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 > Defining a marriage > Comments

Defining a marriage : Comments

By Kerry Corke, published 22/5/2006

How constitutional are state-based civil union schemes?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
It's simple the term marriage should be defined in modern Australia as "The voluntary union between two or more adults for as long as is mutually agreed, The union can be dissolved at any time if one or more parties violate on the terms of the union".

These sort of issues should be sorted out at a state level.
Posted by Kenny, Monday, 22 May 2006 9:35:53 AM
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 would surely find that the word "marriage" in the Constitution relates to a union between people of opposite sex. On that basis, the federal head of power regarding marriages only relates to such unions. Indeed, the Commonwealth government has gone out of its way to ensure that this is what the Marriage Act is about. They wasted parliamentary time in the process, because there was never any likelihood that the courts would find that people of the same sex could get married under the Marriage Act as it previously stood.

Anyway, they can't have their cake and eat it. If marriage is the union of people of opposite sex, then the union of people of the same sex is not marriage, and is not subject to a head of power possessed by the the Commonwealth.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Monday, 22 May 2006 10:43:01 AM
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
In Western Australia the removal of the Crown as head of State by McGinty, is now in question to the lawful authority of those who administer and preside over Birth, Deaths and Marriages.

We don't quiet know where we stand on the definition nor acknowledgement of a union between two people?
Posted by Suebdootwo, Monday, 22 May 2006 12:20:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting that one bit of the definition "the voluntary union for life" seems to be missing from the debate. My "marriage" did not last for life - does that mean it was never a marriage? If the gender and number of the participants is so important then why not the term of the union.

Really the concept seems to have little meaning in modern Australia.
- People are free to walk out (probably better than being forced to stay in a really bad one but it violates the idea of a union for life)
- you can end up in as difficult a legal mess without a formal committment based on some vague criteria - you don't have to live together full time to be defacto.

It's about time that the law recognised a variety of types of unions and only recognised such unions where they are formally entered into.
- The traditional one man, one woman till death do us part with consequences for breach of contract.
- Something like Kenny's definition.
- A range of options in the middle as agreed by consent at the time the union was entered into.

Things like fidelity, expected contributions (employment, housework, yardwork etc), care of kids, division of assets at termination of the union can be specified to up front.

No place for someone having dated someone for a while and finding themselves needing lawyers to protect their assets if the relationship fails.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 22 May 2006 12:46:01 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
Same sex "couples" should receive no formal acknowledgement of their "union". Decriminalising homosxuality was the limit. A Catholic bisop in Italy recently received expected booing and hissing when he opined that perhaps 10% of people may have been born with gender problems, but the rest were all "perverts".

Even if we are not interested, not affected, quite happy to have gender benders in our midst, science and common sense should tell us that homosexuality is unnatural and disgusting.

It is just one of the areas of decadence which will see the end of Western civilization.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 22 May 2006 2:06:05 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
Leigh, it may be that our collective tolerance of "the different" is one of the things that has helped set us apart from other civilisations. The things that get tolerated may not always be to our personal taste or liking but I doubt that there is a realistic way to have freedom and progress without fairly wide tolerance for different ideas and choices. We could try and limit freedom to specific areas but I that creates an easy door for restrictions which do stifle progress.

That is in part why some of us fight so hard to protect the freedoms of others to live lifestyles we don't like ourselves. The cost to our civilisation of any other approach is to high. Admittedly we walk a fine line between liberty and responsibility, sometimes getting the balance wrong but mostly over time hold it together well.

Do you really want a civilisation where personal morality is more closely controlled by others.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 22 May 2006 2:32:33 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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