There is no such thing as "marriage equality". 'Marriage' between two people of the same sex is no different from Caligula's 'marriage' to his horse. I don't know what went on between the 'happy couple', and I couldn't care less, just as I couldn't care less what homosexual couples do in private, or what heterosexual couples do in private.

What I do care about is that all this nonsense is thrust onto a mostly uncaring public as though it was a perfectly normal think, and a human right, that same sex couples should be married in the same way 'normal' couples are married.

So, of cause Billl Shorten doesn't have a strategy for 'winning the debate'. A genius, which Bill is not, could not come up with sensible reason for SSM.

The whole “marriage equality” debate is the silliest thing to be taken seriously in my lifetime. People who already have the right to marry but do not want to and who already have the right to form committed same-sex relationships demand that a word, “marriage”, have a new meaning and dress it up as a human rights issue. Airhead trendies take it seriously and some of the logical people demand a plebiscite, foolishly thinking that all the opinion polls are wrong and that the public has not already been taken in by the bizarre arguments advanced for the word theft. The real reason for the plebiscite is not to stop the creation of “same-sex marriage” but to enable its Coalition opponents to say to their conservative supporters that its creation was not their fault, but the fault of the people. It’s pure spin, and the commentariat falls for it.

The High Court changed Constitution by changing the meaning of the word “marriage” in it. The people ought to have the right to change it back. A constitutional referendum can be taken seriously – a plebiscite should not be.

ttbn, 100% correct

Chris C, also correct

Q, why are members of the radical, extreme, 100% evil, left wing, religious cult so desperate to abuse children?

'he notes that when he was a young man the shame felt by many homosexuals would sometimes lead them to take their own lives;

and of course it is the fault of those opposing this lifestyle that leads to suicide. Nothing to do with the fact that rejection, disease, jealousy, murder is rife in those choosing this lifestyle. Always deflect blame from the real causes.

don't forget many prostitutes, paedophiles and comedians take their own lives. Of course this is the fault of people wanting healthy lifestyles promoted to our kids. The left always revert to the gutter when they know they are wrong.

runner, ttbn and Chris C. - all three of you 100% correct

But imacnt is even More correct. Imacnt also receives a set of steak knives, is Mentioned in Despatches and gets two Brownie stamps.

This article in its first paragraph, is certainly a "potential catalyst for homophobia."

Poida

Chris C,

The High Court would have interpreted the Constitution. The HC cannot change the Constitution. Good post though.

Back in the good old, olden days (daze) if you wanted your child to be abused physically, emotionally and sexually your best option would have been to send them to a "catholic" school.
Ask the Irish, who as a result of the extensive investigation into the systematic abuse, and systematic institutional cover-up by the "catholic" ecclesiastical establishment, now have no illusions re the "moral authority" of the official "catholic" church. They have voted with their feet and bums, and left the church in droves.

Or if you wanted your child to be taught that their bodies and anything to do with sex or even the enjoyment of bodily pleasure were dirty, disgusting and inherently "sinful" - the work of "satan".

Chris C

The High Court did not amend the constitution with respect to same-sex marriage. In 2004 the Howard Government amended the Marriage Act to specify that marriage is between a man and a woman; previously, it has been silent on the issue of the gender of spouses.

This is a conventional Act of Parliament and can be amended like any other Act, through the parliamentary process. A Constitutional Referendum would only be needed if the government intended to amend the constitution to explicitly permit or forbid same-sex marriage, but no-one is proposing that as far as I know.

In 2013 the High Court ruled that the ACT’s move to legalise to allow same-sex marriage was not valid because it contradicted the Commonwealth’s Marriage Act. It also found, however, that the Commonwealth Government does have the power to legislate to allow same-sex marriage, if it wishes.

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca55-2013-12-12.pdf

The High Court's re- interpretation of the meaning of "marriage" is another example of judicial activism breeching the principle of division of powers which has been the fundamental basis of our democracy since the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688.

That principle was much admired by the French and formed the basis on which the constitution of the USA was established and is fundamental to the success of our democracy.

The Australian constitution was a deal made between colonies and legislated in the UK to establish our federal system.

There was no doubt that in delegating to the Commonwealth legislature the power to regulate marriage the colonies were delegating the power over marriage as it was then defined as between a man and woman.

The colonies were not delegating the power to regulate relationships between people of the same sex.

In changing that position by a redefinition of marriage a purported change to the constitution has been made by a group of people ( the High Court) which was not given power to change but only to interpret the Constitution as drawn and understood in 1901.

That is a clear usurping of power.

We, the people, regardless of our actual views on rights of homosexuals, should reject the proposed change for the reason that, in putting the proposition forward other than as a constitutional change, we have allowed the High Court to usurp powers vested in us, not the High Court or parliament.

The will of the people must be ascertained in accordance with the rules relating to constitutional change.

Certainly same sex marriage is something we all should worry about. An issue on par with cancer, terrorism, nuclear war and getting fat.

Concerned Australian pro-same sexers also need the $$millions in funding that their LGBT brothers, sisters and hermophrodites received from American billionaire Chuck Feeney - who bankrolled the Irish campaign.

see http://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/American-Chuck-Feeney-the-key-backer-for-gay-marriage-in-Ireland.html

The taboo on homosexuality is alive and kicking.

Homosexuals are nice people, do nothing wrong (in that capacity) and while it was so in the past, they nowadays rarely face any opposition or shame from the "conservative" side. Several churches now fully accept them, even as clergy and bless their marriages.

But it's the "progressive" side that won't let them be, who won't accept that a person is simply homosexual and that it's simply about their private sexual preference: instead they demand that people with such preferences must label themselves as "gay", in effect conscripting those innocent people as foot-soldiers in their anti-religious campaign.

"Gay" is a political term, not a sexual one. It reached such a point where one can be outwardly "gay" without even contemplating the prospect of having an actual sexual contact with another of their own gender in their private life.

How many people today actually dare to stand up and confidently say, "Yes, I am homosexual", not some fancy "gay", actually a HOMOSEXUAL, honestly, how many dare so?

Yes Yuyutsu their's is a special nobility. They are not just mortal men.

The brand has had a bad rapp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruising_(film)

As we all know it is we, the white heterosexual men, who are the sum of all that is wrong with the world.

Oh good, a plebiscite, now we can all take the opportunity to punish politicians and the upper castes for their many transgressions against working people by voting no to same sex marriage.

Taking a stand 'on the high ground of free speech' would pale by comparison with the 'high ground of freedom of thought' IMO. For it is freedom of thought that is lost when the definition of a word is used as a device for inducing cultural change. I have a hard time accepting that no politicians can see the problem. (See https://goo.gl/RSwg9K)

As for 'the socialisation of homosexuality', I disagree. The push to revise the definition of marriage is an act of tyranny by extreme elements of the gay rights movement. Their power is demonstrated in how such an anti-freedom idea has gained so much traction. And "Marriage Equality" won't be the last step, it's only the next step because a tyrant cannot be appeased.

ttbn and Rhian,

The High Court did change the Constitution, not by changing a word in it, but by changing the meaning of a word in it.

When the people voted the Constitution into effect in 1901, everyone knew that the federal marriage power in Section 51 was a power over the union of a man and a woman. No one said that it was a power over the union of two men or two women or three saucepans. No one said it was a power over anything but the union of a man and a woman in 1911, 1921, 1931, 1941, 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981 or 1991. Then suddenly, after 113 years, this very clear power was changed by the High Court to mean the power over the union of two men or two women, but not yet three saucepans. That is a dramatic change to the Constitution.

There is no need for a referendum to “explicitly permit … same-sex marriage” because the federal parliament has already been granted that power by the High Court. There is no need for a referendum to “explicitly … forbid same-sex marriage” because that would be as silly as a referendum to “explicitly forbid” carnivorous vegetarianism. What is required is a referendum to restore the original meaning to “marriage” in the Constitution by inserting a definition that it is the union of a man and a woman. Of course, that won’t stop a future High Court ruling that “man” means “woman” and vice versa. No one with any power, including the supposed conservatives in the Coalition, is proposing such a referendum. That is why we need not take the MPs who claim to oppose the creation of “same-sex marriage” seriously.

None of this has anything to do with human rights or equality. Gay people are free to live together, celebrate their unions, be registered as a couple, inherit from each other and so on. Federal parliament is able to make laws regarding same-sex couples, and already has done so. The states are also free to legislate on same-sex unions but not to pretend that they are marriages. It’s just that the word “marriage” has a meaning and we ought not deprive the language of a word with that meaning.

What the same-sex marriage “debate” tells us is that you can eventually fool most of the people most of the time. The campaign was to steal a word, but presenting it that way would not work, so we had appeals to human rights and to equality, the creation of a victim group, the labelling of the campaign as “marriage equality” (thus claiming in advance the very thing that had to be proved) even in supposedly straight news reporting, stories of exclusion, intimidation of opponents by calling them bigots, religious fundamentalists and homophobes (by people who themselves had not given a toss for the non-issue 60, 50, 40, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago), a successful attempt to pigeonhole opposition as religious in a secular society and a massive favouring of the case for change by the media.

The campaign has been ruthlessly dishonest but brilliant, with even otherwise level-headed people falling for it in droves. One day the same techniques – without the dishonesty – might be used for something real.

Daffy Duck, as sad as it is when ANY child is abused in ANY way, the % rate at which children are abused in non christian organisations is much higher than it is in christian organisations & most especially in left wing organisations.

Rhian, wrong as usual, talk to a constitutional lawyer who is not left wing & you might get to the truth. Before 2004 nobody in their right mind thought that the marriage act needed to stipulate "between a man & woman". it has been that way for 10 to 15 million years & is in our constitution.

Old Man, hear, hear.

Yuyutsu, hear, hear.

plantagenet, hear, hear, although i prefer to point the finger at University these days. Leaders in all fields are almost exclusively university educated & have been getting everything wrong for at least half a century.

Chris C, there is another way, the ruling could be challenged by a team of conservative christian lawyers, as it is a corrupt ruling, "original intent" is a well established principle in constitutional law.

He doesn't need a strategy, the debate is well and truly over, bring on the plebiscite!
Rhrosty.

So you didn't go to Uni imacnt?

imacentristmoderate,

Seeking a conservative Christian lawyer is to accept the idea that opposition to the creation of same-sex marriage is basically religious. It is not. It is just logical.

In any case, once the High Court changes the Constitution, only another High Court or a referendum can change it back. In the unlikely even that a future High Court had more literalist lawyers on it, same-sex marriage will have been so entrenched that they would be extremely unlikely to make it beyond the power of the federal parliament to legislate. We already know that the Coalition opponents of same-sex marriage are not seeking a referendum, so we can forget that too.

It should also be noted that it was not the Howard government that amended the Marriage Act by inserting the centuries-old common law definition of marriage, but Labor, Liberal and National MPs and senators, all of whom supported the amendment.

The doctrine of original intent is not well established at all but argued over because we cannot really know the intent of every individual who voted for a particular law. We have to rely in the plain English meaning of words, something that was easy to do until 2013 with regard to “marriage” in the Constitution.

plantagenet, thankfully no, i did not attend a university & therefore am still capable of logical thought.

Chris C, the intent of our founding fathers is clear in their speeches at the conventions. An Oxford dictionary circa 1880 to 1890 is easily available to show what words meant then, compared to now.

Rhosty

I agree - bring on the plebiscite.

Totally over it.