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.