http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/

  48. Rousie

    Might I suggest ‘classical marriage’. After all we came up with ‘classical liberal’ when the Amercian lefties hijacked the word ‘liberal’

    In the interests of reconciling their increasingly divergent constituencies, the ALP should be advocating the term ‘unionised’.

    E.g. Tony & Steve were recently unionised.

  49. .

    sabena
    #1107851, posted on December 12, 2013 at 2:16 pm

    Sinclair,
    s109 only applies to the states,not the territories.In the case of the ACT it is s28 of the ACT Self Government Act which applies.
    There are differences between s109 and s28 which are noted in this paper:
    http://blogs.usyd.edu.au/cru/

    Yes, the Commonwealth can simply repeal their laws by legislation or dissolve them.

    You don’t need a thesis to work this one out. s 109 also obviously applies to territories.

  50. Rousie

    If it ends in tears they can request to be suspended from their union.

  51. James of the Glen

    ” E.g. Tony & Steve were recently unionised”.

    Or, Tony and Steve were recently homogenised.

  52. cynical1

    Bloody hard to give the ring back…

  53. Struth

    Apparently it’s turned in to one big pain in the arse.

  54. the sting

    Did the gay mp from WA charge his flight across to his State taxpayers?

  55. rafiki

    First, a mea culpa. I thought the HC would not find inconsistency as that test is stated in s 28 of the Self-Government Act. I was influenced by the legal opinion some of you want to read. It can be found on the website of the ACT ‘Justice and Community Safety’ (yes, that’s it’s name). The opinion is by two very highly regarded constitutional lawyers (Jackson QC, and Gagelar SC – the latter is now on the HC).
    Secondly, here in the ABC, Labor people are running a ‘win/win’ scenario. A win for the ACT would have been a poke in the eye to the LNP. A loss to them means that the issue may now be put back into the House of Reps. This latter point has merit if (and I have not read the judgment) the HC has found that a 2004 Howard government amendment to the Marriage Act was decisive. If so, anticipate a Labor (or maybe Bandt) bill to repeal those provisions. I suspect Abbott will not be happy, and it will give Turnbull some room for moral grandstanding. (But maybe there is a broader basis for the HC finding.)

  56. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    a word that has ancient and firm links between a man and a woman committing themselves to each other and to any children that might eventuate from their union.

    And we reach the real nub of it. Gays want the automatic right to have children from their ‘union’, in other words, to redefine the biological origins and rights of the child. A gay union on its own can never result in a child. In this sense, it can never be a ‘marriage’ with regard to children, merely a fabrication aimed at increasing the legitimacy in society of unknown ‘adoptive’ origins, associated with the ‘right’ to hold the child’s biological origins secret (parent 1 and parent 2 on Birth Certificates).

    ‘Marriage’ becomes the key word for this major social manipulation. It is not about ‘equal love’, a cake and a frock (that is a complete furphy in legal terms), but about ‘normalising’ what at its worst is an open door to a form of legalised child theft. Here, let us not be too harsh though. Many homosexual partners bringing up children now, even if they consider themselves already ‘married’, act of course sensibly, and morally, and thus avoid the ‘theft’ component. They already recognise that ‘their’ child is adopted and act as adoptive parents should towards the child’s understanding of its origins. Many even facilitate contact with the biological parent and have the ‘consent’ of that parent for the gay couple to care for the child. However, we can be sure that some don’t, and won’t.

    Full marriage rights add this component to consider very seriously indeed: that the ‘marriage’ automatically terminates the rights of the ‘other’ biological parent. The children automatically become the children of the gay marriage if born after it. Quite a tangle if, through a later affair within the gay marriage, a child is then conceived where the other partner in the affair, the second biological parent, does not want to cede their right of paternity/maternity to the gay couple, who could claim it as their right by ‘gay marriage’. After all, a child of a gay marriage only needs one biological parent at the most. Remove biology, and you have a full can of worms. Who has what rights to the child?

    If we could solve the problem of legalised child theft and possible exploitation, by somehow ensuring that all children in gay relationships were at least told of their biological origins (on paper too), and that biological rights of child origin were not extinguished by ‘gay marriage’, I would have less objection to it, although I would still feel traditional</em marriage to be superior to it for the purposes both producing and rearing children.

    It is best that as a society we have these discussions now, before the horse has bolted.

  57. Michel Lasouris

    Cold Hands @1.50
    Oh, If only that were true! The problem here Cold Hands is that the G&L folk want to stick it up the ‘Norms’ that they have got something most people want to deny them; the right to say they are ‘married’
    O.K Fine. and I accept some measure of defeat on this. Perhaps, just maybe, the G+L will shut up, go away, and leave decent folk alone.
    However, my point is to call their bluff. If the Norms use a new term that really indicates a normal hetero union, then we win; because the G+L can’t then purloin yet another Normal Convention. If they try, then they’ve blown their own argument. Which would please me no end.

  58. james

    The screams of the Project panel tonight should be lovely.

  59. mizaris

    Michel Lasouris – it is unnecessary to refer to people as deviants

    So it’s still ok to call people fcukwits, and dickheads, and cnuts, and block headed narcissistic idiots, and mentally ill leftard activists, and poofs, and hippy progressives and fat, and stupid, and idiots then????

  60. Struth

    I thought the government worked itself out to be a corporation sometime in the 1940′s to get around our original constitution.
    Without consent from the people.
    They are still scared of the original one, and I might add that I believe therein lies our help.
    The old girl is still a brilliant piece of reading. (the original one) and should be made compulsory in schools. It was stopped being taught only when the lefties took over education in the 70′s I believe.

  61. Struth

    Thinking about the constitution and other matters here. I believe it’s an absolute crime that I knew nothing of Australia’s constitution and had to learn it later in life, teaching myself. What a disgrace.
    Even back in the seventies and early eighties when I was at school, history was infantile at best, and only Aboriginal culture was taught. French revolution was taught. Nothing about Australia.

  62. Tom

    It is not about ‘equal love’, a cake and a frock (that is a complete furphy in legal terms), but about ‘normalising’ what at its worst is an open door to a form of legalised child theft.

    Correct.

    Allowing a child to be raised by gays is child abuse.

  63. cynical1

    “So it’s still ok to call people fcukwits, and dickheads, and cnuts, and block headed narcissistic idiots, and mentally ill leftard activists, and poofs, and hippy progressives and fat, and stupid, and idiots then”????

    Well, only if you are being truthful. IE: Referring to the Left…

  64. MT Isa Miner

    Sinclair Davidson

    #1107772, posted on December 12, 2013 at 1:22 pm

    Michel Lasouris – it is unnecessary to refer to people as deviants.

    Well, strictly it is true that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm. I reckon we need to remind people of this fact- that about 95% of Australians have a normal sexual makeup.

    Ordinary Australians need to remind ourselves of this because the idea that homosexuality as something GOOD- is a lie. A lie that has very powerful media backing and more influence than ordinary people have.

    Sinclair’s POV is that name calling is not nice but neither is the brainwashing of students and the lies spread by the homosexual lobby and friends in the newspapers and TV.

    We have gone way past tolerance.

  65. In fact my neighbours were a couple of chaps.

    You mean chaps with arseless chaps, right?

  66. It is best that as a society we have these discussions now, before the horse has bolted.

    Nailed it, Lizzie. The rights of the child is paramount, therefore I refine my in-principle support of homosexual unions recognized by law as being subject to the rights of any subsequent children otherwise parented by the parent/s. and here I was thinking it was about normalising the abnormal. I knew there was a catch, I just didn’t know what it was precisely.

  67. stackja

    09. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
    Then there is section 51 (xxi) – the federal parliament has the power to makes laws regarding marriage.

    Homosexuals and their supporters do not care about laws. When technology allows men to have babies what will happen to women?

  68. Oh, and another thing. I kid you not, I heard a gay lobbyist conflate marriage with their right to happiness. I’m married, so I say with authority that it has no mortgage on happiness, not even close!!

  69. Michel Lasouris

    To Mizaris and Mnt Isa Miner. Thank you for not making me feel lonely out here. Sometimes I think I must be the only “normal” one left…..

  70. MT Isa Miner

    Struth

    #1108002, posted on December 12, 2013 at 3:42 pm

    Thinking about the constitution and other matters here. I believe it’s an absolute crime that I knew nothing of Australia’s constitution and had to learn it later in life, teaching myself. What a disgrace.
    Even back in the seventies and early eighties when I was at school, history was infantile at best, and only Aboriginal culture was taught. French revolution was taught. Nothing about Australia.

    It is piss poor, Struth. I agree and it should change.

    Americans at least some of them, know that they have to argue against their own traditions and history to make left wing laws. Australians just think the left wing can run amok because we know nothing about our past except what the left wing education unions and media want us to know.

  71. Eddystone

    Should gay “marriage” ever become legalised, I will be referring to heterosexual marriage, such as my own, as “real” marriage.

  72. stackja

    Australians just think the left wing can run amok because we know nothing about our past except what the left wing education unions and media want us to know.

    The Internet can by- pass the media and unions. Then it up to the people to tell the left to go away.

  73. stackja

    Eddystone
    #1108094, posted on December 12, 2013 at 4:47 pm
    Should gay “marriage” ever become legalised, I will be referring to heterosexual marriage, such as my own, as “real” marriage.

    Homosexual is ssmarriage the word marriage is the union between a man and a woman who hopefully can have off-spring and provide a happy home. Like most of Australians since European settlement.

  74. MT Isa Miner

    Michel Lasouris

    #1108075, posted on December 12, 2013 at 4:40 pm

    To Mizaris and Mnt Isa Miner. Thank you for not making me feel lonely out here. Sometimes I think I must be the only “normal” one left…..

    Sinclair has just got too many manners for the all in brawling that I think we need to claw back “the normal” for us normals.

    But on his blog you get a say- you’d have Buckleys most places. And the arguments are chocka full of new ammunition.

  75. Viva

    They weren’t real weddings at all.

    Never were. Never will be.

  76. stackja

    Fisky the homosexuals are very gullible. ACT just had fun at everyone’s expense. ACT do not care.

  77. .

    How would s 28 of the ACT SGA ever mean the ACT legislation was validly operational?

    Are not Commonwealth marriage law/s “a law in force in the Territory…”?

  78. papachango

    And , Pappachango, please give this proposal a bit more thought; something novel, a snappy one word descriptor perhaps.

    OK how about we call hetero marriages ‘harriages’ and gay marriages ‘garriages’ ;-) ?

    the idea that homosexuality as something GOOD- is a lie

    It’s neither good nor bad – just different.

  79. mizaris

    Well, strictly it is true that homosexuality is a deviation from the norm. I reckon we need to remind people of this fact- that about 95% of Australians have a normal sexual makeup.

    Ordinary Australians need to remind ourselves of this because the idea that homosexuality as something GOOD- is a lie. A lie that has very powerful media backing and more influence than ordinary people have.

    Sinclair’s POV is that name calling is not nice but neither is the brainwashing of students and the lies spread by the homosexual lobby and friends in the newspapers and TV.

    We have gone way past tolerance.

    Hear hear in spades!!!!!

  80. .

    It’s neither good nor bad – just different.

    Correct. It also isn’t legal for States and Territories to usrp Federal powers.

    If only the opposite was true as well.

  81. Rabz

    So it’s still ok to call people … block headed narcissistic idiots … then????

    OK, OK, I plead guilty to to the terrible crime of stating the bleeding obvious.

    So sue me, precious.

  82. Andrew

    … it is unnecessary to refer to people as deviants.

    I think he meant people who chose to live in the ACT

    LOL

    “So it’s still ok to call people fcukwits, and dickheads, and cnuts, and block headed narcissistic idiots, and mentally ill leftard activists, and poofs, and hippy progressives and fat, and stupid, and idiots then”????

    I thought the ruling was the C-word and it’s derivatives (such as “mussels”) were banned?

  83. Gab

    Politicians in the States and Territories (not to mention the Feds) should know section 109:

    109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

    Oh they knew about it alright. This was nothing more than a stunt at taxpayers’ expense.

  84. johanna

    Note that the HC ruling was 6-0. Not a lot of doubt there.

    Andrew Barr the ACT “Attorney-General” who piloted this travesty and waste of money through the legislature and the courts, is now claiming that this is another step along the road to his objective, because it’s now all Tony Abbott’s fault, and it’s up to him to fix it.

    FWIIW, I don’t give a rat’s about who marries whom. But I strongly object to trying to railroad such a significant change through via unconstitutional legislation and emotional blackmail.

  85. Mique

    Lizzie B pretty much nailed it. I can’t overstate my contempt for the sheer cynicism of the ACT government and the political masterminds behind this campaign which is all about destroying the traditional norms of our society and has nothing whatsoever to do with relieving homosexuals from any real discriminatory disadvantage. That said, I have no sympathy for the “wedding” participants who rushed to take part in very public and provocative “forms of marriage”. This stunt was tried before in the ACT and failed for precisely the same reasons, so they can’t claim not to have been aware of the risks (unless, of course, they are actually as stupid as they looked, or have been living in a cave on the dark side of the moon).

  86. Fisky

    You’re now a “gay rights activist,” Fisk?

    A staunch gay rights activist of decades’ standing.. Unfortunately, the leaders of the movement are discrediting the entire cause. For shame!

  87. Leigh Lowe

    That’s a lot of pop-up toasters going back to Harvey Norman tomorrow.

  88. Leigh Lowe

    Gay marriage would have my support if the legislation contained provisions which made it an offence to harass, boycott, threaten, picket or otherwise interfere with any institution or person which objects to conducting a gay marriage on conscientious grounds.
    This would prevent activists sullying a church by turning it into a mardi-gras just because they “liked the ambience of the building” and wanted to have their gorgeous ceremony there.

  89. it is unnecessary to refer to people as deviants

    Why not? This is a little uncharacteristic for this blog. We all have to adopt PC group think now?

    My opinion is anyone who puts their pecker in another person’s date, whether the receiver be a male or a female, is a deve. I mean, it’s their choice, so fair enough. But no amount of PC proselytizing is going to change the fact that it’s aberrant behaviour.

  90. Gay marriage would have my support if the legislation contained provisions which made it an offence to harass, boycott, threaten, picket or otherwise interfere with any institution or person which objects to conducting a gay marriage on conscientious grounds.

    Yes, I agree.

  91. Pickles

    The Poofia suffered a couple of severe setbacks today. India says interfering with Bishens botty is not on and Oz says don’t bother decorating the cake. Big day.

  92. sdfc

    I stand to be corrected but s116 seems to prohibit the government from forcing any religion to marry gays.

  93. Gab

    I’ll take that as a comment, Pickles. :)

  94. samuel j

    I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who chose to get ‘married’ under the ACT Legislation. They knew the law was being challenged in the High Court. They knew that the chances were high it would be struck down. They were making a political statement, not a marriage.

    One gay person I know was dead against gay marriage yet changed his tune recently because he wants to be pre-selected for a Victoria lower house seat. So much for principle.

  95. When technology allows men to have babies what will happen to women?

    has technology invented a robot to make sandwiches yet?

  96. JimD

    After 24hrs of shower and intermittent rain giving relief from a particularly pasture destroying dry period one was in a mood to revisit the Cat with the intention of being polite and not abusive. Big challenge given the first port of call is about the ACT collection of infantile getting their arses kicked about marrying poofters and dykes. Given half the elected idiots in that jurisdiction are of that bent and a handful of others are swinging in the breeze hoping to garner electoral support the percentages are worth a visit.
    Posts to date quote 20 odd deviot goings on over the past week. ABC24 has been blasting 35 all arve. Give em the 35 that makes 70 in an electorate of 241,000 or so voters The infinity of pye is understandable. The endless stupidity of ACT pig ballooners tests the bounds of comprehension.

  97. Pickles

    On the right track Jim. Change down a gear and hook into the corners harder.

  98. Mk50 of Brisbane, Henchman to the VRWC

    Rococo:

    All of the gays I know are against gay marriage on the basis that it makes gays normal and dull like everyone else. They don’t mind the idea of the law recognising their unions so that they get some benefits as far as inheritance, tax and super goes, but they don’t want to have anything to do with such a quintessentially straight insititution s marriage. They don’t need it. They are happy with their partners and can have committment ceremponies if they so desire.

    This is the view of the homosexuals in my extended family and of my homosexual friends. What they want is the same ‘nuts and bolts’ as Rococo describes without going through all the fooferaw it took to obtain this for themselves. (It can be done but it’s a major project, one only made easier for them by the assistance of other family members in the legal trade.)

    I don’t think their view to be anything out of order at all, but just to be what civilised people should do.

    What they get angry about is the abuse of the homosexual community by activists in the manner of the ACT ‘government’: roping them into a far left wing, anti-Church and Gramscian effort to destroy a bedrock institution of the very civilised society they depend on not to persecute them! They tend to regard people like the ’20 couples’ as gullible idiots.

  99. candy

    I think George Brandis advised/warned the couples that this could happen so as to avoid distress, but they wouldn’t have listened.
    It’s the magic M word of marriage and calling some a ‘wife’ or ‘husband’.

    It’s farcical and opens the door to child theft as Lizzie says, but I’m not sure these were activists but just hell-bent on this marriage thing, like a one track mind.

  100. mundi

    Personally I feel this is simply a religious issue. They day it gets up is the day they start changing the ‘christmas day’ to ‘present day’.

    I don’t understand why the government doesn’t just amend all the other legislation that uses marriage, to include people who have entered commitment contracts etc. This is the way the law has already gone on alot of de-facto rules in most states.

    That way the religions can keep their ‘marraige’ definition, but all the ‘rights’ it grants can be applied to everyone.

  101. Pickles

    So what’s the penalty for giving Sharvri one up the shitter?

  102. jupes

    Note that the HC ruling was 6-0. Not a lot of doubt there.

    Would have been interesting if Michael Kirby was still on the HC. Would he have done his job properly or would he have found some nuance in the English language to enable him to make a disenting opinion?

  103. .

    It’s farcical and opens the door to child theft as Lizzie says, but I’m not sure these were activists but just hell-bent on this marriage thing, like a one track mind.

    Loopy stuff.

  104. Big Jim

    IT: “I imagine quite a few of them were deflowered on that special night too.”

    Heh. Sublime irony or you’re autistic, mate ( not that those are mutually exclusive of course). Any idea what kind of washed up, worn-out-from-the-cock-carousel, queen wakes up one Spring day and says: “What haven’t we tried yet, Gorgeous? (Long pause) I know. Let’s get married. No, seriously. It’ll be fab” ?

  105. .

    I believe Abu and sdfc are both correct on religious freedom. Abu has a good idea but we already have it as sdfc says.

  106. Amused

    Just when you thought the ALP and Greens couldn’t get any lower…

  107. caveman

    Technically they are now divorced . Which one gets to keep the chaps?

  108. This was never about gay rights and was always about saying “Fuck you ” to Tony Abbott.

    Well, now the Constitution has fucked them all. I hope they found the reaming a pleasant one.

  109. johanna

    What’s with all the lame and oft-repeated “gay” jokes? What they miss in wit “up the shitter”, they manage to lose even further in originality “which one gets to keep the chaps?”

    Go ahead and align yourselves with Muslim fundamentalists (interesting word, BTW) and keep making cheap cracks.

    Here’s the thing. Homosexual people have been around for as long as recorded history. Giving them a hard time because of some prevailing religious belief ditto.

    I am not gay, BTW. But the insecure “jokes” here make me wonder about some other people.

  110. Oh come on

    Remember how the activists claimed that the ACT parliament had “firewalled” the law from a successful High Court challenge? I wonder what this firewalling entailed? Considering Sections 51 and 109, it seemed pretty clear to me from the start that the Commonwealth had an ironclad case if they chose to challenge the ACT law in the High Course.

    sdfc: S.116 is one of the most poorly defined parts of the constitution. What’s a religion? Can I start the “No Tax Religion”, pray to my god of small government and private industry, and refuse to pay a cent in income taxes to the Commonwealth by invoking my constitutional rights under S.116?

    Certainly, if the High Court was more activist in nature, I’d say a State that passed a law legalising some kind of religiously sanctioned SSM, this might be upheld on the basis of S.116 and in spite of S.109, but seeing as though the ACT isn’t a State, they never had a hope from the get-go.

  111. sdfc

    I was referring to the government forcing churches etc to marry gays. Marriage is a state matter not a religious matter under the constitution.

  112. sdfc

    And by state I mean commonwealth. To relieve any confusion.

  113. wreckage

    Gay marriage would have my support if the legislation contained provisions which made it an offence to harass, boycott, threaten, picket or otherwise interfere with any institution or person which objects to conducting a gay marriage on conscientious grounds.

    Yes, I agree.

    Pretty much. But as we know live and let live is not enough. Everybody must enthusiastically approve of everyone else at all times.

  114. C.L.

    Gay marriage would have my support if the legislation contained provisions which made it an offence to harass, boycott, threaten, picket or otherwise interfere with any institution or person …

    No, sorry.

    Homosexual “marriage” IS the morally and philosophically violent interference with an institution. Namely, marriage. Stop trying to apply lipstick to a pig.

  115. Oh come on

    I agree that marriage is, for all intents and purposes (see S.109) a Commonwealth matter, but religion isn’t. S.116 applies to the Commonwealth, not the States. So if a State passed a law that defined SSM as a religious act, a more activist High Court bench might deem it constitutional.

    Any which way, the ACT had no chance. I’d still like to hear what they did in the process of “firewalling” their SSM law from a High Court ruling against them.

  116. cynical1

    johanna
    #1108630, posted on December 13, 2013 at 1:11 am

    “What’s with all the lame and oft-repeated “gay” jokes? What they miss in wit “up the shitter”, they manage to lose even further in originality “which one gets to keep the chaps?”

    Doing well, then you had to go mention “Cheap cracks”…

    “Here’s the thing. Homosexual people have been around for as long as recorded history. Giving them a hard time because of some prevailing religious belief ditto”.

    Nothing to do with religion on my behalf.

    Either female or male, the idea of wallowing in someone else’s fecal matter is not my idea
    of a good time.

    The idea of two grown men mounting each other is distasteful.

    The scene of them being “Out and proud” about the act also I find odd.

    So call me a “Homophobe”.

  117. .

    The scene of them being “Out and proud” about the act also I find odd.

    So call me a “Homophobe”.

    “They” probably find the idea of a man penetrating a woman quite odd as well.

    Carry on…

  118. CatAttack

    What I object to most is the simplistic and fatuous nature of the campaign. “Hey man. We love each other man. What’s the problem?” There’s no acknowledgement of the complexities of arrangements which by definition require some form of assisted technology (at the very least a turkey baster) to produce a child So when Ted and Steve asks donor Jill to contribute an ovum but then have poor Indian peasant girl to carry their child it introduces some complexities. In 30 years time when their offspring come back to the court to demand who their mother was and the law says sorry you have no right to know will we be having the then PM saying Sorry in parliament.

    This is not to deny that gay men and woman can and do make excellent parents. Can we just have a reasoned debate about the implications. When we have done that I will support them.

  119. cynical1

    “They” probably find the idea of a man penetrating a woman quite odd as well.

    Perpetuation of the species, I believe it’s called, old chap..

  120. Fibro

    On a more serious note, I penned an email to my local member to remind her of Section 109 and advised in the nicest possible way to not dare to waste my taxes and your paid time chasing absurb and ultimately unconstituational outcomes.

  121. cuckoo

    Most of the news services (even the GayBC) ran footage of what happened to the woman who was rash enough to openly proclaim her religious opposition to SSM outside the High Court. A middle-aged asian lady, she was quickly surrounded by a mob of shrieking harpies accusing her of ‘hate’. She kept her composure remarkably well, gently insisting ‘No hate..no hate..’, which only provoked the tolerant caring lefties to more vicious verbal abuse. I will remember their ugly, twisted faces and voices every time Sarah Hanson-Young insists this is all about ‘love’.

  122. What’s with all the lame and oft-repeated “gay” jokes? What they miss in wit “up the shitter”, they manage to lose even further in originality “which one gets to keep the chaps?”

    Go ahead and align yourselves with Muslim fundamentalists (interesting word, BTW) and keep making cheap cracks.

    Here’s the thing. Homosexual people have been around for as long as recorded history. Giving them a hard time because of some prevailing religious belief ditto.

    I am not gay, BTW. But the insecure “jokes” here make me wonder about some other people.

    Taking the piss out of deviant behavior, or simply observing (accurately) that it is aberrant, is an act of free speech. Get over it.

    If such free speech is to be limited, then the reciprocal would be no one is allowed to take the piss out of conservatives or conservative institutions, such as Tony Abbott or the church. Since that will never happen, don’t expect people to zip it on subjects that you declare should be Molly coddled.

    Alright, toots?

  123. .

    You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, Abu. Even Abbott is applying this in his Prime Ministership.

  124. I’m tired of all the sophistry, dot.

  125. johanna

    The issues to do with various forms of non-biological parentage are much wider than those to do with “gay marriage”, and they are certainly serious. I agree with any and all commenters about that. They are not confined to homosexual couples. An old acquaintance of mine donated sperm when he was a university student (decades ago) because he got paid for it, and didn’t want children of his own. He was guaranteed anonymity. (BTW, he has never had children from a relationship – had a vasectomy to make sure).

    Whatever you think of the setup when he did that, he is now being threatened with having his identity exposed to the children and families of his offspring, because suddenly everyone has a “right” to know who their biological parents are. He would never have done it in the first place on that basis.

    It’s just one example of the mess that has been created around non-biological parentage, whether through adoption, sperm and egg donation or surrogacy. And it has nothing to do with “gay marriage” per se.

    It is also worth remembering that there is nothing new about kids growing up in families where at least one parent is gay. It is far from unheard of for one of the parents to come out after children have been born – usually resulting in the destruction of the marriage. Of course it is traumatic for the kids, as any marriage breakup is. But to say that the gay party does not love their kid(s) as much as anyone else, or cannot rear them properly and have a healthy relationship with them, is nonsense.

Comments are closed.