MedVision ad

Ban on Gay Marriage (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Coalition, Labor pass same-sex marriage ban
7:55 PM August 13

Federal Parliament has approved a ban on same-sex marriage, with the legislation passing the Senate with Labor's support.

The Government and the Opposition used their numbers to cut short debate on the bill, the first time the "guillotine" power has been used since December 2002.

The legislation defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Greens Senator Bob Brown has questioned how the ban will work.

"I've got friends in this position, now is their marriage valid or not?" he asked.

"What's going to happen? Are people going to arrive and say, 'Where's your marriage certificate, give it to us, we're going to rip it up'?

"What's Mr Howard going to do?"

Democrats' leader Andrew Bartlett made an emotional attack on the ban.

Senator Bartlett says in the past Aborigines had to seek permission for an inter-racial marriage.

He says the legislation is discriminatory and should not be supported.

"It devalues my marriage. That it's something that only a certain number of people in the community can have access to and others can't purely because... they were born who they are, this is why this offends me so much," Senator Bartlett said

"To say that it defends marriage, when it degrades it so much, is something I find extraordinarily upsetting."

Gay rights groups have condemned the law.

Rodney Croome, from the Equal Rights Network, says gay and lesbian couples deserve to hear the major parties explain why they are determined to curtail basic human rights.

"This is a very dark day in Australian history," Mr Croome said.

"This new legislation carves into legislative stone the second class status of same-sex relationships."


Source: ABC
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Pathetic, he felt so pressured by Bush and by the election that he rushed this through without even a thought.

Now tell me this is a Democracy.
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Same-sex marriage ban 'a milestone for values'
12:13 AM August 14

The Federal Government says a new law banning same-sex marriages is a historic milestone for Australian values.

The legislation, which defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, passed the Senate yesterday with Labor's support.

National Party Senator Ron Boswell says there is no stronger bond than that between a man and a woman in marriage.

"Most Australians recognise that marriage is a sacred union the most basic building block of society and the foundation of a family," Mr Boswell said.

Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett says the ban is disgusting and upsetting.

'This bill doesn't only degrade marriage and is anti-family, it's anti-human and is a validation of a decline in moral standards and decency," Mr Bartlett said.

Democrats Senator Natasha Stott Despoja says she is also appalled by the legislation.

"This has been a shocker of a week an embarrassing, shameful, disgraceful week," Ms Stott Despoja said.

"In fact, it's one of the most embarrassing weeks in this parliament."

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle says it should never have been passed.

"This piece of legislation legislates official discrimination against a section of our community," she said.

Gay activists believe the law is unconstitutional.

Advocates, including Rodney Croome, are considering a High Court challenge.

"All I can say is that our lawyers are exploring the possibility that this legislation may be unconstitutional," Mr Croome said.

He says it is the first time since Federation that gays and lesbians have had the rights taken away.

Source: ABC
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Historic milestone for values indeed, it shows how backward a country we are. Though in truth this shouldn't be a reflection upon our society as a whole since as a whole we don't agree with the legislation. But it does show how un-democratic and discriminatory the government can be when it wants. First they rush it through before the election, then they limit the time allowed for debate and not once did they stop to think of the people who are going to be affected by this ridiculous piece of legislation!

Now ONLY heterosexuals can get married and have it legally recognised in Aust. They might as well have made it religious based too since it was the Christian/Catholic fundementals that were pushing this. The same ridiculous group/s that pressured ad companies to remove their ads from the L word timeslot! Thats how fkn ridiculous these groups are. And now they've got the government in hand. Howard and Latham are supposed to represent the people of our country, and not their own fkn selves. "Oh this doesnt affect me... doesnt really affect anyone... sure if howards gonna put in our FTA amendments lets pass this through for him..." SORRY, i wasn't aware that the FTA was more important than basic human rights. Well gee gosh its best that australia keeps the US on side eh? Just so we can hide behind their coat tails and we'll be safe... all we have to do is lick Bush Jr.'s crack and Daddy Bush will be happy with us so we'll be fine!!!

omfg. I think Mary Donaldson had the right idea... lets skip the country and go somewhere nice like Denmark where the Queen will walk the street with the 'common' people. Fkn worthless, wait of time that is our government wouldn't notice us missing... they're too busy making legislation that doesnt affect them, and playing 'omg lets guess the election date!'
 

Generator

Active Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2002
Messages
5,244
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
re. the final line... How can you take away something that they have never possessed? Beyond the general marrying a member of the other sex option, that is.

I'm not agreeing with the legislation, I just find that line kind of strange.
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Generator said:
re. the final line... How can you take away something that they have never possessed? Beyond the general marrying a member of the other sex option, that is.

I'm not agreeing with the legislation, I just find that line kind of strange.
It wasn't illegal before. It wasn't recognised at all, either legal or illegal. Now it means that people who marry overseas (homosexuals that is) have void marriages. Whereas before they could have contested any legal opposition to the marriage in court.
 

omg_a

Member
Joined
May 3, 2004
Messages
290
Location
Where the stars are laughing...
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
i think one of the biggest problems is the confusion over the word marriage......does it mean a religious ceremony only? in which case, i think churches have the right not to 'marry' gay couples. if we're talking about marriage in the legal sense, with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it, i think of course gay marriage is acceptable. Australia is not a christian society. we do not have a christian consitution. unlike the US, our constiution does not specify in millions of places how christianity is linked to the government.
Furthermore, i cannot understand why the government shoved this bill through, late on a friday, when the world was watching the olympic opening ceremony, and put into action a part of the constitution which has not been used for 90 years which forbade any debate or discussion on the bill, it was simply tabled and voted upon.

And why now? am i the only one not to have noticed sudden hordes of gay couples rushing to get married???

It seems to me that an awful lot of people feel threatened by the concept of gay marriage/partnership. What we have to be afraid of is beyond me.

And in terms of having children, sure, a man and a woman may be ideal, but i personally think your sex or sexuality doesn't determine whether you are a good parent or not. and better same sex parents than divorced or single parents also.

unfortuanately, i think there is little chance of stopping the bil in the senate, considering both major parties are supporting it.
 

tWiStEdD

deity of ultimate reason
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
456
Location
ACT
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
you see unfortunately, i see right... for now.
right now it is not right for australia to open their arms to gay marriages.
in the future, more likely than not. but right now? no.
look at it from that perspective.
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
tWiStEdD said:
you see unfortunately, i see right... for now.
right now it is not right for australia to open their arms to gay marriages.
in the future, more likely than not. but right now? no.
look at it from that perspective.
it is not right? who are you to judge whether its right or not? who are the government to judge that also? I don't think the government should have a say in this, at all. Marriage in the legal sense should be open to all (Refer to the UDHR for a fancy statement of what a marriage should be), Marriage in the religious sense tho should rest with the churches. If a church wants to open their arms and allow homosexual marriages, then w00t YaY! If not then fine. But i don't think its right to have it done like this. The government doesn't have the right to force people to do anything (or to stop people doing anything), that is not their role in our society. Whether it be on religious grounds, moral grounds or ethical grounds the government can't do jack sh*t about it. They can legislate to their hearts content, but out in the real world its not worth the paper its written on half the time.

Australia has always been behind... and not only in the area of gay rights.
 

Wilmo

Child of the Most High
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
324
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Hello again...

Soon im going to write a message to the members of parliment in my local area, and to the prime minister + leader of the opposition on this topic.

Recently a bill was passed to make sure the definition of marriage is "One man and one woman joined lawfully"... Im asking them to keep that definition. Because as much as I believe it should be one man and one woman joined under God, they wont change that. I will "settle" for this definition.

A Latham government would reconsider this definition... I dont want that. It should remain how it has been defined to prevent this gift of God from being totally polluted.

But I will sugguest they create something else for gay people. From what I learnt earlier in this thread, it was obvious that what you wanted was to have your relationships legally recognised... and Im all for that :)

If you want to, it would be nice if you also wrote to your local members of parliment to ask for that new thing to be created.



Granted you may not agree with my reason for keeping marriage the same, but I think a lot more people would support the creation of a leagally binding union over redefining marriage as "The joining of a human being and a human being by law"

Thankyou for your time :)
 

malkin86

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,266
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
Marriage is a legal and social institution - from an early age we are told how great it is. The ideal of marriage does not just belong to the Christians.
 

Wilmo

Child of the Most High
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
324
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
I know that :)

I even mentioned (loosely) that in my previous post... but i had already been told that when i was in this debate ages and ages ago
 

eviltama

Mentally Deranged Maniac
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
856
Location
Yaoiville
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
Create something else? As nice and simple as it sounds for a problem solver its not. What it does do is open up a whole new area of segregation and discrimination. Homosexual marriage not being equal to heterosexual. Union not being the equivalent to Marriage. And so on. It wouldn't work, and frankly enough its insulting.

so as easy as that solution sounds, it just starts us down a whole new path to get marriage redefined as between two consenting people of full age. It was done in the UDHR and alot of countries agree with the UDHR, Australia being one of them. I see no reason not to have that definition rather than the current one. The church and state are seperate, but homosexuals and heterosexuals aren't... we are all people and we all deserve the same access to basic human rights like this.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
41
Location
in Newcastle NSW
i believe if "gay" or not if you love a person then it really doesnt matter.
Gays should be able to get married because they are a part of this society.
but really no one really has to get married to show how much they love each other.
but this is a subject that is going to be around forever and one opinion isnt going to change the governments opinion
 

MoldyPorridge

New Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Messages
2
I agree. Anyone should be able to marry (within reason). However, two friends could conspire to abuse our federal tax system-- since you get certain tax breaks when you marry. Otherwise, I am for gay marriage.
 

Atticus.

how do i get out of this
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Messages
3,086
Location
wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
fuck why does everyone have to be so cyncial? gay marriages will be legalised eventually. its not a matter of if rather than a matter of when
deal with it
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2004
Messages
41
Location
in Newcastle NSW
the matter is that gays should have the same rights as others but the government will never see then as fit parents or other crap like that.
u just have to get over it that it will take time for people to except
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top