[Ugly Mongrel]

I really think this is an historic day in Australia and a look into the future. Good on those couples who have had the opportunity to take advantage of these new laws in Canberra.

Same-sex marriage in ACT will go down in history

[FatBoy]

 

As my eldest son put it.  "Why do some people want to stop two people, who they don't know, from getting married?  That is just being mean."

The youngest added, "If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex.  Don't stop others from doing it though."

[Ugly Mongrel]

Jesus had two dads and he turned out alright.

[asathorny]

First off let me say that, as a *MALE* nurse I have and have had many homosexual friends and colleagues of both sexes.

I do, however, have a problem with so called gay marriage.  In a world were a very large proportion of marriages fail and end up in very very acrimonious contests over money and property, it is a joke.

Also, there are a few legal issues which I have never ever heard addressed, for instance:-  How can a divorce contestant prove that the marriage was or was not consummated ????  The only legal grounds for an annulment is, as you are probably aware, non consummation!!!

Finally I feel the if homosexual people want the same rights as heterosexual people they must have lowered the ambition sights enormously...

There ya go,, my two cents.

I will now stand in this corner and see what happens next

[Phil №❶]

AFAIK, you only need 12 months separation here, to obtain an annulment. No contest required.

However I don't like the word marriage used in this context and I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the acquisition of children into the relationship by any means.

I do understand that it is possible for two same sex people to love each other and if they choose to enter into a contract, then that's their right. They can own property jointly and other legal contracts, but not procreation.

Call me old fashioned, I suppose.

[asathorny]

AFAIK, you only need 12 months separation here, to obtain an annulment. No contest required.

However I don't like the word marriage used in this context and I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the acquisition of children into the relationship by any means.

I do understand that it is possible for two same sex people to love each other and if they choose to enter into a contract, then that's their right. They can own property jointly and other legal contracts, but not procreation.

Call me old fashioned, I suppose.

Yep, yer old fashioned Phil.   Don't worry, I'll keep ya company 

[Phil №❶]

 

[AlanHo]

Can I please join your club asa.

Despite the fact that like others here I recently realised that I am a lesbian....

[rustynutz]

Aren't you too old to hold a licker licence, Alan? 

[Ugly Mongrel]

Annulment? What is that?  In Australia it has no place in civil law and here's the British take on it...

Annul a marriage - GOV.UK

Why is there a concern about how a union of two people who love each other might or might not end when the celebration should be about the fact that the couple can legally marry and be happy?

[asathorny]

Annulment? What is that?  In Australia it has no place in civil law and here's the British take on it...

Annul a marriage - GOV.UK

Why is there a concern about how a union of two people who love each other might or might not end when the celebration should be about the fact that the couple can legally marry and be happy?

Ya see, this is the problem with the colonials, give ya a little bit of freedom and off ya go making up yer own laws.  <sigh> 

[asathorny]

Can I please join your club asa.

Despite the fact that like others here I recently realised that I am a lesbian....

Yes Alan I was also surprised to find that I too am a lesbian   and unbeknown to me have been so all of my life, after puberty 

 

[asathorny]

Annulment? What is that?  In Australia it has no place in civil law and here's the British take on it...

Annul a marriage - GOV.UK

Why is there a concern about how a union of two people who love each other might or might not end when the celebration should be about the fact that the couple can legally marry and be happy?

At no point have I said that two people should not be joined in union, even if that is up the trumper, that's fine by me.

There are so many clear and obvious reasons why this is just a passing band wagon which is being jumped on by all those whom like jumping on passing band wagons 

The whole concept of marriage is to create a legally binding contract.  It keeps us within the bounds of 'regularly organised society' it controls the riffraff yokes them to behave themselves.

I repeat, any homosexual person fighting to have the right to marry must have lowered there standards enormously ...

If they want financial protection, say for the partner in the event of sudden death then go see a lawyer

Otherwise, get a life and get on with it <sigh>

[rustynutz]

Can I please join your club asa.

Despite the fact that like others here I recently realised that I am a lesbian....

Yes Alan I was also surprised to find that I too am a lesbian   and unbeknown to me have been so all of my life, after puberty 

I didn't know both of you were residents of Lesbos.... 

[Just Rick]

Yes like Phil I have no issue with any two people getting married,but I do have an issue(in the case of males) bringing children into these relationships.

I do have a family member who is Gay,he and his partner are two of the nicest people you could meet,I do not deny them their happiness,but would be miffed if they ever talked of adopting. we have on a few occassions discussed this in general,they personally haven't thought  about it.

[Doggie 1]

It's OK folks.
Tony Abbott's government is challenging the validity of the A.C.T. laws in the High Court so we'll wait and see what the outcome is before jumping to any conclusions. 

[FatBoy]

AFAIK, you only need 12 months separation here, to obtain an annulment. No contest required.

However I don't like the word marriage used in this context and I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the acquisition of children into the relationship by any means.

I do understand that it is possible for two same sex people to love each other and if they choose to enter into a contract, then that's their right. They can own property jointly and other legal contracts, but not procreation.

Call me old fashioned, I suppose.

I'm sorry, Phil.  But this isn't an issue of children or procreation.  You do not need to be married to have children, and there are many people that I know that are married and do not have children.  This issue is about two people that want to get married.  Surely with all of the marriages failing, and heterosexual people NOT wanting to get married, the more people that are very keen to get married (i.e. homosexuals) then we should support them.

What about support for the partner when one passes away?  Currently they aren't "married" so cannot have access to pensions or superannuation.  I am willing to be corrected on this issue.  If they were married then they would have that coverage.

[asathorny]

AFAIK, you only need 12 months separation here, to obtain an annulment. No contest required.

However I don't like the word marriage used in this context and I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the acquisition of children into the relationship by any means.

I do understand that it is possible for two same sex people to love each other and if they choose to enter into a contract, then that's their right. They can own property jointly and other legal contracts, but not procreation.

Call me old fashioned, I suppose.

I'm sorry, Phil.  But this isn't an issue of children or procreation.  You do not need to be married to have children, and there are many people that I know that are married and do not have children.  This issue is about two people that want to get married.  Surely with all of the marriages failing, and heterosexual people NOT wanting to get married, the more people that are very keen to get married (i.e. homosexuals) then we should support them.

What about support for the partner when one passes away?  Currently they aren't "married" so cannot have access to pensions or superannuation.  I am willing to be corrected on this issue.  If they were married then they would have that coverage.

In the UK the partner has the same rights, married or not !!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

[FatBoy]

So why not let them get married?  Remember that interracial marriages were once considered a "band wagon".

[Dazzler]

AFAIK, you only need 12 months separation here, to obtain an annulment. No contest required.

However I don't like the word marriage used in this context and I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the acquisition of children into the relationship by any means.

I do understand that it is possible for two same sex people to love each other and if they choose to enter into a contract, then that's their right. They can own property jointly and other legal contracts, but not procreation.

Call me old fashioned, I suppose.

I'm sorry, Phil.  But this isn't an issue of children or procreation.  You do not need to be married to have children, and there are many people that I know that are married and do not have children.  This issue is about two people that want to get married.  Surely with all of the marriages failing, and heterosexual people NOT wanting to get married, the more people that are very keen to get married (i.e. homosexuals) then we should support them.

What about support for the partner when one passes away?  Currently they aren't "married" so cannot have access to pensions or superannuation.  I am willing to be corrected on this issue.  If they were married then they would have that coverage.

 

[eye30]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25321353

Same-sex weddings to begin in March in england and wales

[Ugly Mongrel]

BBC News - Same-sex weddings to begin in March

Same-sex weddings to begin in March in england and wales

That is great news.

 I wonder how long it will take Australian politicians to have the decency to do the same for Aussie same sex couples. It will never happen under a Catholic dominated Abbott government.

[Doggie 1]

 

[rustynutz]

The wowsers will be happy....

High Court strikes down gay marriage laws

THE High Court has struck down the ACT's same-sex marriage laws.

The court unanimously ruled that the ACT's Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 could not operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act 1961.
The ACT enacted its same-sex marriage legislation in November with the first couples marrying at the weekend.
About 30 couples have tied the knot.
In its decision, the High Court held that the federal parliament had power under the Australian Constitution to legislate for same-sex marriage.

Read more:

[FatBoy]

 

The easiest way to fix this is for the Federal Government to allow same sex marriage.  We all know that it won't happen anytime soon.  Come on Prime Minister, allow a conscience vote.

[The Gonz]

I'm not really surprised. The court is bound to act according to the definition given in the constitution. They're hardly going to rule unconstitutionally, regardless of the emotive or moral arguments.

[Doggie 1]

The wowsers will be happy....

Not agreeing with same sex marriage does not make one a wowser.

[Phil №❶]

If it had been made more of a contractual arrangement under contract law, it would not have been subject to the marriage act.

It's a bit like the French objection to the name Champagne. Same thing produced in Oz, but you're simply not allowed to call it that.

[The Gonz]

I agree, Phil. Another analogy is women fighting for equal rights. Equal rights is great but it wouldn't include calling themselves men.

[rustynutz]

WA same-sex marriage bill introduced

A BILL to allow same-sex marriage in Western Australia has been introduced to state parliament by Greens MP Lynn MacLaren.

It came on the final sitting day of the year for the state's Legislative Council and as the High Court struck down the ACT's same-sex marriage laws just six days after they came into effect.

Ms MacLaren said she had introduced a bill that could survive a High Court challenge.

Read more: