ALTRAV,

Section 116 of the Constitution contradicts Josephus’s claim, as you seem to realise. Anyway, it doesn’t look like Josephus is willing to argue that one any further, so I’ll leave you two to your paranoia.

AJ honestly. I can't argue with double negatives. I know I'm no linguist, but just stop and think about it for a minute. Why would anyone write something to reject religion when their whole premise is based on religion. Do you guys go out of your way to deny anything you know is a threat to your argument or stance? OK, because I am not as quick as you guys, do me the honour of breaking it down and explain it to me, so I can see where I went wrong.

I have no idea where the double-negative was, ALTRAV.

<<I can't argue with double negatives.>>

Could you point it out to me? Something Josephus had said, perhaps?

<<Why would anyone write something to reject religion when their whole premise is based on religion.>>

I don’t know. You tell me. And while you’re at it, could you please explain the relevance of this comment of yours, too? After all, the Constitution wasn't based on religion. Are you perhaps being flexible with your definition of the word 'religion' like theists and climate change deniers can be?

<<Do you guys go out of your way to deny anything you know is a threat to your argument or stance?>>

No. Why’s that? Have I done that somewhere? Are you actually trying to claim that marriage equality is unconstitutional? Not even Josephus appears to be taking that one any further.

<<OK, because I am not as quick as you guys, do me the honour of breaking it down and explain it to me, so I can see where I went wrong.>>

Wrong where? About the Constitution requiring that Parliament adhere to this dubious notion of “Christian moral law”? Tell me where it says such a thing, and I’ll be happy to oblige.

As for s 116 of the Constitution, it literally rejects such a notion. I’m not even sure how that could be explained in any simpler terms. To require that Parliament adhere to the “moral law” of any religion would be to “establish” a “religion” and “impose” a “religious observance”.

What part of that do you not understand?

AJ you are not well. I will break it down for you.

Firstly, let's begin with the heading: 'Commonwealth 'NOT' to legislate in respect of religion'. The header should tell you where the text is going.
The text:

The Commonwealth 'shall not make any law' for establishing

any religion, or for 'imposing any religious observance', or 'for

prohibiting the free exercise of any religion', and no religious test

shall be required as a qualification of any office or public trust

under the Commonwealth.

The paragraph that says you are wrong, and you know you are, is 'prohibiting the free exercise of any religion'.
So now that I've 'put up', YOU can shut up!

The problem being, ALTRAV, that same-sex marriage doesn't prohibit the free exercise of religion.

So, no, it is in fact only you who should to "shut up" now.

You don't think some homophobic lawyers wouldn't have thought of that already, had you been right?

I just thought, ALTRAV, since lawyers apparently have no scruples, how about you approach a firm specialising in Constitutional law with your (or Josephus's) discovery (which they apparently couldn't discover themselves) and see what they think? You might want to brush up on the case law surrounding s 116 before you do, though. You do know what those cases are, don't you?

Yeah, didn't think so.