Poirot,

So you are unable to stump up with the number of gay marriages between 1901 and 2015? No surprise there.

Gays and lesbians, in fact the whole population, must have had the same understanding as those High Court judges who stated that marriage was exclusively understood as one man and one women for life, eh what?

However as usual you do not have the common decency to admit that you and Fox were taking the script from gay activists and deliberately seeking to mislead, to lie, through implying that gay marriage was somehow intended by the Marriage Act.

Howard did what any responsible PM would do to protect the intent, meaning and purpose of a law against those who would try to circumvent or backdoor it. Backdoor being the operative word where gay pride activists are concerned.

As has been commented often enough on this forum, Cultural Marxists are not concerned about the truth, just with maintaining their narrative and abusing anyone with the temerity to think independently and challenge their spin, of course.

otb,

We did not raise "interpretations" by judges of the High Court.

We merely stated that the laws prior to 2004 were undefined in the Act.

That's what we stated.

And our contention appears to be upheld by the fact that it was necessary for the issue to be taken to the High Court for interpretive clarification.

Der.....

otb,

"However as usual you do not have the common decency to admit that you and Fox were taking the script from gay activists and deliberately seeking to mislead, to lie, through implying that gay marriage was somehow intended by the Marriage Act."

Absolute bollocks, as usual from you.

Here we go again, you clinging onto some irrelevancy and attempting to troll on a non-issue.

It was not defined in the Act - you know it wasn't.

So now you accuse us of "deliberately seeking to mislead and lie" to get your daily trolling jollies.

Howard changed the act because of the evolving Zeitgeist - or why would he bother?

It wasn't in the Act because it was a given according to the spirit of the times - but the fact remains that "it wasn't defined in the Act".

You can't produce the portion of the Act where prior to 2004 marriage was defined as a union between man and woman - because it doesn't exist.

That's what we stated.

All the rest is you dancing around trying to make something out of nothing.

But keep going - I'm in the mood for taking you on today : )

Poirot, "And our [Poirot and Fox] contention appears to be upheld by the fact that it was necessary for the issue to be taken to the High Court for interpretive clarification"

Cultural Marxists do bend words to suit their own purposes, that has been said already. As for correctly relating facts and history, forget it!

Migrants would see in this exchange the sly, dogged, manipulation of the totalitarian Left.

To correct the deliberate misinformation left it ever becomes thought to have any basis in fact, the High Court was likely responding to Constitutional matters raised by others (extent of federal cf State powers).

There is NO question that the Marriage Act and usage of marriage were always understood as 'one man and one women for life'.

Shadow Minister deserves a medal. How many rolled up newspapers does he go through?

otb,

"Cultural Marxists do bend words to suit their own purposes, that has been said already. As for correctly relating facts and history, forget it!"

What a laugh! - here's what you posted...

"However as usual you do not have the common decency to admit that you and Fox were taking the script from gay activists and deliberately seeking to mislead, to lie, through implying that gay marriage was somehow intended by the Marriage Act."

that's:

".... through implying that gay marriage was somehow intended by the Marriage Act."

Talking of bending words to suit your own purposes.

I don't believe the formal definition was left out of the Act for those reasons. I believe it was left out of the Act because at the time it could be taken as a given that marriage only referred to that being between a man and a woman.

It was deemed unnecessary to formally define it - so it wasn't included.

You say:

"There is NO question that the Marriage Act and usage of marriage were always understood as 'one man and one women for life'."

I agree with that statement - and I have not been arguing against that view.

My argument is you skewing things to "have a go" at Foxy and myself because we stated that the Act included no formal definition of marriage.

It doesn't.

I don't need a rolled up newspaper to swat you, I just my wriggle my shoe and detach you from my trouser hem every time I post.

(Of course, when I say "It doesn't" - I mean "it didn't" prior to the changes in 2004)