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 > Bill Shorten doesn't appear to have a strategy for winning the debate on marriage equality > Comments

Bill Shorten doesn't appear to have a strategy for winning the debate on marriage equality : Comments

By Richard King, published 30/10/2015

It's no mystery why some of the most impressive performers in this debate are from the conservative side of politics

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
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".
Posted by Daffy Duck, Friday, 30 October 2015 12:19:58 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
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
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 30 October 2015 2:59:28 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
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.
Posted by Old Man, Friday, 30 October 2015 3:34:26 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
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
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 30 October 2015 5:01:55 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
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?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 30 October 2015 6:12:17 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
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.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 30 October 2015 7:45:35 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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