Never mind, our new PM Neville Chamberlain, will oblige the homosexuals ASAP, with a free and legal trip to the alter! The majority opinion will be turfed out to appease the Homo-Nazis !

We need a bill of irrevocable rights which simply must include a right to be born different; and given we are, not excluded from the same inviolable rights accorded to all others!

" Inasmuch as You do to the least among you you also do unto me!"

If we are all the sons and daughters of a creator, why would he/she create some of us different?

Perhaps to test the rest of us (and do not sin against[test] us) to see whether we we're fair dinkum and not just putty/property in the hands of evil influence?

I mean, it was once common practise to sterilize some folks to prevent them passing on cerebral palsy, for heaven's sake, which is primarily the product of oxygen starvation before or during the birth transition; and not the genetic trait some of the most ignorant folks on earth liked to believe it was, in order for them to act out their particular brand of malevolent, medieval and evil discrimination!

Just because you look like a dribbling village idiot doesn't make you one, even where that has financial outcomes for some; or just an excuse to throw rocks! Oh how jolly! Beats the hell out of throwing rocks at magpies, which often have his nasty habit of going ballistic and fighting back.

Homosexuallity is not a transferable genetic trait or disorder; just a naturally occurring (perhaps hormonal) aberration manifesting as a tiny problem with the internal personal sexual control wiring and therefore "repairable/reroutable"?

More cake to go with that tea anyone? Lovely party?
Rhrosty.

How can anyone take away your right to call your relationship a marriage? You are free to call your relationship whatever you like. It is a fundamental part of free speech. You do not need anyone else to define your relationship as a marriage much less the government. If you define marriage as a relationship that must be certified by the government then you are your own worst enemy.

The irony is that same-sex couples want to define marriage to suit themselves by declaring that it must have a government issued licence. They claim that no one has a right to define marriage as between a man and woman and yet they want to define it as a relationship approved by the government. This excludes all those couples who define themselves as married but who do not possess a certificate. Isn’t that a blatant attack on human rights - the right to define your own relationship?

Many people do not agree that a marriage has to include a certificate. Many agree that it must be sanctioned by their church or it is not a true marriage so whose definition of marriage is the one that should be enshrined in rights legislation?

When you ask for something that you already have then it is obvious you are looking to achieve something other than what you say you want. You have a hidden agenda.

I just want to confirm that the author agrees that the ICCPR allows for polyamorous marriage? What is the authors take on the relationship of the same sex partners in such a marriage?

For those of you following at home here is a link tot he human right Commission position paper on the subject https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/pdf/human_rights/MarriagePositionPaper2012.pdf

Triggs is a dolt for not knowing of the UNHR ruling, particularly as it supposed to be her field. But then, ignorance often goes with arrogance such as hers.

So it's a human-right to receive a certificate from the government?

A certificate that I like ice-cream?
A certificate that I'm a genius?
A certificate that I can stand on one foot for an hour?
...

If they refuse to give me those certificates {sob, whimper}, then I'll go and complain to the Yunighted-Nayshons {moan, weep, mewl}...

Bring on the plebiscite and stop with this ignorance personified rubbish that treats a natural aberration as if it were mere choice!
An unexamined life or belief system is just not worth having and I dare say responsible for most of the troubles this world seems to be having?
Rhrosty.

Hi Cobber

Thanks for the link. The position outlined in that paper is not the same as Martyn’s paper presents as Trigg’s argument. The paper acknowledges that same-sex marriage is not mandated by international law, but proposes that it is consistent with it, and also with other principles that should guide governments’ approaches to this issue, such as equality.

I couldn’t find a transcript of Triggs’ evidence by Google. If Martyn is right, it is unfortunate that Triggs either misunderstood or misrepresented international law on this issue.

I don’t think it’s especially important in the Australian debate, though. Australians should decide whether or not to adopt same-sex marriage on the basis of what is the right thing to do for our society and culture, not because the UN tells us to ( or doesn’t). Personally, I support it

It is a pity that the author's religious convictions lead him to a dismissal of Gillian Triggs and a misrepresentation of the law. If there is an emperor without clothes it is the Christian lobby and its blindness.

Joslin v New Zealand is an old case and the legal opinion now is that it is unlikely to be repeated if a similar case came before the court, not only because of evolving social attitudes but also significant changes to the law. For a discussion on why it is now regarded as bad law see Gerber et al Marriage: A Human Right for All? Sydney Law Review vol 36 642.

Mr Iles also refers to Hamalainen v Finland. That was a 2014 case that involved the legal status of a male person, already married, who had a sex change operation. It revolved around its own unique facts.

The case of Oliari v Italy is a 2015 case and is the current definitive pronouncement on the rights of same sex couples under European human rights law. The court held that Italy was legally obliged to recognise and protect same sex unions as it is with heterosexual unions.

In short, Mr Iles' argument is a nonsense, and his ideologically based argument is no substitute for the actual law.

You can call a dog "a bird" Phanto, but it still won't fly.

The pooftas are still whinging about gay marriage, while the Muslims they support as "fellow minorities" increase their numbers in Europe to the extent that Islam will be running the place by 2100.

While the poofs scream about how horrid the 'breeders" are in not giving them marriage equality, at least we are not proposing to stone homosexuals to death, or toss them off tall buildings. Which, is going to happen in the not too distant future.

The biggest threat to homosexuals is this alliance between the soft totalitarians of the multicultural left, with the hard totalitarians of the Islamic Right. But the homosexuals support the soft totalitarians, and they support the Muslim hard totalitarians, because they think that they can control the Muslims after they have destroyed their own society which does not give them everything they demand. It is just like the Jews in Germany supporting Hitler because they think that democracy in Germany is worse than a government controlled by National Socialism.

For the homosexuals and their supporters, you may win this battle, but you are going to lose the war. When the Muzzies start chucking you off buildings, just remember that LEGO said "I told you so!"

Triggs was caught out making fibs up about guards having guns. Her judgement is extremely questionable. I for one don't want unhealthy lifestyles promoted and condoned. To call it marriage is sick.

Our humanity has totally lost the plot. Dr Paul Craig Roberts sums it up really well.http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/19/whatever-happened-to-sex/

"People still get married, but the percentage is declining for economic and divorce court reasons and because of the availability of sex outside marriage. Moreover, in the marital bedroom there is no dominatrix with a giant balloon to help to get you off. Today the people most interested in marriage are homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered. Marriage is a way of legitimizing themselves and what would once have been called perverted sexual preferences."

Probably the best quote from PCR article. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/19/whatever-happened-to-sex/ "But not all corruption is financial or money-motivated. Spiritual corruption is even more dangerous as it erodes the character of people. Once people’s concerns do not go beyond themselves and their own feelings, a culture is dead. There has always been betrayal between husbands and wives, but not on the mass scale of today when vows play second fiddle to one’s personal desires. Another way of saying this is that keeping one’s vow or one’s word is no longer an important desire or contributor to self-esteem."

runner,

Emma Alberici's Lateline interview (19 Oct 2015) of Triggs was more like a Dorothy Dixer in the parliament than an interview. Kid gloves.

Even so, Triggs appeared muddled and confused and speculated about events that she admitted she had no knowledge of.

http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/lateline/NC1571H161S00

A poor show, ABC!

This is not an opportunity to engage in Triggs bashing, however much the neanderthal right might rejoice in such an opportunity. The issue is whether or not people of the same sex should have the opportunity to enter into a relationship on a par with what used to be a more traditional form of union.

As my earlier comment should have made clear, Iles misquotes the law for his own ideological purposes. He is entitled to his own opinions. He is not entitled to his own facts. Much less is he entitled to foist what the polls suggest is very much a minority view upon the rest of us.

James O'Neill, why would the gays and lesbians want a marriage contract that has enslaved the heterosexual community into a nightmare of perpetual litigation?

Why do they need Govt legality to endorse their relationships that should stand on a foundation of their own love and trust?

Our gay and lesbian community in seeking Govt legal approval of their relationships have become slaves to the very system they despise.

Rhosty, we already have 5 bills of rights what possible good could another one do?

Hi James O'Neill,

I have certainly not cherry-picked the law. I am familiar with this area and assure you that this is the actual state of the law. The HRC impliedly acknowledges this by searching for other ways to justify its position.

For the terms of a Covenant or Convention to change or evolve, there must be evidence of broad consensus among states parties. Of the approx 175 states parties to the ICCPR there are 20 or so that have legislated same-sex marriage. There is therefore no such consensus to alter the male-female definition of Article 23. Your claim that Joslin would be decided differently today is therefore hard to substantiate.

This is the doctrine that also applies to the European Conventions, which cases like Oliari v Italy relate to. Even that case, decided in 2015, pertinent to Europe where the highest concentration of states having legislated same-sex marriage can be found, held that there is no such consensus in Europe that would enable the change.

Further, whilst Oliari said that same-sex relationships deserve legal protections from government, it specifically said that this did not require laws permitting same-sex marriage. There remains no right to same-sex marriage, either by itself or as a product of equality, even in Europe.

That is why I started with Joslin, from 1999, and finished with Oliari, from 2015. The law is still the same in Europe and under the ICCPR and there is good reason to suggest it will remain so as the requirements for change are not met, despite more countries having SSM.

Advocates for change are more than entitled to make their case, but they should do so without misrepresenting the state of the law, which is clear on this point.

I trust that this clarifies.

Cheers,
Martyn.

'This is not an opportunity to engage in Triggs bashing, however much the neanderthal right might rejoice in such an opportunity.'

I see James it ok to quote her as a source and then spit the dummy when she gets caught out making up stories.

otb

' A poor show, ABC!'

really what more do u expect from the regressives. Abbotts biggest failure was to try and appease the humongus government funded leftist propaganda outlet.

to the conservative commenters above well said, to the leftists. is there any form of life lower than a leftist? are they determined to endanger every child in the land over their so called principles?

Hullo Martyn. If you read the article by Gerber et al that I cited in my first comment you will see why Joslin is now regarded as not being a very good authority and unlikely to be followed should a case with similar facts come before the Court.

@Arjay. Richard, my general stance is that people should be free to form their own relationships as consenting adults. The legal system has systematically discriminated against that choice. I am in favour of eliminating all forms of discrimination. If the diminishing minority want to keep "marriage" to themselves then the obvious solution is to abolish marriage as a legal concept and replace it with civil unions. Many countries have done just that.

Seeing this as some kind of leftist conspiracy supported by a left wing ABC (there's a laugh) only confirms Keatings recent observation about pre-Copernican retrogrades clogging up the public discourse.

James O’Neill:

“I am in favour of eliminating all forms of discrimination. If the diminishing minority want to keep "marriage" to themselves then the obvious solution is to abolish marriage as a legal concept and replace it with civil unions. Many countries have done just that.”

If this solution eliminates discrimination then why are same-sex couples not agitating for this solution? If as they state it is all about equality and discrimination then why not just create a level playing field by this method? Or is it actually about something other than discrimination?

What would it matter if the diminishing minority kept ‘marriage’ for themselves so long as there was no discrimination? Is it about ‘marriage’ or discrimination?

“The issue is whether or not people of the same sex should have the opportunity to enter into a relationship on a par with what used to be a more traditional form of union.”

How do you measure what par is? The only difference it seems is the lack of a government issued licence and since that licence gives you absolutely no practical advantage over couples who do not have a licence then what difference in reality is there?

Revising the definition of 'marriage' (or indeed any word) for political purposes has a number of useful effects. In addition to manipulating the thoughts and opinions of others, this method lends itself to revising the meaning of any number of important documents. The authors of the human rights declarations were NOT commenting on sexual orientation w.r.t marriage.

Today its human rights, next will be laws, scripture, books etc. Their original meaning can be swept aside by revising the definition of words. Laws can be changed for a fraction of the effort of doing it legitimately via legislation. Revising scripture is impossible without such a method. Book burning is no longer effective thanks to the digital age.

Tampering with our shared language for political advantage violates freedom of thought and freedom of expression; it is NOT OK.