Australia Bans Gay Marriage

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Australia Bans Gay Marriage

27 Marriages are now void as a result of this latest development

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25344219

Australia high court overturns ACT gay marriage law

Australia's High Court has overturned legislation allowing gay marriage in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

The ACT parliament passed a bill in October making the territory the first part of Australia to legalise same-sex weddings.

But the national government challenged the decision, saying it was inconsistent with federal laws.

Some 27 couples who married since the law came into effect last weekend will now have their unions declared invalid.

The court said the issue should be decided by parliament - which in September 2012 voted down gay marriage legislation.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:27

harleysportster wrote:

27 Marriages are now void as a result of this latest development

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25344219

Australia high court overturns ACT gay marriage law

Australia's High Court has overturned legislation allowing gay marriage in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

The ACT parliament passed a bill in October making the territory the first part of Australia to legalise same-sex weddings.

But the national government challenged the decision, saying it was inconsistent with federal laws.

Some 27 couples who married since the law came into effect last weekend will now have their unions declared invalid.

The court said the issue should be decided by parliament - which in September 2012 voted down gay marriage legislation.

 

 

Bob Spence, buddy, we're the ones who have the bat shit insane Supreme Court, don't compete with us unless you want to end up on the short bus with us.

Crocodile Dundee  " That's not retarded, THIS IS RETARDED".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Until today I have never

Until today I have never bothered to look at Australia's constitution, but a cursory reading shows the power to regulate marriage is specifically delegated to parliament. So unless I am missing something big, this was a slam dunk legal case. If you want gay marriage legalized, pass a law in parliament.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=F74707A5A4934E05A67EE5969B156435&_z=z

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=6ED2CAE61E7742A1B2C42F95D4C05252&_z=z

I guess in Brian's book judges following the law are retarded.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Until

Beyond Saving wrote:

Until today I have never bothered to look at Australia's constitution, but a cursory reading shows the power to regulate marriage is specifically delegated to parliament. So unless I am missing something big, this was a slam dunk legal case. If you want gay marriage legalized, pass a law in parliament.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=F74707A5A4934E05A67EE5969B156435&_z=z

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=6ED2CAE61E7742A1B2C42F95D4C05252&_z=z

 

Well this is something interesting to know.

Truth to be told, I only have a half-ass understanding of how a lot of different governments are run.

For instance, I have gotten real hooked on this French TV Crime Series called : Spiral. (The fact that actress Caroline Proust looks a bit like my girlfriend helps it quite a bit). But anyway, the cops and the judicial system in that series seems SO different than ours that it got me to reading all about their system, laws, and government.

Like most good Americans, a working knowledge of even my OWN government is appallingly limited, and ANOTHER thing that I need to study up on. It seems like I waited rather late in life to really broaden my reading horizons (at 37 years old) and while I will never be an intellectual or expert on much of anything, I DO find that lots of reading material at my disposal is rather enjoyable.

I have even gotten to the point that I have dubbed some people that I deal with in everyday life as : "Internet Intellectuals" that seem to think a couple of Google searches makes them experts on everything from physics to conspiracy theories. One swallow does not a summer make and who Internet Search does not make an expert be. Wow, I can't believe I came up with that sentence on my own. That was pretty good if I do say so myself Laughing out loud

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Until

Beyond Saving wrote:

Until today I have never bothered to look at Australia's constitution, but a cursory reading shows the power to regulate marriage is specifically delegated to parliament. So unless I am missing something big, this was a slam dunk legal case. If you want gay marriage legalized, pass a law in parliament.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=F74707A5A4934E05A67EE5969B156435&_z=z

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=6ED2CAE61E7742A1B2C42F95D4C05252&_z=z

I guess in Brian's book judges following the law are retarded.

Yes, follow the law even when it oppresses others. So glad women and blacks in America followed your idea, leave it up to those oppressing you.

So you'd be the idiot if our Supreme Court said "If congress wants to pass a law deporting atheists, let them do it".

MORON!

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yes, follow

Brian37 wrote:

Yes, follow the law even when it oppresses others.

Yes. The primary job of a COURT is to follow the fucking law, not decide whether or not it is a good/moral/just law. For citizens, I am a big fan of breaking laws.

 

Brian37 wrote:

So glad women and blacks in America followed your idea, leave it up to those oppressing you.

They did. Both of those problems were solved legally by amending the Constitution, not by the Court simply deciding to ignore the Constitution. Until the Constitution was amended, the courts routinely ruled against them. That is as it should be. If the courts don't follow the laws and just decide however they feel like, why would we even need a legislature? The US has a method to amend the Constitution if there is something unjust that needs amending (like slavery). Australia does as well if they decide that states should be allowed to regulate marriage instead of parliament.

 

Brian37 wrote:

So you'd be the idiot if our Supreme Court said "If congress wants to pass a law deporting atheists, let them do it".

Our Court said just that in 1904, Turner v. Williams 194 U.S. 279 when the Anarchist Exclusion Act (signed by your favorite republican Teddy Roosevelt) caused an English anarchist to be deported simply for having a book. The Court concluded that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-citizens and that Congress can prevent immigration or deport an alien for any damn reason they choose. Now if congress were to pass a law deporting citizens based on their religious views, that would be unconstitutional because of the 1st Amendment and the Court would be obligated to rule against the law even if the members of the Court thought that deporting atheists was the moral/ethical/just thing to do. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

MORON!

Lol, says the person who can't grasp the simple concept that there is a difference between a court and a legislature.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Because Brian can't

Because Brian can't understand big words...

Brian37 wrote:
Yes, follow the law even when it oppresses others. So glad women and blacks in America followed your idea, leave it up to those oppressing you.

Funny how that's exactly what happened. Women and black people both won rights through legislation, not criminal activity.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4198
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
yeah, passing state laws

yeah, passing state laws that are just going to be struck down the next day accomplishes absolutely dick.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson