Why are we still discussing this?
Every human being extant on the planet has certain basic rights.
After life, liberty and the freedom of speech, we all have a universal and fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness.
In a democracy there are no second class citizens! Not for nothing does justice wear a blindfold!
Let's simply and finally end the excuses for inaction; and the petty fogging discrimination, and be done with it!
Perhaps its also time we finally had a bill of rights, basically to prevent extreme autocrats from over-reaching their powers, or conferring on themselves, the right to selectively discriminate!
Rhrosty.

"...we all have a universal and fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness," claims Rhosty. Is that so?

Happiness involves different strokes for different folks. Some folk get happiness molesting children as the ongoing enquiry into the Scout Movement and Religions attests.

Some folk get their kicks by dragging women off the street, sexually assaulting them then killing them as happened recently to the ABC employee in Melbourne.

Some parent's get a thrill out of sexually abusing their own children. May they burn in hell forever!

Given that most humans are motivated by their genes to find aspects of depravity exciting, no human has a right to pursue and satisfy whatever makes them happy! To make such a claim is absurd!

Rodney doesn't point out the downside of homosexuality and its negative affect on society. No, he presents a blissful picture of domestic bliss and normalcy enjoyed by gays and lesbians.

He distorts the reality mightily. When will we, the public, get to see the dark side of homosexuality?

Dear Rhrosty,

<<Every human being extant on the planet has certain basic rights.>>

Indeed? Care to explain or justify that assumption?

(and if so, why only humans?)
(and why exclude astronauts?)

I don't have any rights, I don't want any rights, I don't want a bill of rights: if you don't try to rob away my God-given freedom in the first place, then you don't need to refund me with 'rights' as small change.

Take this area of marriage: had there not been a restrictive marriage law in the first place, then no need would arise to 'allow' same-sex marriages.

<<In a democracy there are no second class citizens!>>

Oh Really? consider for example those under 18, who get no vote but are forced to attend school!

It's all slogans mate, including that "justice wears a blindfold" - you have been conned, my friend.

"Rodney doesn't point out the downside of homosexuality and its negative affect on society. No, he presents a blissful picture of domestic bliss and normalcy enjoyed by gays and lesbians.
He distorts the reality mightily. When will we, the public, get to see the dark side of homosexuality?"

I think it is you David G who is distorting reality. What is the "downside' of homosexuality? I havn't found it yet after 40 odd years of being gay. It might also help if you would define "negative affect on society".

My partner and I along with many freinds enjoy domestic bliss and a happy, normal life. Our relationships have the same ups and downs as male/female couples. The thing is David we are all human beings.

The ACT and some of the states are indulging in a bit of grandstanding. Section 51 of the Constitution gives the federal parliament power over marriage. Section 109 says federal law overrides state law where they disagree, and it can override any territory law. Federal law gives marriage the definition it has always had. I expect Coalition and Labor MPs and senators to vote together to override the ACT’s interference in federal powers. I expect the Greens to make the most of the opportunity for even more grandstanding from the major parties’ upholding of the Constitution. Should a state pretend to create gay marriage, I expect the federal government to go to the High Court and have such a law declared unconstitutional.

The whole issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights at all. It is the most absurd campaign to be taken seriously in the last 40 years, relying on the false name of “marriage equality”, emotive language, pretend infringements of human rights and abuse of its opponents to disguise its illogic. It is a campaign to change the meaning of a word, which if successful, will remove from the language any word that means the lifetime and exclusive union of one man and one woman. It is as silly as a campaign for parents going through the process of adoption to be described as pregnant on the grounds of pregnancy equality.

Gays have the same rights as non-gays, including the right to marry. Why they want the word that describes something they can have but do not want to be used to describe something else they can already have and do want is a mystery.

I support marriage equality on two grounds:

The first, similar to Rhosty’s rights argument, derives from the principle that society, and more particularly government, should not interfere with the freedom of citizens to do what they wish unless the prohibited actions harm others.

This was famously articulate by JS Mill: ”The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

This clearly allows us to separate gays’ freedom to marry from the abusive sexual preferences in David G ‘s examples.

Second, I believe it will deliver a significant social benefits. We already recognise the benefits of marriage for society as a whole – creating a mutually loving and supportive family unit. All of the social and economic benefits of heterosexual marriage are equally applicable to homosexual marriage.

I recognise that not everyone shares my views, but Rodney’s proposal of State-based legislation would allow us to test them is an appropriately Australian way, through experimental Federalism. Let (small-l) liberal States such as Tasmania lead the way. If the experiment succeeds, as I expect, more conservative States will follow. If not, they won’t.

My own (non-lawyer’s) understanding of the constitution is that States’ powers on this issue should prevail, but given the history of pro-centralist decisions by the High Court, I wouldn’t bet money on them upholding States rights. It would be a bitter irony if the High Court, which forced Tasmania to decriminalise homosexuality in the 1990s (the last State to do so), should prevent it from legalising gay marriage in the 2010s.

Ho...hum...Here are THE two percent of society making enough noise to over-ride the remaining ninety eight percent again!

Chris C is completely wrong when he says it's not a matter of Equality. He's technically correct when he says that "Gays have the same rights as non-gays, including the right to marry."

Somehow I think though that if only same-sex marriages were permitted, and opposite-sex ones forbidden, I don't think Chris C. would think he was being treated equally.

Also - Intersex people cannot marry, regardless of whether they're Gay or Straight. They can't marry anyone. Their children are denied the ability to have married parents. They are treated unequally.

This Bill well worded - and directly applicable to me.

It covers all those couples who cannot get married under Federal law, or, and this is the point relevant to us, whose marriages may not be able to be proven valid. As I'm Intersex, that certainly covers us, due to caselaw that says

"The wife was contemplating immediately prior to marriage and did in fact believe that she was marrying a male. She did not in fact marry a male but a combination of both male and female, notwithstanding the fact that the husband exhibited as a male;
... further, the definition of "marriage'' as understood in Christendom is the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life and a marriage in the true sense of the word within that definition could not have taken place and did not exist."
-- In the marriage of C and D (falsely called C). (1979) FLC ¶90-636

I was diagnosed as an Intersex male in 1985, 4 years after marriage. I "exhibited as male" at the time of our wedding. I was rediagnosed as an Intersex female in 2005. In view of these facts, and the facts of the leading case, an argument that I am not "a combination of both male and female" for the purpose of marriage would not be guaranteed to succeed.

Diver Dan that about the same percentage of aborginals in this country what's your point?

Dear Rhian,

<<society, and more particularly government, should not interfere with the freedom of citizens to do what they wish unless the prohibited actions harm others.>>

I absolutely and emphatically agree.

However, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand:

Nothing in the current Australian law prohibits gay people from marrying. They may already do so in any way they like without any change of legislation. Yes, the government wouldn't provide them that service (nor would they have to pay the government a fee) and wouldn't recognise such marriage, but what's the big deal about that? If anything, I would consider the government's non-recognition as a source of pride and a testimony to the authenticity, strength and purity of the marital bond.

And dear Zoe, intersex people CAN marry just as well. Nothing stops you from celebrating and sanctifying your marital bond, in the presence of God, your family and your friends. Simply don't invite those bastards from government to your wedding - I certainly won't invite them even though I'm heterosexual.

Diver Dan
You do not speak for "the 98%". I'm a middle aged straight woman who has been married for 27 years. I see no reason to prohibit gays from access to the same status I have enjoyed (well, mostly!).

Diver Dan - You appear to not comprehend the meaning of the world "Equality".

It doesn't mean treating some more favourably than others because they're in a majority. Quite the reverse - it means treating everyone with equal favour, regardless of whether they're in the majority or not.

How exactly others being able to marry "over-rides" your own human rights escapes me.

You may reasonably argue that some, through the skin colour they were born with, or their sex, or their aristocratic ancestry, should be treated more favourably than others. That "Equality" is not desirable, and should be discouraged. Historically, that idea has been more often put into practice than not, with the "divine right of kings", slavery, denying women the right to vote or own property and the like.

If that's your argument - make your case. If not - then you have no rational argument to make based on whether someone is in a majority or not. Equality is for all, not just some.

Dear Yuyutsu
If gay people are free only to marry people of the opposite sex, then they are not really free to marry at all.

If, as you seem to argue, you have no problem with gay marriage, but rather only with government-sanctioned gay marriage, can I ask whether you think that no marriages should be state sanctioned, or only marriage between two people of the same gender?

Dear Rhian,

Gay people are ALREADY free to marry people of their own sex.

I have no problem with that and would feel honoured if a gay person chose me as their best-man.

Indeed, I do not agree with government being involved in that which is an intimate personal affair (and often also a religious practice) to begin with. Government should neither perform nor register marriages of any kind. I oppose the current erroneous push for "legalising" gay marriage (how is it possible to legalise what's already legal?!) because it involves the expansion of a government service which should not have existed in the first place.

>>no human has a right to pursue and satisfy whatever makes them happy! To make such a claim is absurd!<<

Really? Seems a bit harsh? What if what they really enjoy is philately? Would you deny them their right to collect stamps simply on the basis that no human has a right to pursue whatever makes them happy?

>>This was famously articulate by JS Mill: ”The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” <<

I'm with Mill too. And I'm going to stay with Mill until one of you tories can direct me to a convincing criticism of Mill.

>>When will we, the public, get to see the dark side of homosexuality?<<

When the Gay Lords of the Sith rise up to overthrow the Old Gay Republic and form the Evil Gay Galactic Empire. But they will be defeated in turn by the Gay Rebel Alliance who will then form the New Gay Republic.

Disney recently acquired the rights to LucasFilm and I believe they are already in pre-production for the new Gay Star Wars films. You should be able to see the dark side of homosexuality - or at least homosexuals who have turned to the dark side - any day now. The word on the street from die-hard fanboys is that the Gay Lords of the Sith will wield pink lightsabers instead of red and that the whole Gay Jedi Council have adopted Mace Windu's preferred colour of lightsaber.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Tony,

"
>>no human has a right to pursue and satisfy whatever makes them happy! To make such a claim is absurd!<<

Really? Seems a bit harsh? What if what they really enjoy is philately? Would you deny them their right to collect stamps simply on the basis that no human has a right to pursue whatever makes them happy?
"

I'm afraid that David G. is correct in this case:

Anyone who chooses to pursue their happiness must seize the opportunity and do what it takes to achieve that happiness - nobody else gives them such right, so they should not wait for others' permission.

If by seizing the opportunity for happiness one hurts others, then those others who are being hurt may act in self-defence in order to pursue their own happiness. Even they don't really have a 'right' for self-defence, they just act anyway!

Now it is common for people to form states for their mutual self-defence. That is fine, but does not give the state any more moral authority than the sum of the moral authorities of those people who voluntarily formed or joined that state. For example, the state has no moral authority to defend those who never applied or consented to be its members (unless it can establish beyond reasonable doubt that the offended would have voluntarily asked to join it if they had the opportunity, thus authoring the state to act on their behalf).

Of course states do it all the time, but that is completely immoral.

<<I'm with Mill too. And I'm going to stay with Mill until one of you tories can direct me to a convincing criticism of Mill.>>

I'm with Mill too, but those who criticise him most are not the tories, but the national and/or socialist mob, worst when these combine.

Just call it 'garriage'.

Gays get 7/8ths, straights keep 1/8th

Not a bad compromise.

Sorted.

Just what, exactly, do all you people think will happen if Australia joins the rest of the modern world and allows gay marriage?

Two guys or two girls will stand up in front of their family and friends, and a celebrant will marry them, they will then go home and live their lives.

Are some heterosexual people so insecure about heterosexual marriage that they feel gay marriage will somehow affect them in ANY way?

And don't pretend it is all about the children either, because we all know heterosexual marriages don't always bode well for kids anyway.

If it's your god you think has a problem with gay marriage, don't worry because YOU aren't the one marrying someone of the same sex, so you won't be going to your god's naughty corner.

Legal gay marriage is coming to Oz, so you all better get used to it and realise that in fact nothing in your own insular world will actually change!

Yuyutsu, you and I probably have different opinions in many areas, but I completely agree with you that government should not be regulating private relationships between consenting people.

Regardless on your position on same sex marriage/marriage equality, by removing government intervention in our private lives e all have the freedom to do what we personally believe is right. Homosexual couples can get married without needing governement (or church) approval, while those that disagree are free to not recognise these unions.

The only reason I can see for people to want government intervention is to force those that don't agree with you to recognise your opinion. I wonder why nobody here on OLO (other than you Yuyutsu) will even debate this fact.

I challenge anyone here to make an argument why government should regulate marriage.

So I have a question for the pro gay marriage supporters, if you get your wish and are allowed to marry and, assuming many out there either don't care, or don't acknowledge your marriage as being equal to theirs (a normal marriage between a man and woman) will you accept your status as same sex married, or will you forever fight to have your marriage recognized as equal, because to me, having the right to be married is one thing, but acceptance is a whole new ball game, and one I doubt you will be able to get over.

rehctub, I'm not really sure if I understand your question, but if I assume correctly, then yes, you have the right to personally regard your own marriage as superior to anyone else's. Nobody is going to force you to be tolerant, kind, or even intelligent, so nothing to worry about!

Dear Yuyutsu
Thanks for the clarification, if your argument is against state-sanctioned marriage in general, not gay marriage in particular, I have some sympathy with it.

....I challenge anyone here to make an argument why government should regulate marriage.
Posted by Stezza, Friday.

So that vulnerable girls under the age of consent are not forced into marriage.
So that vulnerable females are not forced into polygamous marriage nor exploited in a polyandrous marriage.

There are also the Social Service aspects; support benefits etc., to consider.

Dear Is Mise,

<<So that vulnerable girls under the age of consent are not forced into marriage.>>

If the girl consents, then nothing legally prevents that even now.
If she doesn't consent, then it's a form of violence, or assault, which is illegal anyway.
And if that forced marriage involves sex, then it is a case of rape, which is also dealt with separately by the law.

<<So that vulnerable females are not forced into polygamous marriage nor exploited in a polyandrous marriage.>>

Even now, nothing legally prevents females (or males) from entering a polygamous or polyandrous marriage (unless they opt to ask the state to sanction that marriage).
Now forced marriage on any type is an assault, or rape if sex is involved, which already carries a heavy jail sentence.

In Australia, any woman who feels exploited in a relationship of any sort, with any number of people, can simply leave. Moreover, if she feels in danger then the state provides here with safe-houses. Whether women that are abused in a relationship are married or not makes no difference.

<<There are also the Social Service aspects; support benefits etc., to consider.>>

Such unjust and irrational humps need to be removed, rather than be further protected and enshrined.

Is Mise, Yuyutsu and others on this recent thread have pretty much covered everything needed to nullify your argument.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15495&page=0

If you disagree with the points made by Yuyutsu, then you really need to ask yourself whether marriage as you see it facilitates vulnerable females over the age of consent being forced into heterosexual monogomous relationships.

The same laws that prevent this from occurring also protect other types of relationships. The Marriage act is simply a registration of one type of relationship by the government. the Social Service argument is also null due to other laws such as defacto etc.

..I challenge anyone here to make an argument why government should regulate marriage.
Posted by Stezza, Friday

The challenge was to make an argument; I succeeded.

Oh yes, I'm sorry.

Congratulations for making a terrible argument. You win the grand prize!

Zoe Brain,

Your mind-reading capability is not working. If society had created an institution called marriage to describe the union of two people of the same sex, I would see no reason whatsoever to demand that the union of two people of opposite sexes be called by the same name. I would expect it to have its own word.

There are lots of different types of relationships in our society. One such relationship is that of a man and a woman committed to each other for life to the exclusion of all others. The word that describes this relationship is “marriage”. The relationship of grandparents and grandchildren is not described as a marriage. The relationship of two life-long friends is not described as a marriage. A saucepan is not a brick. Jumping up and down is not flying. A meat-eater is not a vegetarian.

Chris, One could also describe marriage as a union for life of 2 adults who love each other.

Apparently, Christians used to stone adulterers, but we moved on from that.
We can move on to legal gay marriage too, and absolutely nothing will change for you.

Cris C,

It is interesting that you use the "meat-eater" "vegetarian" analogy to try and make a semantic argument against same sex marriage. As if people wouldn't understand what you are talking about all of a sudden.

This specific term is interesting because the word "meat" originally meant "all food", and apparently changed meaning over time to mean what we call "meat" today.

I wonder how many people starved to death when the meaning of this word changed? Won't somebody think of the children!

Oh yes, I'm sorry.

Congratulations for making a terrible argument. You win the grand prize!
Posted by Stezza, Saturday.

Not so much terrible as invalid, but an argument non the less; however as Government, as the argument goes, shouldn't legislate for marriage then why are some homosexuals and lesbians agitating for Government to legislate for their status when they pair off?

The real push ought to be for partnerships to be registered for legal reasons and for Government to abolish the Marriage Act (but not the marriage act).
This would leave the Government only regulatting the legal aspects.

Chris C wrote:
"One such relationship is that of a man and a woman committed to each other for life to the exclusion of all others. The word that describes this relationship is “marriage”."

The word also describes other relationships. If it didn't, then there would have been no need to amend the Marriage Act in 2004 to restrict it in a Federal Legal sense to that definition alone.

A number of jurisdictions now do not use that definition. One can even argue that ever since divorce was permitted, the clause "committed to each other for life" is more of a pious hope, a consummation devoutly to be wished, than a reality.

Religious groups can feel free to use their own definitions - in Islam, polygamy is explicitly allowed. In Catholicism, only Catholics can marry, and only then if not divorced.

But the law uses its own definition. It always has. In convict days, a so-called Catholic "marriage" was null and void, marriage required the presence of Anglican clergy to perform it. To say that the definition has never changed in thousands of years is an easily disproven falsehood.

"....In Catholicism, only Catholics can marry, and only then if not divorced."

Zoe, where on earth did you get that misinformation?

Catholics may no longer marry heretics - anyone baptised who is not a Catholic. Dispensations may be given of course.

The canon law is at http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P41.HTM

"Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church."

1086 §1 is relevant as well

"Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid."

Because of my own situation, I've had to become rather aware of what marriage law actually is, rather than what many think it is.

Firstly, given same sex couples have the same legal and financial arrangements as heteroseual couples, I wonder what the fuss is all about?
Marriage appears in the Bible in the book of Genesis with Adam and Eve; the concept of marriage is therefore a Judeo-Christian tradition. As the same source text tells us that homosexual practise is a sin, it just seems odd that the gay lobby wants to re-define a tradition which is sourced in the same document that condemns the practise. My gay friends certainly think it's a tempest in a teacup.
Secondly, whether Canberra has the right to merge State and church is another question not dealt with by Rodney Croome or his associates. Separation of church and State corrected a whole lot of problems centuries ago dealing with the legislative power of secular governements in religious/moral matters.
Funny old Canberra!

TAC mate, If you are married or not, same sex couples marrying will have no affect on you; and nowt to do with a book nobody knows who wrote it, even you !!

.....Firstly, given same sex couples have the same legal and financial arrangements as heteroseual couples, I wonder what the fuss is all about?

TAC, what the fuss is all about is that the word 'marriage' is taken and means a union between a man and woman.

My marriage of 28 years is special to me and I most certainly don't wish to share it with same sex couples.

The solution is very simple though, just find another word. Problem solved.

My contingency plan, should gays get their way, is to not recognize their marriage as being the same as mine.

I seriously doubt gays will be able to accept that while getting their way is one thing, but being accepted is another.

It will haunt them forever, unless they simply find another word.

Seriously, how hard can it be!

Zoe

"....In Catholicism, only Catholics can marry, and only then if not divorced."

"Catholics may no longer marry heretics - anyone baptised who is not a Catholic. Dispensations may be given of course."

The second statement contradicts the first. Divorce is a civil matter and some divorced Catholics can marry in the Catholic Church with all of the Rites that go with Marriage.

A homosexual relationship might be equal to a heterosexual relationship but it is incontrovertibly different. The word "marriage" differentiates the union of heterosexuals from all other types of relationships. So homosexual activists and your supporters don't be lazy. Go and come up with a word that should attach to the union of homosexuals. If you want your type of relationship respected, respect the relationships of those that are different.

>>Divorce is a civil matter and some divorced Catholics can marry in the Catholic Church with all of the Rites that go with Marriage.<<

Conditions apply. Divorce is a civil matter but the Church considers marriage a religious matter as well as civil matter. If you get married and then divorced the Church takes the position that you are still married. You cannot marry somebody else because that would be bigamy. Divorced Catholics can only remarry within the Church if their previous marriage(s) have been annulled or if their former spouse has died.

>>My marriage of 28 years is special to me and I most certainly don't wish to share it with same sex couples.<<

You won't have to. Attendance at spouse-swapping parties will not be mandatory; you will not have to trade in your wife for a hairdresser named Raoul. You will not have to host dinner parties with gay couples and cook special kosher meals for that kooky lesbian couple who've converted to Kabbalah. You will not be required to take photographs of cherished moments from your marriage, blow them up to billboard size and post them around Oxford Street.

In fact you won't have to do anything. Your life won't change in the slightest - and if it will I'd love to know how. All that will change is that some gay couples sometime in the future will have the opportunity to say 'my marriage of 28 years is special to me'. Why does that prospect make you so anxious?

Why does it matter so much if they call it a marriage? The name they use isn't going to affect the status of their legal rights, so why does it matter if they want to call it a marriage instead of something else? What difference does it make?

Cheers,

Tony

Tony,

"Conditions apply. Divorce is a civil matter but the Church considers marriage a religious matter as well as civil matter. If you get married and then divorced the Church takes the position that you are still married. You cannot marry somebody else because that would be bigamy. Divorced Catholics can only remarry within the Church if their previous marriage(s) have been annulled or if their former spouse has died."

So some divorced Catholics can marry within Catholicism.
One can, under some circumstances, have been legally married then divorced, but still get married in the Church and no dispensation is required as the Church considers that one is not and never has been married.

A church wedding is just that a church wedding, it only becomes a marriage after the church ceremony, when the official marriage register is signed and witnessed.
The church ceremony is purely a beforehand theatrical show, prior to signing the official marriage register.

Dear Kipp,

<<it only becomes a marriage after the church ceremony, when the official marriage register is signed and witnessed.>>

That's hilarious - What happens if at the end of the ceremony the newly-weds refuse to go into the church's back-room and sign the register? would the church treat them as fornicating?

Susie,

One could describe a saucepan as a vehicle for driving to the airport if one wanted to.

I’m not aware that Christians ever stoned adulterers, but if you give me a reference, I will look it up.

Stezza,

I know that “meat” used to mean “food”. “Silly” used to mean “holy”. The argument is not that words cannot change their meaning, but that there is no reason to change the meaning of marriage, especially given that the argument is never presented as one for changing the meaning of a word but rather is presented dishonestly as one of denial of equal rights. Nor does the federal parliament have the power to change the legal meanings of words in such a way as to change its own powers.

Zoe,

The word “marriage” has never described any other relationships in Australian law. All the 2004 amendment did was clarify that fact. Australian law does not recognise polygamy as marriage. That other jurisdictions do is not an argument that it also should. That the Catholic Church used to say long ago that it would marry only Catholics is not a matter of definition, but a matter of access, and that access was not to marriage, which could be performed by non-Catholic ministers or civil servants, but to a service performed by a Catholic priest.

There is no restriction on gays marrying and never has been. Nor is there any restriction on gays who do not want to marry instead forming lifelong exclusive unions with other gays. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the gay community to come up with its own word.

"Surely it is not beyond the wit of the gay community to come up with its own word."

That is universally accepted overseas? I think not. Perhaps religious marriages should be renamed "matrimony" now, to differentiate them from Canadian, Dutch, New Zealand, etc etc etc marriages, if that's what worries you.

Besides which - it's not just about gays. There are many people, some straight, some gay, who, under current law, cannot marry anyone whatsoever.

Dear Zoe,

<<There are many people, some straight, some gay, who, under current law, cannot marry anyone whatsoever.>>

That is so untrue - nothing under current law prevents anyone from marrying anyone. I received legal advice that neither yourself nor the person(s) who conduct your marriage can be prosecuted so long as the word 'legal' (as in 'legally married', 'legal wife', 'legally authorised', etc.) is not mentioned in the wedding ceremony.

(and why would I want to use such a stupid word in my wedding anyway?!)

Although there is no freedom of religion in Australia, so far even its most brutal governments are afraid to confront the churches directly and openly by obstructing a religious ceremony or prosecuting people for conducting a religious sacrament.

"That is so untrue - nothing under current law prevents anyone from marrying anyone."

Current law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the law. Those who are Intersex are excluded.

The leading case is "In the marriage of C and D (falsely called C)".
(1979) FLC ¶90-636 Other publishers' citations: (1979) 35 FLR 340 (1979) 5 FamLR 636 (1979) 28 ALR 524

"Notwithstanding the chromosomal arrangement, the surgery carried out on the husband was such as to confirm the recognition that he was born a male and had been reared as a male.
Shortly after the operation referred to, the husband became engaged to his wife and they went out together for some five years prior to marriage....
I am satisfied on the evidence that the husband was neither man nor woman but was a combination of both, and a marriage in the true sense of the word as within the definition referred to above could not have taken place and does not exist."

"I received legal advice that neither yourself nor the person(s) who conduct your marriage can be prosecuted so long as the word 'legal' (as in 'legally married', 'legal wife', 'legally authorised', etc.) is not mentioned in the wedding ceremony."

Our NSW marriage ceremony, dated 1981 used those words, as was customary at the time.

Can I be prosecuted? Not successfully. I was (mis)diagnosed as an Intersex male in 1985, 4 years after marriage, not before. The correct diagnosis - Intersex female - was only arrived at in 2005, after a rather anomalous female puberty, and as the result of medical advances in the last 20 years. So there was no intent to deceive, no men rea. The case is pretty strong there.

Is the marriage voidable? Probably yes, given the leading case above. The distinctions between the two cases make an even stronger case for voidability, if anything.

Is the marriage possibly voidable? That is 100% certain, and so we would be able to take advantage of this ACT law. It's because of cases like ours that that clause was inserted, the ACT Government received advice on that from the ACT Law Reform Council. Who were in turn informed by an ad-hoc panel of experts in the medical and legal areas from the Australian National University.

>>The argument is not that words cannot change their meaning<<

No: it is that they SHOULD NOT change their meaning.

Why shouldn't they, Chris? They've changed in the past and it doesn't seem to have caused many problems. Why - in general or in this specific instance - should they not? What meaningful problems do you foresee arising from this linguistic (d)evolution? Will it just be a matter of updating the relevant texts (most of which are probably digital and easily altered with a few keystrokes); or can you foresee significant problems arising from a slight broadening of the definition of a single word in the English language? What sort of problems?

>>there is no reason to change the meaning of marriage<<

Except that some people want it changed. And they have good reasons for wanting it changed: unless it is changed they will be treated unfairly because of their sexual orientation which is just as (un)reasonable as treating somebody unfairly because they're black.

On the other hand there are people who don't want it changed. But they can't provide any good reasons for not wanting it changed. Instead they present daft reasons like 'words shouldn't change meanings (no reason why they shouldn't, they just shouldn't)' or 'but if we let gays use it they'll get it dirty'.

>>the argument is never presented as one for changing the meaning of a word but rather is presented dishonestly as one of denial of equal rights<<

I think EVERYBODY knows that in order to give homosexuals equal marriage rights as heterosexuals the word 'marriage' in the Marriage Act needs a slight broadening in definition. There is no deception or dishonesty taking place; the reason some people present the argument in terms of rights and liberties rather than semantics is because rights and liberties are more important to them than semantics.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis, "to give homosexuals equal marriage rights"

Nonsense. If homosexuals were being denied any rights or 'equality' as you put it the Human Rights Commission would have been onto it like a fat kid onto a packet of Smarties.

You might want to get the number of posts up but this matter has been done to death in the federal Parliament and the present Marriage Act has been confirmed.

Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and
proper, and usually as God given as well. Much
of the current concern about the fate of
marriage stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.

If we assume that there is only one "right"
family and marriage form, then naturally any change will
be interpreted as heralding the doom of the
whole institution. It is important to recognise,
therefore, that there is an immense range in
marriage, family, and kinship patterns, that each of
these patterns may be, at least in its own context, perfectly
viable, and above all, that the family and marriage, like
any other social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society as in others.

According to recent surveys over 60 per cent of
Australians approve of same-sex marriage. I also feel that it
is a question of not "if" but "when."
And I am sure that if a Referendum was held today on that
issue, or if Mr Abbott allowed a conscience vote to his
party members in Parliament - the results would surprise us
all. The present Marriage Act was forced on us by John
Howard. He's gone - and the Marriage Act should be altered
accordingly.

Dear Zoe,

<<Current law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the law. Those who are Intersex are excluded.>>

Therefore, current law would not recognise your wedding-ceremony as marriage - big deal. The important point is that if the word "legal" was not mentioned, then no fraud was committed, or any other criminal offence. Your marriage then, as far as the state is concerned, never happened - but who cares? Your marriage is still valid before God, before your religious order (if you have any) and before your family and friends. What's more to ask for?

<<"I am satisfied on the evidence that the husband was neither man nor woman but was a combination of both, and a marriage in the true sense of the word as within the definition referred to above could not have taken place and does not exist.">>

Big deal. The judge is paid to read the paper of the law with his/her eyes and brain, while God sees to the heart!

<<Is the marriage voidable? Probably yes, given the leading case above.>>

The law of the land cannot touch the law of heaven. So long as your bond and commitment with your partner is true, no earthly court can shake it.

>> Therefore, current law would not recognise your wedding-ceremony as marriage - big deal. <<

Actually, yes it is. And I think if you asked any of those married people so against legally recognising same sex marriage what their reaction to having their own marriages declared illegitimate, null and void, would be, they'd think it was a "big deal" too.

>> Your marriage then, as far as the state is concerned, never happened - but who cares? <<

We do. Our son does too - for not all Intersex people are sterile, though as with our case, the usual method of conception was physically impossible. I didn't have all the right bits for that. We were both in our 40's when medical science finally was able to help.

Other people who care - immigration officials when we travel overseas. Insurance companies. Banks. Courts of Probate should I die. Hospitals when determining next of kin.

>> The law of the land cannot touch the law of heaven. <<

In which case, those of religious belief can have no earthly reason to object to the legal recognition of same sex marriage, can they? It wouldn't matter to them.

You are right that we will always regard ourselves as married, no matter what. You're wrong if you think that having our marriage publicly declared a sham, a nullity, wouldn't be heartbreaking to us. I dare say most married couples would feel likewise.

We tried to do the sensible thing, you see. There are all sorts of legal and practical difficulties in our situation. It would only be sensible to split and for both of us to make fresh starts, to seek the men of our respective dreams. But every time we mentioned the D-word, we both burst into tears.

>>Tony Lavis, "to give homosexuals equal marriage rights"

Nonsense.<<

Sh!t, homosexuals are allowed to get married now!? When did that happen? I don't read the front page of the paper because I turn straight to the letters page - and I find it hard to believe that none of the letter-writing public of Australia would have something to say about gay marriage.

Are you quite sure that gays are allowed to marry? In Australia? It's just that the House of Representatives hasn't sat since the election and won't sit for the rest of the year: kind of hard for them to pass ANY new legislation. Can I assume you only ever got your Pioneer (red) badge in Citizenship?

>>the present Marriage Act has been confirmed.<<

And is thus set in stone for all eternity; inviolate and unchangeable. Man hath never seen fit to alter the laws He hath lain down since ancient times; nor shall He ever. Sic semper erat, et sic semper erit.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis,

You took one word out of context to play a silly little game.

What I said was, "Nonsense. If homosexuals were being denied any rights or 'equality' as you put it the Human Rights Commission would have been onto it like a fat kid onto a packet of Smarties".

What I said is correct.

It is also correct to say that this subject has been done to death in the federal Parliament and the present Marriage Act has been confirmed. Both the Greens and Labor got scorched for their stand on gay marriage.

It is also abundantly clear from the gay activists' objection to a referendum on the subject that the vast majority of Australians do not want the Marriage Act trashed.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Dear Zoe,

I wish you both and your son the best in your marriage, please do not consider that 'D'-word.

I respect and support your marriage, so must your family and friends and so must all other members of this forum, religious or otherwise (PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR SUPPORT, EVERYONE!).

If someone that I love and respect disapproved of my marriage, then I MIGHT be concerned (better still, I could simply take it to be THEIR problem, not mine), but that this bunch of evil tyrants didn't recognise my marriage, I could only wear as a badge of honour, a source of pride, not shame - and so should your son if you explain it to him. I believe that he should be proud of you both!

The reason I oppose government recognition of gay marriage is exactly the same for opposing their recognition of ANY marriage. Suppose you received a lavish wedding-gift from the Mafia or a similar criminal gang, wouldn't you be more worried about it than happy? Wouldn't it come with strings-attached, as a form of bribery calling for your allegiance to that gang who then expect you to return the favour one day? Why then ask for favours from the government, because that's exactly what they are!

I plan to marry, which is why I asked for that legal advice. When I do, then despite being heterosexual, we will not sign any papers to let the government hear about it. We intend to have a religious wedding and never invite those evil ones.

As for the list of practical matters that you mentioned, fortunately you have been together for some years already, so you must be recognised as a 'de-facto' couple, which supposedly gives you the same legal-status as legally-married couples. If you like, for your peace-of-mind you can also sign an explicit will and power-of-attorney forms that give your partner all powers as per government-recognised marriages.

<<those of religious belief can have no earthly reason to object...>>

Excellent question. The sole reason is that it would increase government's powers, in turn allowing them to oppress religion.

Less than fourty percent of the Australian public is
against same-sex marriage and more than 60 percent are
in favour of it. 40 percent does not a majority make.
As for the Marriage Act being "confirmed." No, it was
not. It was forced onto the Australian public by a
conservative Prime Minister - and as with other outdated
legislation, it now needs to be amended to keep up with
current changes and circumstances that would better
represent the community's wishes.

This is an emotive issue for some, however, what would be
fair would be to have a Referendum on the subject - and let
the people decide what they want.

Very Foxy not to mention who sponsored that survey and any limitations in the interpretation of the results. Limitations that have been outlined to you innumerable times on OLO.

The only poll that matters took place very recently. The Greens and Labor copped a drubbing. 'Gay' marriage was supported by both. Both parties were shown the door by voters.

Dear OTB,

The stats are easily available on the web.
All one has to do is Google them. Of course
if you have a problem doing that - just go
into your regional library and the librarians
there will help you. But then if you prefer
to only glean your information from News Ltd - that's
understandable. Everything else prejudices one so. ;-)

That is uber foxy. Because you neglected yet again to inform readers of:

- who sponsored that survey; and,

- what limitations exist for the interpretation of the results.

There are surveys and surveys.

The most reliable survey is the federal election that just took place and it includes every Australian of voting age. The Greens and Labor copped a drubbing. 'Gay' marriage was supported by both. Both parties were shown the door by voters.

Dear Onthebeach,

<<Both parties were shown the door by voters.>>

Certainly so, but to be honest it had very little to do with gay marriage. Ordinary people do have more important issues (as also indicated by VoteCompass). In my case, I showed them the door first and foremost in order to stop the NBN.

Dear OTB,

What really flatters is all this attention
you're giving me. Especially when as I stated
earlier this information is so easily available
on the web - and if you can't Google -
there's always help availble.
However - this is your technique
when you can't find anything of substance to
default and your views are being questioned -
you nit-pick and attack.
That's uber OTB.
As you keep telling me - Pot/Kettle et al.
Good stuff.

Foxy,

Yet again and it is par for the course, you attacked me rather than answer the obvious questions that arise concerning the survey you quoted.

This is what I said,

"you neglected yet again to inform readers of:

- who sponsored that survey; and,

- what limitations exist for the interpretation of the results"

What about an answer in lieu of your trademark hit and run? After all, you do claim to be a 'librarian' and a 'researcher', and you often lecture others on how to conduct the debate.

There are surveys and surveys.

Dear OTB,

I am amazed that you haven't Googled this information
for yourself. There's plenty available on the web.
Then you could evaluate and pick the ones that appeal
to you because I suspect that no matter which ones
I provide you with - you'll find something wrong with
them if it doesn't fit into your ideological view-finder.
Surveys were done by The Age, Galaxy poll, Newspoll,
Pew Research, to name just a few.

You can find lists and names that may help you at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Australia

See you on another thread.