The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How marriage equality was defeated in Tasmania > Comments

How marriage equality was defeated in Tasmania : Comments

By Rodney Croome, published 3/10/2012

Lessons from the failure to carry marriage equality in Tasmania.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Section 51 of the Constitution says, “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to…. (xxi) marriage.”

Section 109 says, “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.”

The federal parliament has legislated on marriage. The states cannot pass laws that conflict with the federal laws on marriage. They can legislate for same-sex unions, but they cannot pretend that they are marriage

There is also a good argument that the federal parliament’s power to legislate on marriage does not include the power to invent same-sex marriage. The powers under Section 51 are specific things. They are not words that can mean anything parliament decides they mean; e.g., the power over “the custody and guardianship of infants” cannot be re-interpreted to define 50-year olds as “infants”, and the power over “immigration and emigration” cannot be re-interpreted to define movement from one state to another as “immigration” or “emigration”. If the powers could be redefined, Australia would not be a federation as the federal parliament could redefine any power to mean anything at all and thus deprive the sates of their constitutional position. Marriage at the time the Constitution was adopted was the union of one man and one woman. It has been that ever since the word entered the English language. That is what the federal parliament has power over. If it can redefine marriage to mean the union of one man and another man or one woman and another woman, then it can redefine marriage to mean any relationship at all. The High Court may of course find a way around this.

In any case, marriage equality was not defeated. A bill for same-sex marriage was. Calling it marriage equality is just PR trickery.
Posted by Chris C, Wednesday, 3 October 2012 9:48:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Following his defeat in Tasmania, maybe Rodney Croome should devote his efforts towards a worthwhile cause such as homelessness and poverty in Australia, and why it is that at any given moment in Queensland alone, eight thousand people are living in the dark with no power, unable to pay escalating power bills, unable to meet rent and mortgage payments, unable to find sufficient work to maintain a respectable living standard: Many of this group , one could assume, are also homosexual, and in need of more relevant help from the political processes in Australia than marriage opportunities.

...Rodney Croomes and his supporters, should now pack up their tent and stop wasting the valuable time of Politicians and the broader community, who have to date given this subject way more attention than it deserves.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 3 October 2012 10:10:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow, Tasmania finally got something right.

Could this mean they will get rid of the ratbag greens at the next election?

Could sanity finally prevail, in the isle of apples? One can hope.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 3 October 2012 12:55:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A perfect example of how a group can convince itself and then try to convince everyone else that their side of an argument is an obvious no-brainer with majority support.

The issue that "more than 60%" of the population wanted has been lost in two votes now. When Julia and Rudd voted against it for their own pragmatic reasons suddenly the cries of anachronistic conservatives undermining 'progressive' social change sounded a little hollow.Providing a 'conscience vote' made Rudd and Gillard look like complete hypocrites.

The gay marriage movement has done itself a great disservice by pushing its barrow too hard too soon.

Really, the bottom line is that gay marriage is not deemed acceptable by a majority of Australians and the pollies can tell which way the wind is blowing.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 3 October 2012 3:33:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A very well written article Mr. Croome. I am sorry the Tasmanian Parliament couldn't quite get the bill over the line, but it was certainly close.

I am disgusted by some of the views expressed above, especially insinuating you should do something more worthwhile than the gay marriage debate.

I read about your many community awards, such as :

"...short listed, along with 11 other Australians, for Australian of the Year in 1994;
the inaugural recipient of the Tasmania Day Community Service Award 2000;
awarded a Centenary of Federation Medal in 2003; and
made a Member of the Order of Australia in 2003".

Congratulations on being a well thought of citizen.

I wonder if the posters above knew all this before they stuck their boots in?

I sincerely hope that justice and equal rights will prevail very soon and that Gay couples will be able to marry.
When they do, all the detractors will note that the sky will not fall in...
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 3 October 2012 4:43:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Surely DD you should be directing your criticism to Campbell Newman, as he does not appear to have noticed the deprivation of Queensland residents as you have; as he cuts services to those who most need them.
There again GLBTI people are a soft target, to help cloud this amiss.
Posted by Kipp, Wednesday, 3 October 2012 5:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G’day Kipp:

...I disagree (of course). Homosexuals must realise that “out there” are many other marginalized groups, some of which I mentioned in my post above, whose plight is more painful in the long term than two homosexuals with an inability to marry each other, and much more deserving of attention.

...I agree with Atman above, who also articulated a supporting point better than I could. Homosexuals are admirably supported in Australian communities by any comparison.
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 3 October 2012 8:06:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Diver Dan "Homosexuals must realise that “out there” are many other marginalized groups, some of which I mentioned in my post above,"

Oh, thanks for pointing that out Diver Dan - I never realised!

But tell us, as you apparently think only one issue can be dealt with at a time, which ONE of those marginalised groups should be helped while we let the others rot as you suggest the homosexuals should be?
Posted by Jimmy Jones, Wednesday, 3 October 2012 9:56:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jimmy Jones, the issue has been dealt with quite admirably, & according to the majority of the population, the right decision has been reached.

Just because the ABC is a haven for homosexuality, greens & other ratbaggery, does not make it important or right.

Perhaps you should trot back down the garden path, & join the fairies, where you can all frolic together.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 3 October 2012 10:22:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought that same sex couples could enter into civil unions that accorded them the same rights as married couples except that they could not use the word "marriage" to describe their relationship. If this is so, is it accurate to claim that homosexuals are, legally, "rotting" out there? And, again if my understanding is correct, how can same sex couples claim that they do not already have legal relationship equality with married couples?
Posted by GlenC, Wednesday, 3 October 2012 10:57:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Herein lies a lesson for other states and territories moving toward marriage equality."

The term "marriage equality" is a misnomer, derived from the spin of the homosexual lobby. Arguing that the unnatural, dysfunctional, sterile homosexual act is equal to the pro-creative heterosexual act is illogical. Furthermore, a same-sex partnership requires an external agent such as surrogacy or sperm donor, for the generation of children.
Posted by Raycom, Thursday, 4 October 2012 12:09:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy