The SA Premier Jay Weatherill has backed same sex marriage so it looks like SA will be the first state to change the laws.
Im betting the rest of the country will soon follow suit once its proven the world wont come to an end if everyone has equal rights.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:37am:

The SA Premier Jay Weatherill has backed same sex marriage so it looks like SA will be the first state to change the laws. Im betting the rest of the country will soon follow suit once its proven the world wont come to an end if everyone has equal rights.

just get on with it.. who cares I know I dont..

I am sure our divorce rate will go through the roof..

cods wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:56am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 8:37am: The SA Premier Jay Weatherill has backed same sex marriage so it looks like SA will be the first state to change the laws. Im betting the rest of the country will soon follow suit once its proven the world wont come to an end if everyone has equal rights. just get on with it.. who cares I know I dont.. I am sure our divorce rate will go through the roof..

Divorce or not its all about equal rights

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:37am:

The SA Premier Jay Weatherill has backed same sex marriage so it looks like SA will be the first state to change the laws. Im betting the rest of the country will soon follow suit once its proven the world wont come to an end if everyone has equal rights.

Good luck with that.

Marriage is a federal statute, not state; under the Australian constitution federal law take precedence over state; most adults are aware of this.

Good on you South Aus, ya winners.  ;D

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:01am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 8:37am: The SA Premier Jay Weatherill has backed same sex marriage so it looks like SA will be the first state to change the laws. Im betting the rest of the country will soon follow suit once its proven the world wont come to an end if everyone has equal rights. Good luck with that. Marriage is a federal statute, not state; under the Australian constitution federal law take precedence over state; most adults are aware of this. Good on you South Aus, ya winners.  ;D

Its going to the SA parliament at the next sitting

my daughters would yawn if i started talking to them about marriage at all. they see marriage as an outdated old fashioned yawn a thon.

i'm amazed the gay community care less about it.

i think some of it is a bit like telling someone "you can have any flavoured ice cream but chocalate" and watching their brain suddenly develop an over whelming desire for chocalate ice cream.

really,  to your average joe  (and i suspect to 90 %  of gays who seem to have been joined to this agenda whether they support it or not)  its about as important as whether you fill your car with shell petrol or BP petrol.
surely theres more important things for the country to worry about then the difference btween a "marriage" and a "civil union"

what exactly is the difference if i might ask. what extra rights are they currently being denied.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:14am:

my daughters would yawn if i started talking to them about marriage at all. they see marriage as an outdated old fashioned yawn a thon. i'm amazed the gay community care less about it. i think some of it is a bit like telling someone "you can have any flavoured ice cream but chocalate" and watching their brain suddenly develop an over whelming desire for chocalate ice cream. really,  to your average joe  (and i suspect to 90 %  of gays who seem to have been joined to this agenda whether they support it or not)  its about as important as whether you fill your car with shell petrol or BP petrol. surely theres more important things for the country to worry about then the difference btween a "marriage" and a "civil union" what exactly is the difference if i might ask. what extra rights are they currently being denied.

The right to marry the one they love..

Lets all sue any pollies like Adam Bandt, & Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings who try to abuse the legislative power of the parliament for personal benefit on major change and ideology without due constitutional process of a referendum...if we all sue these fascist dictators they will back off in a hurry...lets go Aussie..,.. :) :)

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:05am:

Its going to the SA parliament at the next sitting

Just proves that you crow eaters are rolled gold morons. You can make whatever law you want and the federal government can quash it because it contravenes Section 51 of the amended marriage act 2004


The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004 inserted a definition into s5(1) of the act, that reads:
“Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."
The 2004 amendment addressed the issue of gay marriage in Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_(Australia)




And just to prove that SA are conducting a social wankfest, here's the specific part of the constitution that deals with marriage.


COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51
Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:


  (xxi)  marriage;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

I have a feeling that this homorriage thread, as opposed to the 10 million homorriage threads before it, will be the one that finally provides a single good reason why such a thing should be allowed.

Please don't disappoint me.  Again.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:05am: Its going to the SA parliament at the next sitting Just proves that you crow eaters are rolled gold morons. You can make whatever law you want and the federal government can quash it because it contravenes Section 51 of the amended marriage act 2004 The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004 inserted a definition into s5(1) of the act, that reads: “Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." The 2004 amendment addressed the issue of gay marriage in Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_(Australia) And just to prove that SA are conducting a social wankfest, here's the specific part of the constitution that deals with marriage. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11] The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:   (xxi)  marriage; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

The operative words here are the parliament subject to the constitution...they cant change the constitution without a referendum and they know it, they can be sued...they can all go to gaol for this - its very serious & malicious criminal behavior... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:39am: adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:05am: Its going to the SA parliament at the next sitting Just proves that you crow eaters are rolled gold morons. You can make whatever law you want and the federal government can quash it because it contravenes Section 51 of the amended marriage act 2004 The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004 inserted a definition into s5(1) of the act, that reads: “Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." The 2004 amendment addressed the issue of gay marriage in Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_(Australia) And just to prove that SA are conducting a social wankfest, here's the specific part of the constitution that deals with marriage. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11] The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:   (xxi)  marriage; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html The operative words here are the parliament subject to the constitution...they cant change the constitution without a referendum and they know it, they can be sued...they can all go to gaol for this - its very serious & malicious criminal behavior...

Actually that's not what it means.

They are not changing the constitution at all, that are trying to circumvent the federal marriage act; it's all pretty self evident.

You may want to hone your bush lawyer skill with some improved comprehension there mate.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:49am:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:44am: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:39am: adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:05am: Its going to the SA parliament at the next sitting Just proves that you crow eaters are rolled gold morons. You can make whatever law you want and the federal government can quash it because it contravenes Section 51 of the amended marriage act 2004 The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004 inserted a definition into s5(1) of the act, that reads: “Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." The 2004 amendment addressed the issue of gay marriage in Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_(Australia) And just to prove that SA are conducting a social wankfest, here's the specific part of the constitution that deals with marriage. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11] The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:   (xxi)  marriage; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html The operative words here are the parliament subject to the constitution...they cant change the constitution without a referendum and they know it, they can be sued...they can all go to gaol for this - its very serious & malicious criminal behavior... Actually that's not what it means. They are not changing the constitution at all, that are trying to circumvent the federal marriage act; it's all pretty self evident. You may want to hone your bush lawyer skill with some improved comprehension there mate.

It is exactly what it means...the constitution and the law are one...the Government is subject to the Law - on major change they must go to the people with a referendum - our system of law does not allow for summary parliamentary dictatorship of the constitution and the law... :) :)

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:19am:

aquascoot wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:14am: my daughters would yawn if i started talking to them about marriage at all. they see marriage as an outdated old fashioned yawn a thon. i'm amazed the gay community care less about it. i think some of it is a bit like telling someone "you can have any flavoured ice cream but chocalate" and watching their brain suddenly develop an over whelming desire for chocalate ice cream. really,  to your average joe  (and i suspect to 90 %  of gays who seem to have been joined to this agenda whether they support it or not)  its about as important as whether you fill your car with shell petrol or BP petrol. surely theres more important things for the country to worry about then the difference btween a "marriage" and a "civil union" what exactly is the difference if i might ask. what extra rights are they currently being denied. The right to marry the one they love..

but thats sort of my point.

marriage is just becoming a big heterosexual joke

shows like
"the farmer wants a wife"
"please marry my son"
"the batchelor"

kardashians getting married for 2 weeks and making millions out of the magazine rights, katie perry, i could go on ad nauseum.

why would you want to taint your loving relationship by grouping yourself with these circuses.

i would have thought the gays were progressive and liked to set the agenda.  they seem to be the last ones on a sinking band wagon.

very odd.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:01am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:19am: aquascoot wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:14am: my daughters would yawn if i started talking to them about marriage at all. they see marriage as an outdated old fashioned yawn a thon. i'm amazed the gay community care less about it. i think some of it is a bit like telling someone "you can have any flavoured ice cream but chocalate" and watching their brain suddenly develop an over whelming desire for chocalate ice cream. really,  to your average joe  (and i suspect to 90 %  of gays who seem to have been joined to this agenda whether they support it or not)  its about as important as whether you fill your car with shell petrol or BP petrol. surely theres more important things for the country to worry about then the difference btween a "marriage" and a "civil union" what exactly is the difference if i might ask. what extra rights are they currently being denied. The right to marry the one they love.. but thats sort of my point. marriage is just becoming a big heterosexual joke shows like "the farmer wants a wife" "please marry my son" "the batchelor" kardashians getting married for 2 weeks and making millions out of the magazine rights, katie perry, i could go on ad nauseum. why would you want to taint your loving relationship by grouping yourself with these circuses. i would have thought the gays were progressive and liked to set the agenda.  they seem to be the last ones on a sinking band wagon. very odd.

Media pushing shows that make marriage into a circus.
Media also pushing homorriage.  Average Joe couldn't care less.

Coincidence?

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

It is exactly what it means...the constitution and the law are one...the Government is subject to the Law - on major change they must go to the people with a referendum - our system of law does not allow for summary parliamentary dictatorship of the constitution and the law... :) :)

Ok, one last time, as I and many others are well aware of your comprehension limitations.


NO-ONE is trying to change the constitution; so that pretty much invalidates your whole argument.


SA is trying to write there own marriage act in contravention of the constitution and federal marriage act.

If the feds want to they can invalidate SA's act under the constitution.


Now read it a couple of time BEFORE replying, if need be, get a senior primary school child (Grade 6 or 7 should suffice) to explain it to you.  >:(

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:15am:

[quote author=736E75626B62747464666A77666E60696275070 link=1344724644/12#12 date=1344729369] It is exactly what it means...the constitution and the law are one...the Government is subject to the Law - on major change they must go to the people with a referendum - our system of law does not allow for summary parliamentary dictatorship of the constitution and the law... :) :)

Ok, one last time, as I and many others are well aware of your comprehension limitations.


NO-ONE is trying to change the constitution; so that pretty much invalidates your whole argument.


SA is trying to write there own marriage act in contravention of the constitution and federal marriage act.

If the feds want to they can invalidate SA's act under the constitution.


Now read it a couple of time BEFORE replying, if need be, get a senior primary school child (Grade 6 or 7 should suffice) to explain it to you.  >:(

SA will change its laws followed by Tasmania, NSW, Vic and eventually the feds will come to the party.
Those amongst us that aren't gay have gay friends and family members so the law does effect us all one way or another.

Not another thread on homo marriage!

This topic has been bashed to death on Ozpolitics.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:27am:

Not another thread on homo marriage! This topic has been bashed to death on Ozpolitics.

Yes but the Jay only made the announcement yesterday

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:20am:

SA will change its laws followed by Tasmania, NSW, Vic and eventually the feds will come to the party. Those amongst us that aren't gay have gay friends and family members so the law does effect us all one way or another.

What part of the posts I supplied on the constitution and marriage act don't you get?

The law is the law, federal law ALWAYS over rides state law, so ANY homo marrigaes under SA law will be unconstitutional and NOT recognised in Australia.

If federal law states marriage is between a man and a woman then that is the end of the conversation, regardless of what the state law says.

If homos want the misery of marriage then they have to get the feds to change the law and stop wanking around with state law; it just make everyone involved look stupid.


This is why SA is considered a joke, a first year law student could tell them what they are doing is a waste of time and energy; but you people are giving it a go anyway.

Maybe your government would be better spending time on producing jobs than irrelevant legislation.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:28am:

Bobby. wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 10:27am: Not another thread on homo marriage! This topic has been bashed to death on Ozpolitics. Yes but the Jay only made the announcement yesterday

But they are allowed to bum chum each other -
& still that's not enough for them.

In my days they got serious prison time for buggery.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:20am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 10:15am: [quote author=736E75626B62747464666A77666E60696275070 link=1344724644/12#12 date=1344729369] It is exactly what it means...the constitution and the law are one...the Government is subject to the Law - on major change they must go to the people with a referendum - our system of law does not allow for summary parliamentary dictatorship of the constitution and the law... :) :) Ok, one last time, as I and many others are well aware of your comprehension limitations. NO-ONE is trying to change the constitution; so that pretty much invalidates your whole argument. SA is trying to write there own marriage act in contravention of the constitution and federal marriage act. If the feds want to they can invalidate SA's act under the constitution. Now read it a couple of time BEFORE replying, if need be, get a senior primary school child (Grade 6 or 7 should suffice) to explain it to you.  >:( SA will change its laws followed by Tasmania, NSW, Vic and eventually the feds will come to the party. Those amongst us that aren't gay have gay friends and family members so the law does effect us all one way or another.

Thats funny because I was talking about the limits on the powers of both the Federal and state parliaments - neither of which have the legislative power to do anything to the Marriage act without a constitutional referendum - please stop making a fool out of yourself on matters beyond your ability to comprehend know all... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:56am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:49am: Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:44am: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:39am: adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 9:05am: Its going to the SA parliament at the next sitting Just proves that you crow eaters are rolled gold morons. You can make whatever law you want and the federal government can quash it because it contravenes Section 51 of the amended marriage act 2004 The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004 inserted a definition into s5(1) of the act, that reads: “Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life." The 2004 amendment addressed the issue of gay marriage in Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1961_(Australia) And just to prove that SA are conducting a social wankfest, here's the specific part of the constitution that deals with marriage. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11] The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:   (xxi)  marriage; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html The operative words here are the parliament subject to the constitution...they cant change the constitution without a referendum and they know it, they can be sued...they can all go to gaol for this - its very serious & malicious criminal behavior... Actually that's not what it means. They are not changing the constitution at all, that are trying to circumvent the federal marriage act; it's all pretty self evident. You may want to hone your bush lawyer skill with some improved comprehension there mate. It is exactly what it means...the constitution and the law are one...the Government is subject to the Law - on major change they must go to the people with a referendum - our system of law does not allow for summary parliamentary dictatorship of the constitution and the law... :) :)

That is exactly correct.

But no one is intending to change the Constitution.  Tas and SA are passing laws to allow same sex marriage - as they are completely entitled to do under Section 6 of the Marriage Act (Cth)


MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 6

Act not to exclude operation of certain State and Territory laws
                   This Act shall not be taken to exclude the operation of a law of a State or of a Territory, in so far as that law relates to the registration of marriages, but a marriage solemnised after the commencement of this Act is not invalid by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of such a law.

The Federal Marriage Act is very clear that it only applies to hetrosexual marriage.  It does not exclude the operation of gay marriage under state laws.

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Thats funny because I was talking about the limits on the powers of both the Federal and state parliaments - neither of which have the legislative power to do anything to the Marriage act without a constitutional referendum - please stop making a fool out of yourself on matters beyond your ability to comprehend know all... :) :)

Only you could argue that the federal parliament does not have the power to change an act of parliament on constitutional grounds, even though they do-so every day under the very constitutional powers you are using.  ;D  ;D  ;D


If they couldn't amend and act of parliament without a referendum, then please feel free to show us all the referendum we had to produce the the Marriage Act Amendment 2004 which specified that marriage was between a man and a woman. Because prior to that amendment there was no such specification under the initial Marriage Act 1961.

Back to grade 5 for you, this time stay awake during your english comprehension and reading classes.  ;D

Sorry - the Parliament is powerless to legislate on marriage without a constitutional referendum and the High court will throw it out... :) :)

Either way..the right of same sex couples to marry is only a heartbeat away.

Wish they would just hurry up and change the bloody laws.

Such a minor issue affecting such a minority. Get it done so people can concentrate on important matters.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:40am:

That is exactly correct. But no one is intending to change the Constitution.  Tas and SA are passing laws to allow same sex marriage - as they are completely entitled to do under Section 6 of the Marriage Act (Cth) MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 6 Act not to exclude operation of certain State and Territory laws                    This Act shall not be taken to exclude the operation of a law of a State or of a Territory, in so far as that law relates to the registration of marriages, but a marriage solemnised after the commencement of this Act is not invalid by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of such a law. The Federal Marriage Act is very clear that it only applies to hetrosexual marriage.  It does not exclude the operation of gay marriage under state laws.

That is only about state registering marriages, not about specificity of marriage which is covered under the federal marriage act and amendment.

The amendment of 2004 strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman so it does exclude homo marriage.


The fun thing about the law, you should read more than one line of a statute before presenting a legal argument.

FriYAY wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

Wish they would just hurry up and change the bloody laws. Such a minor issue affecting such a minority. Get it done so people can concentrate on important matters.

We all know gay people so it effects everyone

The Parliament Subject To The Constitution...(Subject to the will of the people)... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

Sorry - the Parliament is powerless to legislate on marriage without a constitutional referendum and the High court will throw it out... :) :)

You really could not be more wrong if you tried.

The Federal Parliament is perfectly entitled to amend the Marriage Act by an act of Parliament.
No referendum required.

And a State Parliament is perfectly entitled to enact a law on gay marriage.  THere is no conflict with Federal Law because the Federal Law explicitly only applies to hetrosexual marriage.

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:47am:

Sorry - the Parliament is powerless to legislate on marriage without a constitutional referendum and the High court will throw it out... :) :)

So where was the referendum that allowed the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act, would be easy enough for you to track down the results.


See when you post utter horse sh1t, your are easily found out.

Put up or shut up.

Howard amended the Marriage act in 2004 without a referendum and in doing so gave the states rights when it came to same sex marriage.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:50am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 10:40am: That is exactly correct. But no one is intending to change the Constitution.  Tas and SA are passing laws to allow same sex marriage - as they are completely entitled to do under Section 6 of the Marriage Act (Cth) MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 6 Act not to exclude operation of certain State and Territory laws                    This Act shall not be taken to exclude the operation of a law of a State or of a Territory, in so far as that law relates to the registration of marriages, but a marriage solemnised after the commencement of this Act is not invalid by reason of a failure to comply with the requirements of such a law. The Federal Marriage Act is very clear that it only applies to hetrosexual marriage.  It does not exclude the operation of gay marriage under state laws. That is only about state registering marriages, not about specificity of marriage which is covered under the federal marriage act and amendment. The amendment of 2004 strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman so it does exclude homo marriage. The fun thing about the law, you should read more than one line of a statute before presenting a legal argument.

Yes - The amendment of 2004 strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman so it does exclude homo marriage.

Hence there is no obstacle to a State Parliament enacting a law on gay marriage as it does not conflict with federal Legislation

The fun thing about the law, you should actually have a clue before presenting a legal argument.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:49am:

Either way..the right of same sex couples to marry is only a heartbeat away.

It will only occur when the feds says it will occur.

Just admit you state parliament are full of morons and wait for the feds to get around to it.


I'm all for it, if it stops the whiny little bitches from whinging. But it won't, they will always find something else to p1ss and moan about.

same sex marriage is sooo gay.

Yawn, tedium adnausium...what part of you cant legislate to change the definition of marriage without referendum is too hard for you The High court will over turn your useless legislation like it did the Malaysia solution..such imbeciles should not be allowed in the Parliament... ;D ;D ;D

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:51am:

FriYAY wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 10:50am: Wish they would just hurry up and change the bloody laws. Such a minor issue affecting such a minority. Get it done so people can concentrate on important matters. We all know gay people so it effects everyone

WE ALL don't accept their right to marriage though, do WE?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

Yes - The amendment of 2004 strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman so it does exclude homo marriage. Hence there is no obstacle to a State Parliament enacting a law on gay marriage as it does not conflict with federal Legislation The fun thing about the law, you should actually have a clue before presenting a legal argument.

So you are absolutely positive that a state gay marriage law is not in conflict with the federal law that strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman.

You're an idiot!

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 10:58am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 10:49am: Either way..the right of same sex couples to marry is only a heartbeat away. It will only occur when the feds says it will occur. Just admit you state parliament are full of morons and wait for the feds to get around to it. I'm all for it, if it stops the whiny little bitches from whinging. But it won't, they will always find something else to p1ss and moan about.

Of course the state and federal parliaments are full of morons but that has nothing to do with it

Its as pity for the Morons the High Court will continue to throw out their unconstitutional legislation... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Yawn, tedium adnausium...what part of you cant legislate to change the definition of marriage without referendum is too hard for you The High court will over turn your useless legislation like it did the Malaysia solution..such imbeciles should not be allowed in the Parliament... ;D ;D ;D

Fine show me the results of the referendum for the Marriage Act 2004 amendment; it must have happened, because you said it did.

Put up or shut up.

Here Ill help you start.  www.google.com.au

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:01am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 10:58am: adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 10:49am: Either way..the right of same sex couples to marry is only a heartbeat away. It will only occur when the feds says it will occur. Just admit you state parliament are full of morons and wait for the feds to get around to it. I'm all for it, if it stops the whiny little bitches from whinging. But it won't, they will always find something else to p1ss and moan about. Of course the state and federal parliaments are full of morons but that has nothing to do with it

Then don't get all excited when your morons do something truly moronic like present an unconstitutional act into state parliament.

Siding with morons does nothing for your intellectual standing.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 10:57am: Yes - The amendment of 2004 strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman so it does exclude homo marriage. Hence there is no obstacle to a State Parliament enacting a law on gay marriage as it does not conflict with federal Legislation The fun thing about the law, you should actually have a clue before presenting a legal argument. So you are absolutely positive that a state gay marriage law is not in conflict with the federal law that strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. You're an idiot!

Yes - I am absolutely positive that a state gay marriage law is not in conflict with the federal law that strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman.


Here is how the Marriage Act defines marriage:
MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 5

Interpretation
             (1)  In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

'marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.


That is the definition for THAT Act.  The Tas and SA Acts apply to marriages which do not meet that definition.  Hence there is no conflict with the Federal Act and they are free to legislate whatever they like.

You really should be more discerning when you throw the word "idiot" about

Once bad legislation hits the High Court it is struck down as unconstitutional - the Parliament is essentially powerless to act apart from the peoples mandate - essentially they are nothing - ... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Once bad legislation hits the High Court it is struck down as unconstitutional - the Parliament is essentially powerless to act apart from the peoples mandate - essentially they are nothing - ... :) :)

Could you quote for us which section of the Constitution is being breached?  And how?

Thanks

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Yawn, tedium adnausium...what part of you cant legislate to change the definition of marriage without referendum is too hard for you The High court will over turn your useless legislation like it did the Malaysia solution..such imbeciles should not be allowed in the Parliament... ;D ;D ;D

Three questions:

1. Just remind me - When did Nauru sign the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol?

2. Pre-empting the answer to question 1, does that mean that the Pacific Solution (2001–2007) was also unconstitutional? (but not challenged)

3. What kind of imbeciles would you prefer in parliament?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:00am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 10:57am: Yes - The amendment of 2004 strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman so it does exclude homo marriage. Hence there is no obstacle to a State Parliament enacting a law on gay marriage as it does not conflict with federal Legislation The fun thing about the law, you should actually have a clue before presenting a legal argument. So you are absolutely positive that a state gay marriage law is not in conflict with the federal law that strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. You're an idiot! Yes - I am absolutely positive that a state gay marriage law is not in conflict with the federal law that strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. Here is how the Marriage Act defines marriage: MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 5 Interpretation              (1)  In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: 'marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. That is the definition for THAT Act.  The Tas and SA Acts apply to marriages which do not meet that definition.  Hence there is no conflict with the Federal Act and they are free to legislate whatever they like. You really should be more discerning when you throw the word "idiot" about

The only reason it says that is because john howard changed it without any referendums or anything just to make it harder in future to let gays get married. He is a troll.

SOB

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:10am:

Yes - I am absolutely positive that a state gay marriage law is not in conflict with the federal law that strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. Here is how the Marriage Act defines marriage: MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 5 Interpretation              (1)  In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: 'marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. That is the definition for THAT Act.  The Tas and SA Acts apply to marriages which do not meet that definition.  Hence there is no conflict with the Federal Act and they are free to legislate whatever they like. You really should be more discerning when you throw the word "idiot" about

I'm standing by my assertion of your intellectual status; you should have read ALL my posts from the beginning.

If you did, you would have found this little snippet of information too.


See under the constitution the feds have the absolute right to legislate marriage and they can and in some cases do, hand over some of that power to the states. But not in the case of homo marriages.

Today's lesson in law; No state can over ride the constitution, the feds legislate marriage and the states will follow the letter and intent of that legislation.



Here I'll post it again just for you.



COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51
Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]
                  

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:


     (xxi)  marriage;


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution,

Has no power to act without a constitutional mandate...something all the legal geniuses on this board cant get through their limited intelligence... :) :)

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:22am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:10am: Yes - I am absolutely positive that a state gay marriage law is not in conflict with the federal law that strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. Here is how the Marriage Act defines marriage: MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 5 Interpretation              (1)  In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: 'marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. That is the definition for THAT Act.  The Tas and SA Acts apply to marriages which do not meet that definition.  Hence there is no conflict with the Federal Act and they are free to legislate whatever they like. You really should be more discerning when you throw the word "idiot" about I'm standing by my assertion of your intellectual status; you should have read ALL my posts from the beginning. If you did, you would have found this little snippet of information too. See under the constitution the feds have the absolute right to legislate marriage and they can and in some cases do, hand over some of that power to the states. But not in the case of homo marriages. Today's lesson in law; No state can over ride the constitution, the feds legislate marriage and the states will follow the letter and intent of that legislation. Here I'll post it again just for you. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]                    The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:      (xxi)  marriage; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

And Howard managed to add..between a man and a woman which leaves same sex marriage to the states

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:22am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:10am: Yes - I am absolutely positive that a state gay marriage law is not in conflict with the federal law that strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. Here is how the Marriage Act defines marriage: MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 5 Interpretation              (1)  In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: 'marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. That is the definition for THAT Act.  The Tas and SA Acts apply to marriages which do not meet that definition.  Hence there is no conflict with the Federal Act and they are free to legislate whatever they like. You really should be more discerning when you throw the word "idiot" about I'm standing by my assertion of your intellectual status; you should have read ALL my posts from the beginning. If you did, you would have found this little snippet of information too. See under the constitution the feds have the absolute right to legislate marriage and they can and in some cases do, hand over some of that power to the states. But not in the case of homo marriages. Today's lesson in law; No state can over ride the constitution, the feds legislate marriage and the states will follow the letter and intent of that legislation. Here I'll post it again just for you. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]                    The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:      (xxi)  marriage; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html

No - not quite.  You wrote:
See under the constitution the feds have the absolute right to legislate marriage...

That is not correct

s51 gives the Commonwealth power to legislate about marriage.  Nowhere does it say "ABSOLUTE" power.  You made that up.  If it had exclusive power in this respect it would have been listed in s52 - not s51.  It has power to legislate marriage - it does not have excusive power to legislate marriage.


The other relevant section is s109:

Inconsistency of laws
                   When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

The proposed state laws will be exclusively about same sex marriage, whereas the Federal Law exclusively deals with only hetro marriage.  It is clearly defined in the Act.

Hence - there is no inconsistency under s109.

Have you challenged Howards amendment in the High Court...no!  The institution of Marriage predates the State, the Parliaments got no say in it...without a referendum... :) :)

The gay and lesbian community have Howard to thank for same sex marriage..who'd have thunk it  :D

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:30am:

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, Has no power to act without a constitutional mandate...something all the legal geniuses on this board cant get through their limited intelligence... :) :)

You know the whole sentence is right above your post. ;D


"The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:"


The constitution gives parliament the constitutional power to make laws, like the marriage act, without running off to the people to have it ratified in a referendum.


The fact we don't have multiple referenda every week and the fact you cannot find any reference to a referendum for the marriage act amendment  tends to prove this.


But you part time job as a constitutional silk prolly knows otherwise.  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:37am:

The gay and lesbian community have Howard to thank for same sex marriage..who'd have thunk it  :D

Nope - we will challenge any amendment on gay marriage without a referendum mandate...there's the rub loony tunes... :) :)

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:37am:

The gay and lesbian community have Howard to thank for same sex marriage..who'd have thunk it  :D

I'll bet they are working on his float for next year's mardi gras already.

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:37am: The gay and lesbian community have Howard to thank for same sex marriage..who'd have thunk it  :D Nope - we will challenge any amendment on gay marriage without a referendum mandate...there's the rub loony tunes... :) :)

What is this "referendum mandate" you refer to?

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:38am:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:30am: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, Has no power to act without a constitutional mandate...something all the legal geniuses on this board cant get through their limited intelligence... :) :) You know the whole sentence is right above your post. ;D "The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:" The constitution gives parliament the constitutional power to make laws, like the marriage act, without running off to the people to have it ratified in a referendum. The fact we don't have multiple referenda every week and the fact you cannot find any reference to a referendum for the marriage act amendment  tends to prove this. But you part time job as a constitutional silk prolly knows otherwise.  ;D

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution shall have the power...

The parliament not subject to the constitution and with no constitutional mandate shall be struck down in the High Court...and constitutional mandate is the grounds it will be challenged on - legal grounds not whether or not they should have the right - thats for the people to decide... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:37am:

Have you challenged Howards amendment in the High Court...no!  The institution of Marriage predates the State, the Parliaments got no say in it...without a referendum... :) :)

Yes.  Howard's amendment could be potentially challenged in the High Court on the basis that is could be seen to be discriminatory.  But since State Laws may soon essentially nullify it - there is not much point

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:45am:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:37am: Have you challenged Howards amendment in the High Court...no!  The institution of Marriage predates the State, the Parliaments got no say in it...without a referendum... :) :) Yes.  Howard's amendment could be potentially challenged in the High Court on the basis that is could be seen to be discriminatory.  But since State Laws may soon essentially nullify it - there is not much point

The High Court will uphold any challenge to any attempt to change the definition of marriage and throw it out.  Make all the bad legislation that you want, you know it will be challenged you know it will be thrown out or the Commonwealth will override it to avoid a challenge...you are on the losing side of history railing about the law... :) :)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:34am:

No - not quite.  You wrote: See under the constitution the feds have the absolute right to legislate marriage... That is not correct s51 gives the Commonwealth power to legislate about marriage.  Nowhere does it say "ABSOLUTE" power.  You made that up.  If it had exclusive power in this respect it would have been listed in s52 - not s51.  It has power to legislate marriage - it does not have excusive power to legislate marriage. The other relevant section is s109: Inconsistency of laws                    When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. The proposed state laws will be exclusively about same sex marriage, whereas the Federal Law exclusively deals with only hetro marriage.  It is clearly defined in the Act. Hence - there is no inconsistency under s109.

You do realise that lawyers never use the words "absolute power" in legislation don't you; but if the legislation ie the constitution does not state that there is a shared power between the feds and the state, you could easily conclude the absoluteness of the fed's power in that area.


Thanks for posting s109, kinda blows your argument out of the water; something you would have understood if you weren't so 'limited'.  ;D


The fed law states between an man and a woman, anything else would be inconsistent with that arrangement.


I know that you and adel, will persevere with your invalid arguments, and I welcome it, I have no doubt your cretinous assertions are amusing every who reads them.


Personally I blame our education system for letting kids 'graduate' without having even a modicum of comprehension skills, relying rather on ensuring self esteem and perseverance to get them through life.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:33am:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:22am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:10am: Yes - I am absolutely positive that a state gay marriage law is not in conflict with the federal law that strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. Here is how the Marriage Act defines marriage: MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 5 Interpretation              (1)  In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: 'marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. That is the definition for THAT Act.  The Tas and SA Acts apply to marriages which do not meet that definition.  Hence there is no conflict with the Federal Act and they are free to legislate whatever they like. You really should be more discerning when you throw the word "idiot" about I'm standing by my assertion of your intellectual status; you should have read ALL my posts from the beginning. If you did, you would have found this little snippet of information too. See under the constitution the feds have the absolute right to legislate marriage and they can and in some cases do, hand over some of that power to the states. But not in the case of homo marriages. Today's lesson in law; No state can over ride the constitution, the feds legislate marriage and the states will follow the letter and intent of that legislation. Here I'll post it again just for you. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]                    The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:      (xxi)  marriage; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html And Howard managed to add..between a man and a woman which leaves same sex marriage to the states

Marriage is marriage there is no hetro marriage and homo marriage under the constitution.

FFS!

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:33am: BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:22am: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:10am: Yes - I am absolutely positive that a state gay marriage law is not in conflict with the federal law that strictly specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman. Here is how the Marriage Act defines marriage: MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 5 Interpretation              (1)  In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears: 'marriage" means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. That is the definition for THAT Act.  The Tas and SA Acts apply to marriages which do not meet that definition.  Hence there is no conflict with the Federal Act and they are free to legislate whatever they like. You really should be more discerning when you throw the word "idiot" about I'm standing by my assertion of your intellectual status; you should have read ALL my posts from the beginning. If you did, you would have found this little snippet of information too. See under the constitution the feds have the absolute right to legislate marriage and they can and in some cases do, hand over some of that power to the states. But not in the case of homo marriages. Today's lesson in law; No state can over ride the constitution, the feds legislate marriage and the states will follow the letter and intent of that legislation. Here I'll post it again just for you. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]                    The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:      (xxi)  marriage; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s51.html And Howard managed to add..between a man and a woman which leaves same sex marriage to the states Marriage is marriage there is no hetro marriage and homo marriage under the constitution. FFS!

Im sure you know more than the states lawyers but let them have a go at it even if its only for your amusement.

Any legislation to change the definition of marriage in the parliament without a constitutional mandate will be challenged in the High Court on legal constitutional mandate grounds and thrown out... :) :)

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:51am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 11:34am: No - not quite.  You wrote: See under the constitution the feds have the absolute right to legislate marriage... That is not correct s51 gives the Commonwealth power to legislate about marriage.  Nowhere does it say "ABSOLUTE" power.  You made that up.  If it had exclusive power in this respect it would have been listed in s52 - not s51.  It has power to legislate marriage - it does not have excusive power to legislate marriage. The other relevant section is s109: Inconsistency of laws                    When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. The proposed state laws will be exclusively about same sex marriage, whereas the Federal Law exclusively deals with only hetro marriage.  It is clearly defined in the Act. Hence - there is no inconsistency under s109. You do realise that lawyers never use the words "absolute power" in legislation don't you; but if the legislation ie the constitution does not state that there is a shared power between the feds and the state, you could easily conclude the absoluteness of the fed's power in that area. Thanks for posting s109, kinda blows your argument out of the water; something you would have understood if you weren't so 'limited'.  ;D The fed law states between an man and a woman, anything else would be inconsistent with that arrangement. I know that you and adel, will persevere with your invalid arguments, and I welcome it, I have no doubt your cretinous assertions are amusing every who reads them. Personally I blame our education system for letting kids 'graduate' without having even a modicum of comprehension skills, relying rather on ensuring self esteem and perseverance to get them through life.

You were the one that used the term "absolute" power.

The Constitution uses the term "exclusive" power.  And exclusive powers are listed in s52.
The power to legislate on marriage is NOT and exclusive power listed in s52.

The Commonweath has power to legislate over marriage.  It does not have EXCLUSIVE power to do that.  Hence a State may make any legislation it wishes so long as it is not inconsistent under s109.

A gay marriage law is clearly not inconsistent with the Marriage Act as the Marriage Act  cleary and unambiguously only applies to hetrosexual unions.

I suggest you learn a little about the history of our Constitution and how it treats powers of the States and Commonwealth before you get too carried away insulting people.  OK?

Two words..struck down in the High Court... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

Two words..struck down in the High Court... :) :)

That was 6 words.  None of which make much sense.

What do you expect to be "struck down in the High Court"?  And on what basis?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:10pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 12:06pm: Two words..struck down in the High Court... :) :) That was 6 words.  None of which make much sense. What do you expect to be "struck down in the High Court"?  And on what basis?

Any legislation changing the definition of marriage will be struck down in the High Court - think about all of the Christians who will challenge it... :) :)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

You were the one that used the term "absolute" power. The Constitution uses the term "exclusive" power.  And exclusive powers are listed in s52. The power to legislate on marriage is NOT and exclusive power listed in s52. The Commonweath has power to legislate over marriage.  It does not have EXCLUSIVE power to do that.  Hence a State may make any legislation it wishes so long as it is not inconsistent under s109. A gay marriage law is clearly not inconsistent with the Marriage Act as the Marriage Act  cleary and unambiguously only applies to hetrosexual unions. I suggest you learn a little about the history of our Constitution and how it treats powers of the States and Commonwealth before you get too carried away insulting people.  OK?

At last you are right about something; I did not use the term "exclusive power"; kudos to you.

Only a moron would argue that a gay marriage law by the states is not inconsistent with the federal marriage act amendment of 2004 with specifically defines marriage being between a man and a woman.

While I'm learning the intricacies of the constitution, i suggest you get going on your primary school comprehension skills.

The Parliament has no power to legislate to change the definition of marriage without a referendum period and the High Court will throw bad legislation out...Howard did not legislate to change the definition of marriage - he articulated the accepted social definition of marriage... :) :)

Literally thousands of Christians, and others will challenge any change to the legal definition of Marriage that does not have the constitutional mandate of a referendum in the High Court... :) :)

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 12:04pm: You were the one that used the term "absolute" power. The Constitution uses the term "exclusive" power.  And exclusive powers are listed in s52. The power to legislate on marriage is NOT and exclusive power listed in s52. The Commonweath has power to legislate over marriage.  It does not have EXCLUSIVE power to do that.  Hence a State may make any legislation it wishes so long as it is not inconsistent under s109. A gay marriage law is clearly not inconsistent with the Marriage Act as the Marriage Act  cleary and unambiguously only applies to hetrosexual unions. I suggest you learn a little about the history of our Constitution and how it treats powers of the States and Commonwealth before you get too carried away insulting people.  OK? At last you are right about something; I did not use the term "exclusive power"; kudos to you. Only a moron would argue that a gay marriage law by the states is not inconsistent with the federal marriage act amendment of 2004 with specifically defines marriage being between a man and a woman. While I'm learning the intricacies of the constitution, i suggest you get going on your primary school comprehension skills.

No - you didn't use the term "exclusive power".  You just made things up and said "absolute power". Why did you make that up?  Were you being deliberately dishonest?  Or are you just a bit dim?


But it is good to see you are slowly grasping some concepts here:
the federal marriage act amendment of 2004 with specifically defines marriage being between a man and a woman.
Exactly right!  It SPECIFICALLY defines marriage being between a man and a woman for the purposes of that Act

Hence - a marriage between a same sex couple is not valid under that act.

But if a State parliament legislates to allow same sex marriage - then that is not inconsistent with the Marriage Act because the federal marriage act amendment of 2004 specifically defines marriage being between a man and a woman.

For your argument to make any sense, what you need to show us is why you think that a State Parliaments power's for legislating with respect to marriage has been dissolved (provided there is no inconsistency with s109 of the Constitution)

Unless you are trying to argue that a marriage between a man and a woman is exactly the same thing as a marriage between a man and a man.  If it is - I suggest you may be doing it wrong.  If it isn't - why on earth did Howard make the amendment in the first place?

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:24pm:

Literally thousands of Christians, and others will challenge any change to the legal definition of Marriage that does not have the constitutional mandate of a referendum in the High Court... :) :)

Are you paying any attention at all?

I don't think anyone is suggesting any change to the legal definition of Marriage from the Marriage Act.
And certainly no one is proposing any changes to the Constitution.

Are you actually a person?  Or just a piece of software that generates random nonsensical phrases?

cods wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:56am:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 8:37am: The SA Premier Jay Weatherill has backed same sex marriage so it looks like SA will be the first state to change the laws. Im betting the rest of the country will soon follow suit once its proven the world wont come to an end if everyone has equal rights. just get on with it.. who cares I know I dont.. I am sure our divorce rate will go through the roof..

why ? you plan on leaving your wife for your boyfriend?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 1:33pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 12:17pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 12:04pm: You were the one that used the term "absolute" power. The Constitution uses the term "exclusive" power.  And exclusive powers are listed in s52. The power to legislate on marriage is NOT and exclusive power listed in s52. The Commonweath has power to legislate over marriage.  It does not have EXCLUSIVE power to do that.  Hence a State may make any legislation it wishes so long as it is not inconsistent under s109. A gay marriage law is clearly not inconsistent with the Marriage Act as the Marriage Act  cleary and unambiguously only applies to hetrosexual unions. I suggest you learn a little about the history of our Constitution and how it treats powers of the States and Commonwealth before you get too carried away insulting people.  OK? At last you are right about something; I did not use the term "exclusive power"; kudos to you. Only a moron would argue that a gay marriage law by the states is not inconsistent with the federal marriage act amendment of 2004 with specifically defines marriage being between a man and a woman. While I'm learning the intricacies of the constitution, i suggest you get going on your primary school comprehension skills. No - you didn't use the term "exclusive power".  You just made things up and said "absolute power". Why did you make that up?  Were you being deliberately dishonest?  Or are you just a bit dim? But it is good to see you are slowly grasping some concepts here: the federal marriage act amendment of 2004 with specifically defines marriage being between a man and a woman. Exactly right!  It SPECIFICALLY defines marriage being between a man and a woman for the purposes of that Act Hence - a marriage between a same sex couple is not valid under that act. But if a State parliament legislates to allow same sex marriage - then that is not inconsistent with the Marriage Act because the federal marriage act amendment of 2004 specifically defines marriage being between a man and a woman. For your argument to make any sense, what you need to show us is why you think that a State Parliaments power's for legislating with respect to marriage has been dissolved (provided there is no inconsistency with s109 of the Constitution) Unless you are trying to argue that a marriage between a man and a woman is exactly the same thing as a marriage between a man and a man.  If it is - I suggest you may be doing it wrong.  If it isn't - why on earth did Howard make the amendment in the first place?

You're a dill.

Your total inability to grasp even the most basic of concepts is exasperating to say the least.

1. The constitution gives the FEDERAL government power to legislate ALL marriage. S51

2. The constitution gives the FEDERAL government precedence over state legislation. s 109

3. The federal marriage act 2004 define marriage as between a man and a woman.

4. The state CANNOT redefine marriage in contravention of the federal act


If the FEDERAL government repeals or amends the amendment, then and ONLY then can the state change their acts to include gay marriage.

This conversation is FVCKEN OVER, your are as moronic and infantile as prevailing/ greens_win and corpulent whitey and as such you will be treated withe same contempt as they are.  >:(

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 9:29am:

Lets all sue any pollies like Adam Bandt, & Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings who try to abuse the legislative power of the parliament for personal benefit on major change and ideology without due constitutional process of a referendum...if we all sue these fascist dictators they will back off in a hurry...lets go Aussie..,.. :) :)

I agree the politicians are a bunch of hippocrites, be they hetero or homosexuals, what concerns me more, is this:
When are Councils and governments going to provide separate toilets and change rooms for homosexuals.
How do some teenagers feel being ogled on by some homosexuals, be it gays or lesbians; after all we do not use commen toilets and change rooms for men and women.
The gay community has been offered a finger and they took the whole arm.

.
rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 1:37pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 12:24pm: Literally thousands of Christians, and others will challenge any change to the legal definition of Marriage that does not have the constitutional mandate of a referendum in the High Court... :) :) Are you paying any attention at all? I don't think anyone is suggesting any change to the legal definition of Marriage from the Marriage Act. And certainly no one is proposing any changes to the Constitution. Are you actually a person?  Or just a piece of software that generates random nonsensical phrases?

Feeble minded diversionary tactics don't work in the High Court...yes you are proposing to use the Parliament to make executive legislation on a matter the Parliament has no power to do so without a peoples mandate...every Christian will be lining up to challenge this in the High Court... ;D ;D ;D

I believe a Christian who did not challenge in the High Court unconstitutional legislation changing the definition of marriage in the Parliament without a referendum will be asked to give account of why they did not stand on the day of evil... :) :)

Jesus said "Love thy fellow man" so the states are just doing Gods work by allowing gay marriage

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

Jesus said "Love thy fellow man" so the states are just doing Gods work by allowing gay marriage

He also said not on jot of the Law would pass away - every Christian has a duty to defend the constitution and due process from dictatorship.... :) :)

Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous.

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:43pm:

Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous.

If it's not an issue let it pass and move on.

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:43pm:

Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous.

There are plenty of threads on those issues if u want to discuss them..this one is about gay marriage

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:41pm:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:32pm: Jesus said "Love thy fellow man" so the states are just doing Gods work by allowing gay marriage He also said not on jot of the Law would pass away - every Christian has a duty to defend the constitution and due process from dictatorship.... :) :)

so the Australian Muslims are not obliged to defend our constitution? 

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

You're a dill. Your total inability to grasp even the most basic of concepts is exasperating to say the least. 1. The constitution gives the FEDERAL government power to legislate ALL marriage. S51 2. The constitution gives the FEDERAL government precedence over state legislation. s 109 3. The federal marriage act 2004 define marriage as between a man and a woman. 4. The state CANNOT redefine marriage in contravention of the federal act If the FEDERAL government repeals or amends the amendment, then and ONLY then can the state change their acts to include gay marriage.

http://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-can-tasmania-legalise-same-sex-marriage-8665

Anne Twomey
Professor of Constitutional Law at University of Sydney
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

If the court decided that “marriage” in the Constitution did not include same-sex marriage, then there would be no issue of a conflict between State and Commonwealth laws.

While the Commonwealth Parliament can only make laws on specific subjects listed in the Constitution, the states have full legislative power to make laws on any subject as long as it is not taken away from them by the Commonwealth Constitution. So if the Constitution only permitted the Commonwealth to make laws in relation to marriage in its traditional sense, this would not stop the states from making laws about other forms of marriage.

The only question would be whether these other unions could still be described as “marriage” if they are outside the constitutional meaning of that term.

If, on the other hand, the High Court held that the Commonwealth can make laws with respect to both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage, then it would have to decide whether there was an inconsistency between any state law on marriage and the Commonwealth’s marriage law. If there was an inconsistency, then the Commonwealth law would prevail and the state law would be inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency.

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:43pm:

Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous.

why is Abbott so pressed about this non -issue? why doens't he just allow a conscience vote and be done with it .... he has lots of other issues he can say no no no too ....

MOTR wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:44pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. If it's not an issue let it pass and move on.

It is an issue - the Parliament has no right to legislate summarily on these matters without a referendum...if they can do this they will claim the power to be able to legislate on religious belief as well...Its a huge issue relating to the power of the Parliament over our lives that no citizen can ignore... :) :)

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:45pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. There are plenty of threads on those issues if u want to discuss them..this one is about gay marriage

Why are you so concerned? Do you want to marry your male lover?

John Smith wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. why is Abbott so pressed about this non -issue? why doens't he just allow a conscience vote and be done with it .... he has lots of other issues he can say no no no too ....

He went to the last election with a promise of not amending the marriage act. To allow a conscience vote would be a breach of faith.

MOTR wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:44pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. If it's not an issue let it pass and move on.

It's not an issue to start.

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

MOTR wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:44pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. If it's not an issue let it pass and move on. It is an issue - the Parliament has no right to legislate summarily on these matters without a referendum...if they can do this they will claim the power to be able to legislate on religious belief as well...Its a huge issue relating to the power of the Parliament over our lives that no citizen can ignore... :) :)

Given that the majority of Aussies support gay marriage and equality for all Australians a referendum would easily come down in favour of equal rights for gay and lesbian Aussies.

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:49pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. why is Abbott so pressed about this non -issue? why doens't he just allow a conscience vote and be done with it .... he has lots of other issues he can say no no no too .... He went to the last election with a promise of not amending the marriage act. To allow a conscience vote would be a breach of faith.

That's a good point.

Every Christian must know if they can get away with this legislation they can legislate to ban their religion without a referendum unless they challenge it in the High Court.... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

Every Christian must know if they can get away with this legislation they can legislate to ban their religion without a referendum unless they challenge it in the High Court.... :) :)

Being a good Communist Freemason Im in favour of banning all religions

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:51pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:49pm: MOTR wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:44pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. If it's not an issue let it pass and move on. It is an issue - the Parliament has no right to legislate summarily on these matters without a referendum...if they can do this they will claim the power to be able to legislate on religious belief as well...Its a huge issue relating to the power of the Parliament over our lives that no citizen can ignore... :) :) Given that the majority of Aussies support gay marriage and equality for all Australians a referendum would easily come down in favour of equal rights for gay and lesbian Aussies.

Thats not true and if you believe this what problem do you have with a referendum>  The pollies all know none of their constituents favor a change in the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman... :) :)

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:53pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:52pm: Every Christian must know if they can get away with this legislation they can legislate to ban their religion without a referendum unless they challenge it in the High Court.... :) :) Being a good Communist Freemason Im in favour of banning all religions

Two words - High Court & Constitution... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:54pm:

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:51pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:49pm: MOTR wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:44pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. If it's not an issue let it pass and move on. It is an issue - the Parliament has no right to legislate summarily on these matters without a referendum...if they can do this they will claim the power to be able to legislate on religious belief as well...Its a huge issue relating to the power of the Parliament over our lives that no citizen can ignore... :) :) Given that the majority of Aussies support gay marriage and equality for all Australians a referendum would easily come down in favour of equal rights for gay and lesbian Aussies. Thats not true and if you believe this what problem do you have with a referendum>  The pollies all know none of their constituents favor a change in the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman... :) :)

Im happy to have a referendum on it  :P

MOTR wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:51pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:49pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. why is Abbott so pressed about this non -issue? why doens't he just allow a conscience vote and be done with it .... he has lots of other issues he can say no no no too .... He went to the last election with a promise of not amending the marriage act. To allow a conscience vote would be a breach of faith. That's a good point.

he lost the last election ... derrr.....  that means he gets a clean slate to start again ..

That's also a good point.

Just like he's reneging on stopping the boats.

Quote:

1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Clauses_still_in_force_today

;D ;D ;D

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:54pm: adelcrow wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:51pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:49pm: MOTR wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:44pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. If it's not an issue let it pass and move on. It is an issue - the Parliament has no right to legislate summarily on these matters without a referendum...if they can do this they will claim the power to be able to legislate on religious belief as well...Its a huge issue relating to the power of the Parliament over our lives that no citizen can ignore... :) :) Given that the majority of Aussies support gay marriage and equality for all Australians a referendum would easily come down in favour of equal rights for gay and lesbian Aussies. Thats not true and if you believe this what problem do you have with a referendum>  The pollies all know none of their constituents favor a change in the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman... :) :) Im happy to have a referendum on it  :P

Rubbish - your communist leader Sarah Hanson Young wont hear about it - you are too chicken to put this to the people... ;D ;D

I'm surprised Abbott is not all for same sex marriage, given his known fondness for offering up his ass for hire.

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

You're a dill. Your total inability to grasp even the most basic of concepts is exasperating to say the least. 1. The constitution gives the FEDERAL government power to legislate ALL marriage. S51

Not quite.  The constitution gives the FEDERAL parliament power to legislate marriage. S51
It says nothing about ALL marriage.  That is something you just made up

Please stop making things up.  Telling lies is neither big nor clever.


BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

2. The constitution gives the FEDERAL government precedence over state legislation. s 109

Yes - Where an inconsistency occurs between State and Federal legislation, The constitution gives the FEDERAL government precedence over state legislation. s 109


BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

3. The federal marriage act 2004 define marriage as between a man and a woman.

Yes - the federal marriage act 2004 define marriage as between a man and a woman FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE MARRIAGE ACT.  It is a narrow definition applicable only to that Act.  Not some all-encompassing amendment to the english language to apply everywhere for ever and ever amen.  It only applies to that Act.


BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

4. The state CANNOT redefine marriage in contravention of the federal act

A state may define 'marriage' however it likes, so long as no law passed by the State Parliament is inconsistent with any Federal law.  And since the Federal Law is BY DEFINITION only applicable to hetro marriages - then ther is clearly no inconsistency with an Act relating to homo marriage.


BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

If the FEDERAL government repeals or amends the amendment, then and ONLY then can the state change their acts to include gay marriage.

A State may pass any Act it likes so long as it is not inconsistent under s109.


BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

This conversation is FVCKEN OVER, your are as moronic and infantile as prevailing/ greens_win and corpulent whitey and as such you will be treated withe same contempt as they are.  >:(

Oh oh....  Sound's like someone is getting cranky!  You must be tired.  Poor dear.
I hope you have learnt something today.  Because you really don't seem to know much about this subject

The legislation decriminalizing Homosexuality is unconstitutional and has not been tested in the High Court...every Christian is responsible to challenge this legislation in the High Court... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:29pm:

I believe a Christian who did not challenge in the High Court unconstitutional legislation changing the definition of marriage in the Parliament without a referendum will be asked to give account of why they did not stand on the day of evil... :) :)

Sweet!  I haven't been to a good stoning for ages!

Oh prevailing and his sock drawer get a good stoning every day. The nurses are very good to him in his facility.

The legislation decriminalizing Homosexuality can be overturned in the High Court because it has no mandate... :) :)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 5:25pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm: I believe a Christian who did not challenge in the High Court unconstitutional legislation changing the definition of marriage in the Parliament without a referendum will be asked to give account of why they did not stand on the day of evil... :) :) Sweet!  I haven't been to a good stoning for ages!

The Muslim world provides this to this day.

Afghanistan and Northern Somalia have both stoned to death girls for 'adultery' in the last 5 years - even though they were rape victims.
The men receive no punishment.

Upton Sinclair wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:48pm:

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 2:14pm: You're a dill. Your total inability to grasp even the most basic of concepts is exasperating to say the least. 1. The constitution gives the FEDERAL government power to legislate ALL marriage. S51 2. The constitution gives the FEDERAL government precedence over state legislation. s 109 3. The federal marriage act 2004 define marriage as between a man and a woman. 4. The state CANNOT redefine marriage in contravention of the federal act If the FEDERAL government repeals or amends the amendment, then and ONLY then can the state change their acts to include gay marriage. http://theconversation.edu.au/explainer-can-tasmania-legalise-same-sex-marriage-8665 Anne Twomey Professor of Constitutional Law at University of Sydney DISCLOSURE STATEMENT If the court decided that “marriage” in the Constitution did not include same-sex marriage, then there would be no issue of a conflict between State and Commonwealth laws. While the Commonwealth Parliament can only make laws on specific subjects listed in the Constitution, the states have full legislative power to make laws on any subject as long as it is not taken away from them by the Commonwealth Constitution. So if the Constitution only permitted the Commonwealth to make laws in relation to marriage in its traditional sense, this would not stop the states from making laws about other forms of marriage. The only question would be whether these other unions could still be described as “marriage” if they are outside the constitutional meaning of that term. If, on the other hand, the High Court held that the Commonwealth can make laws with respect to both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage, then it would have to decide whether there was an inconsistency between any state law on marriage and the Commonwealth’s marriage law. If there was an inconsistency, then the Commonwealth law would prevail and the state law would be inoperative to the extent of the inconsistency.

Thank you Ms Toomey.  A far more concise explanation than mine.

Note the first bit:

If the court decided that “marriage” in the Constitution did not include same-sex marriage, then there would be no issue of a conflict between State and Commonwealth laws.

The corollary to this would surely be that if the court decided that “marriage” in the Constitution did include same-sex marriage, then there would be an issue of the Marriage Act being discriminatory with respect to sexual preference.

MOTR wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 4:52pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:51pm: John Smith wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:49pm: sexy_beast wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:43pm: Why are the left so pressed about this (non) issue? There are far bigger concerns in our country, such as the carbon tax, te regular boat arrivals and debt, and they're concerned about something this trivial, petty and frivolous. why is Abbott so pressed about this non -issue? why doens't he just allow a conscience vote and be done with it .... he has lots of other issues he can say no no no too .... He went to the last election with a promise of not amending the marriage act. To allow a conscience vote would be a breach of faith. That's a good point.

It may be a good point if he won the election.  But he didn't.  he lost.

He should just allow a conscience vote as Labor a doing.  Then we could forget about the whole thing.

Avram Horowitz wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 5:33pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:25pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm: I believe a Christian who did not challenge in the High Court unconstitutional legislation changing the definition of marriage in the Parliament without a referendum will be asked to give account of why they did not stand on the day of evil... :) :) Sweet!  I haven't been to a good stoning for ages! The Muslim world provides this to this day. Afghanistan and Northern Somalia have both stoned to death girls for 'adultery' in the last 5 years - even though they were rape victims. The men receive no punishment.

All the more reason we need to stop the communists from abusing the freedoms of the constitutional process founded in British common law which guarantees freedom of religion and the people... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:25pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm: I believe a Christian who did not challenge in the High Court unconstitutional legislation changing the definition of marriage in the Parliament without a referendum will be asked to give account of why they did not stand on the day of evil... :) :) Sweet!  I haven't been to a good stoning for ages! The Muslim world provides this to this day. Afghanistan and Northern Somalia have both stoned to death girls for 'adultery' in the last 5 years - even though they were rape victims. The men receive no punishment. All the more reason we need to stop the communists from abusing the freedoms of the constitutional process founded in British common law which guarantees freedom of religion and the people... :) :)

I'm a big fan of stoning adulterers that's why gays should get married

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

Avram Horowitz wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:25pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm: I believe a Christian who did not challenge in the High Court unconstitutional legislation changing the definition of marriage in the Parliament without a referendum will be asked to give account of why they did not stand on the day of evil... :) :) Sweet!  I haven't been to a good stoning for ages! The Muslim world provides this to this day. Afghanistan and Northern Somalia have both stoned to death girls for 'adultery' in the last 5 years - even though they were rape victims. The men receive no punishment. All the more reason we need to stop the communists from abusing the freedoms of the constitutional process founded in British common law which guarantees freedom of religion and the people... :) :)

...providing they are white, hetrosexual people.  Preferably male.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 5:48pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:25pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm: I believe a Christian who did not challenge in the High Court unconstitutional legislation changing the definition of marriage in the Parliament without a referendum will be asked to give account of why they did not stand on the day of evil... :) :) Sweet!  I haven't been to a good stoning for ages! The Muslim world provides this to this day. Afghanistan and Northern Somalia have both stoned to death girls for 'adultery' in the last 5 years - even though they were rape victims. The men receive no punishment. All the more reason we need to stop the communists from abusing the freedoms of the constitutional process founded in British common law which guarantees freedom of religion and the people... :) :) I'm a big fan of stoning adulterers that's why gays should get married

But its against the law for poofters to get married...you can be prosecuted for it... ;D ;D

adelcrow wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 8:37am:

The SA Premier Jay Weatherill has backed same sex marriage so it looks like SA will be the first state to change the laws. Im betting the rest of the country will soon follow suit once its proven the world wont come to an end if everyone has equal rights.

Congratulations.
The incest lobby believe the same thing.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12^th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:47pm: Avram Horowitz wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:33pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 5:25pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 12th, 2012 at 4:29pm: I believe a Christian who did not challenge in the High Court unconstitutional legislation changing the definition of marriage in the Parliament without a referendum will be asked to give account of why they did not stand on the day of evil... :) :) Sweet!  I haven't been to a good stoning for ages! The Muslim world provides this to this day. Afghanistan and Northern Somalia have both stoned to death girls for 'adultery' in the last 5 years - even though they were rape victims. The men receive no punishment. All the more reason we need to stop the communists from abusing the freedoms of the constitutional process founded in British common law which guarantees freedom of religion and the people... :) :) ...providing they are white, hetrosexual people.  Preferably male.

The law does not recognize race, So are you a racist? I argue only from the law and the rights it guarantees citizens and the restrictions it places on the Parliaments ability to legislate without a constitutional mandate.... :) :)

Well, I've been in a same sex marriage, for almost 40 years and there is only one power that has the power to annul this marriage!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 11:36am:

Well, I've been in a same sex marriage, for almost 40 years and there is only one power that has the power to annul this marriage!

Allow gay marriage, why should hetro's have a monopoly on misery.

Its against the law for people of the same sex to get married - you can be prosecuted for it...its a little tedious repeating the obvious to the ignorant and uneducated... :) :)

Giving equal rights to others is not taking away your rights. Also they arent "special rights" if they are the same ones you have.

SOB

Same sex marriage is not about equal rights its an absurdity, and its also against the law.  This agenda is more about political thuggery from radical extremists and anarchists who do not seek to change the law, but abolish it and establish dictatorship... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 12:17pm:

Same sex marriage is not about equal rights its an absurdity, and its also against the law.  This agenda is more about political thuggery from radical extremists and anarchists who do not seek to change the law, but abolish it and establish dictatorship... :) :)

Contrary to what you may think, the law is not fixed, it is an evolving human institution and therefore subject to change!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flat_earth.png/250px-Flat_earth.png
The Flat Earth model

In days gone, it was a common perception that the Earth was flat. It may even have been against the law &/or against the church.

However, the "round Earthers" eventually won that battle and times have moved on!

Verge wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 11:38am:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 11:36am: Well, I've been in a same sex marriage, for almost 40 years and there is only one power that has the power to annul this marriage! Allow gay marriage, why should hetro's have a monopoly on misery.

Well, I would agree, there is no reason not to allow the same opportunity for all, to climb the heights or plumb the depths.

In the end, the level of success or failure, is up to each individual & each couple!

Same sex marriage is against the law...get over it and move on... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

Same sex marriage is against the law...get over it and move on... :) :)

So, how far back would you suggest, in rescinding all the changes to all the laws, not that any would be, but how far back would you go?

Just a thought, what does it say in the Magna Carta?

don't worry about the magna carta, the church says homosexuality is abdominal, unless it is between a priest and a boy.

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:43pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:05pm: Same sex marriage is against the law...get over it and move on... :) :) So, how far back would you suggest, in rescinding all the changes to all the laws, not that any would be, but how far back would you go? Just a thought, what does it say in the Magna Carta?

About 1980 since every political change since then has been about rescinding the Law, and the Magna Carta and bypassing the constitution...there has not been a genuine progressive reform in more than three decades, everything they have done has been done extraneous to the constitution in the manner of a dictatorship as is this little agenda... :) :)

Quote:

The Parliament subject to the constitution....

:) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:53pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:43pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:05pm: Same sex marriage is against the law...get over it and move on... :) :) So, how far back would you suggest, in rescinding all the changes to all the laws, not that any would be, but how far back would you go? Just a thought, what does it say in the Magna Carta? About 1980 since every political change since then has been about rescinding the Law, and the Magna Carta and bypassing the constitution...there has not been a genuine progressive reform in more than three decades, everything they have done has been done extraneous to the constitution in the manner of a dictatorship as is this little agenda... :) :)

Perhaps there were some laws prior to the Magna Carta?

Maybe, everything after the Koran or the Bible, but which version?

Does anyone know, who set the first Law (in stone), perhaps we should rescind everything but that one law???

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:53pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:43pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:05pm: Same sex marriage is against the law...get over it and move on... :) :) So, how far back would you suggest, in rescinding all the changes to all the laws, not that any would be, but how far back would you go? Just a thought, what does it say in the Magna Carta? About 1980 since every political change since then has been about rescinding the Law, and the Magna Carta and bypassing the constitution...there has not been a genuine progressive reform in more than three decades, everything they have done has been done extraneous to the constitution in the manner of a dictatorship as is this little agenda... :) :) Perhaps there were some laws prior to the Magna Carta? Maybe, everything after the Koran or the Bible, but which version? Does anyone know, who set the first Law (in stone), perhaps we should rescind everything but that one law???

You believe in social law...nothing you could come up with could improve on the Magna Carta from the point of view of citizens rights...when you start talking about restoring some of the original measures like outlawing usury let me know... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 11:42am:

Its against the law for people of the same sex to get married - you can be prosecuted for it...its a little tedious repeating the obvious to the ignorant and uneducated... :) :)

Really!!!

You can be prosecuted for it?!?!?  Really?!?!?

Could you quote for us which section of which Act makes a same sex marriage an offence?

Or are you perhaps making things up?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:40pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 11:42am: Its against the law for people of the same sex to get married - you can be prosecuted for it...its a little tedious repeating the obvious to the ignorant and uneducated... :) :) Really!!! You can be prosecuted for it?!?!?  Really?!?!? Could you quote for us which section of which Act makes a same sex marriage an offence? Or are you perhaps making things up?

They have no lawfully recognized right to be married and can be prosecuted under any number of statutes including the Marriage act - its time the Government cracked down on law and order... :) :)

Under the meaning of the constitution,  do not believe that Homosexuals meet the test of freemen with all of the same rights and privileges of citizens... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 5:40pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 11:42am: Its against the law for people of the same sex to get married - you can be prosecuted for it...its a little tedious repeating the obvious to the ignorant and uneducated... :) :) Really!!! You can be prosecuted for it?!?!?  Really?!?!? Could you quote for us which section of which Act makes a same sex marriage an offence? Or are you perhaps making things up? They have no lawfully recognized right to be married and can be prosecuted under any number of statutes including the Marriage act - its time the Government cracked down on law and order... :) :)

Could you quote for us which section of the Marriage Act makes a same sex marriage a prosecutable offence?

Please quote the section for us.

If you can't - please apologise for making things up.

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 5:51pm:

Under the meaning of the constitution,  do not believe that Homosexuals meet the test of freemen with all of the same rights and privileges of citizens... :) :)

I think you will need to quote the relevant section of the Constitutions for us too.

THanks

skippy. wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 1:48pm:

don't worry about the magna carta, the church says homosexuality is abdominal, unless it is between a priest and a boy.

It's more posterior than abdominal.

muso wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:48pm: don't worry about the magna carta, the church says homosexuality is abdominal, unless it is between a priest and a boy. It's more posterior than abdominal.

depends if one is a top, bottom or versatile

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:21pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 5:51pm: Under the meaning of the constitution,  do not believe that Homosexuals meet the test of freemen with all of the same rights and privileges of citizens... :) :) I think you will need to quote the relevant section of the Constitutions for us too. THanks

It is beneath my learned dignity to cast pearls before swine - the constitution is something you neither believe in nor comprehend so how could you claim to be protected by it?   :) :)

The constitution protects and frees only those citizens covenanted by it.. :) :)

muso wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:48pm: don't worry about the magna carta, the church says homosexuality is abdominal, unless it is between a priest and a boy. It's more posterior than abdominal.

:) :) :)   once saw gonorhea in a colostomy stoma, so it may be possible

Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :)

aquascoot wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:37pm:

muso wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 6:25pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:48pm: don't worry about the magna carta, the church says homosexuality is abdominal, unless it is between a priest and a boy. It's more posterior than abdominal. :) :) :)   once saw gonorhea in a colostomy stoma, so it may be possible

Of course, it's just possible that Skippy may have meant, the church says Homosexuality is Abominale, unless it's between a priest & an alter boy or any boy for that matter, in which case, it seems quite ok?

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:50pm:

Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :)

So, how far back in Constitutional law are we going?

And, if the Constitution gets changed, then its all ok, Right?

muso wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 6:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 1:48pm: don't worry about the magna carta, the church says homosexuality is abdominal, unless it is between a priest and a boy. It's more posterior than abdominal.

OH LOL I wrote that with my I phone and didn't even notice , that bloody auto spell checker throws up some classics. ;D

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 7:59pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :) So, how far back in Constitutional law are we going? And, if the Constitution gets changed, then its all ok, Right?

The constitution cannot be changed apart from a referendum of freemen - clearly anyone who holds to social or international law does not qualify as a freeman or as a citizen covenanted under the constitution with an entitlement to vote or sit in the parliament lawfully... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:19pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 7:59pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :) So, how far back in Constitutional law are we going? And, if the Constitution gets changed, then its all ok, Right? The constitution cannot be changed apart from a referendum of freemen - clearly anyone who holds to social or international law does not qualify as a freeman or as a citizen covenanted under the constitution with an entitlement to vote or sit in the parliament lawfully... :) :)

Ooooh!  Do you know where we can find some free men!  Post there details here!  Pics too please!

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:22pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 7:59pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :) So, how far back in Constitutional law are we going? And, if the Constitution gets changed, then its all ok, Right? The constitution cannot be changed apart from a referendum of freemen - clearly anyone who holds to social or international law does not qualify as a freeman or as a citizen covenanted under the constitution with an entitlement to vote or sit in the parliament lawfully... :) :) Ooooh!  Do you know where we can find some free men!  Post there details here!  Pics too please!

There are aspects of the constitution relating to the rights of freemen in the constitution which are "Forever" and cannot be changed or repealed...these include territorial and economic rights, the right to life, the right to defend yourself ect...Only people who have covenented with the constitution have those rights...you can hardly have those rights if you are not a "Subject"... ;D ;D

Freedom of the church is also an eternal constitutional right... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 8:48pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:22pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 7:59pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :) So, how far back in Constitutional law are we going? And, if the Constitution gets changed, then its all ok, Right? The constitution cannot be changed apart from a referendum of freemen - clearly anyone who holds to social or international law does not qualify as a freeman or as a citizen covenanted under the constitution with an entitlement to vote or sit in the parliament lawfully... :) :) Ooooh!  Do you know where we can find some free men!  Post there details here!  Pics too please! There are aspects of the constitution relating to the rights of freemen in the constitution which are "Forever" and cannot be changed or repealed...these include territorial and economic rights, the right to life, the right to defend yourself ect...Only people who have covenented with the constitution have those rights...you can hardly have those rights if you are not a "Subject"... ;D ;D Freedom of the church is also an eternal constitutional right... :) :)

There's the good news & there's the bad news.

The good news is the Church's Constitutional rights are no more eternal, than are my rights and the rights of every other person in a true Democracy!

The bad news is, there is no true Democracy!

And, in the it's "not the nine oclock news", voters change the Constitution and save Democracy from itself"!!!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 9:51pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:48pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:22pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 7:59pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :) So, how far back in Constitutional law are we going? And, if the Constitution gets changed, then its all ok, Right? The constitution cannot be changed apart from a referendum of freemen - clearly anyone who holds to social or international law does not qualify as a freeman or as a citizen covenanted under the constitution with an entitlement to vote or sit in the parliament lawfully... :) :) Ooooh!  Do you know where we can find some free men!  Post there details here!  Pics too please! There are aspects of the constitution relating to the rights of freemen in the constitution which are "Forever" and cannot be changed or repealed...these include territorial and economic rights, the right to life, the right to defend yourself ect...Only people who have covenented with the constitution have those rights...you can hardly have those rights if you are not a "Subject"... ;D ;D Freedom of the church is also an eternal constitutional right... :) :) There's the good news & there's the bad news. The good news is the Church's Constitutional rights are no more eternal, than are my rights and the rights of every other person in a true Democracy! The bad news is, there is no true Democracy! And, in the it's "not the nine oclock news", voters change the Constitution and save Democracy from itself"!!!

I am sorry, but you are ignorant, uneducated and unable to give an informed opinion on the timeless covenant nature of the constitution and law we are under.  You confuse your ideological beliefs with the Law itself... :) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 10:39pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 9:51pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:48pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:22pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 7:59pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :) So, how far back in Constitutional law are we going? And, if the Constitution gets changed, then its all ok, Right? The constitution cannot be changed apart from a referendum of freemen - clearly anyone who holds to social or international law does not qualify as a freeman or as a citizen covenanted under the constitution with an entitlement to vote or sit in the parliament lawfully... :) :) Ooooh!  Do you know where we can find some free men!  Post there details here!  Pics too please! There are aspects of the constitution relating to the rights of freemen in the constitution which are "Forever" and cannot be changed or repealed...these include territorial and economic rights, the right to life, the right to defend yourself ect...Only people who have covenented with the constitution have those rights...you can hardly have those rights if you are not a "Subject"... ;D ;D Freedom of the church is also an eternal constitutional right... :) :) There's the good news & there's the bad news. The good news is the Church's Constitutional rights are no more eternal, than are my rights and the rights of every other person in a true Democracy! The bad news is, there is no true Democracy! And, in the it's "not the nine oclock news", voters change the Constitution and save Democracy from itself"!!! I am sorry, but you are ignorant, uneducated and unable to give an informed opinion on the timeless covenant nature of the constitution and law we are under.  You confuse your ideological beliefs with the Law itself... :) :)

I am sorry, but I have to ask, are you related somehow to "Longweekend", as your use of words has a certain familiarity & seems a bit like Longy?

Only kidding?

Seriously? You are confused!

If you think the Constitution OR the Magna OR any Politician is going to solve anything, YOU are sadly misinformed, irrespective of anyone's ideological beliefs or any Law - past, current or future!

But, good luck with your legal challenge & when you get it under way, send me a PM & I will ask the PM (Julia OR Tony OR ???) to donate to your cause & I'm sure they will oblige?

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 11:03pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 10:39pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 9:51pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:48pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:22pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 7:59pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :) So, how far back in Constitutional law are we going? And, if the Constitution gets changed, then its all ok, Right? The constitution cannot be changed apart from a referendum of freemen - clearly anyone who holds to social or international law does not qualify as a freeman or as a citizen covenanted under the constitution with an entitlement to vote or sit in the parliament lawfully... :) :) Ooooh!  Do you know where we can find some free men!  Post there details here!  Pics too please! There are aspects of the constitution relating to the rights of freemen in the constitution which are "Forever" and cannot be changed or repealed...these include territorial and economic rights, the right to life, the right to defend yourself ect...Only people who have covenented with the constitution have those rights...you can hardly have those rights if you are not a "Subject"... ;D ;D Freedom of the church is also an eternal constitutional right... :) :) There's the good news & there's the bad news. The good news is the Church's Constitutional rights are no more eternal, than are my rights and the rights of every other person in a true Democracy! The bad news is, there is no true Democracy! And, in the it's "not the nine oclock news", voters change the Constitution and save Democracy from itself"!!! I am sorry, but you are ignorant, uneducated and unable to give an informed opinion on the timeless covenant nature of the constitution and law we are under.  You confuse your ideological beliefs with the Law itself... :) :) I am sorry, but I have to ask, are you related somehow to "Longweekend", as your use of words has a certain familiarity & seems a bit like Longy? Only kidding? Seriously? You are confused! If you think the Constitution OR the Magna OR any Politician is going to solve anything, YOU are sadly misinformed, irrespective of anyone's ideological beliefs or any Law - past, current or future! But, good luck with your legal challenge & when you get it under way, send me a PM & I will ask the PM (Julia OR Tony OR ???) to donate to your cause & I'm sure they will oblige?

Atheists dont have the same legal right to arrest or to defend themselves.  I don't believe they can be PM either... :) :)

Quote:

1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#Clauses_still_in_force_today

:) :)

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 11:13pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 11:03pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 10:39pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 9:51pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:48pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:22pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 7:59pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :) So, how far back in Constitutional law are we going? And, if the Constitution gets changed, then its all ok, Right? The constitution cannot be changed apart from a referendum of freemen - clearly anyone who holds to social or international law does not qualify as a freeman or as a citizen covenanted under the constitution with an entitlement to vote or sit in the parliament lawfully... :) :) Ooooh!  Do you know where we can find some free men!  Post there details here!  Pics too please! There are aspects of the constitution relating to the rights of freemen in the constitution which are "Forever" and cannot be changed or repealed...these include territorial and economic rights, the right to life, the right to defend yourself ect...Only people who have covenented with the constitution have those rights...you can hardly have those rights if you are not a "Subject"... ;D ;D Freedom of the church is also an eternal constitutional right... :) :) There's the good news & there's the bad news. The good news is the Church's Constitutional rights are no more eternal, than are my rights and the rights of every other person in a true Democracy! The bad news is, there is no true Democracy! And, in the it's "not the nine oclock news", voters change the Constitution and save Democracy from itself"!!! I am sorry, but you are ignorant, uneducated and unable to give an informed opinion on the timeless covenant nature of the constitution and law we are under.  You confuse your ideological beliefs with the Law itself... :) :) I am sorry, but I have to ask, are you related somehow to "Longweekend", as your use of words has a certain familiarity & seems a bit like Longy? Only kidding? Seriously? You are confused! If you think the Constitution OR the Magna OR any Politician is going to solve anything, YOU are sadly misinformed, irrespective of anyone's ideological beliefs or any Law - past, current or future! But, good luck with your legal challenge & when you get it under way, send me a PM & I will ask the PM (Julia OR Tony OR ???) to donate to your cause & I'm sure they will oblige? Atheists dont have the same legal right to arrest or to defend themselves.  I don't believe they can be PM either... :) :)

Actually, they do, it's guaranteed in OUR Constitution!

It guarantees "freedom of & therefore from religion".

And frankly, whether you believe anyone can or can not be be the PM, doesn't carry much weight with anyone besides yourself!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13^th, 2012 at 11:45pm:

Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 11:13pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 11:03pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 10:39pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 9:51pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:48pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:22pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 8:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 7:59pm: Prevailing wrote on Aug 13th, 2012 at 6:50pm: Social law and international law, is invalid and carries no weight conflicting with constitutional law... :) :) So, how far back in Constitutional law are we going? And, if the Constitution gets changed, then its all ok, Right? The constitution cannot be changed apart from a referendum of freemen - clearly anyone who holds to social or international law does not qualify as a freeman or as a citizen covenanted under the constitution with an entitlement to vote or sit in the parliament lawfully... :) :) Ooooh!  Do you know where we can find some free men!  Post there details here!  Pics too please! There are aspects of the constitution relating to the rights of freemen in the constitution which are "Forever" and cannot be changed or repealed...these include territorial and economic rights, the right to life, the right to defend yourself ect...Only people who have covenented with the constitution have those rights...you can hardly have those rights if you are not a "Subject"... ;D ;D Freedom of the church is also an eternal constitutional right... :) :) There's the good news & there's the bad news. The good news is the Church's Constitutional rights are no more eternal, than are my rights and the rights of every other person in a true Democracy! The bad news is, there is no true Democracy! And, in the it's "not the nine oclock news", voters change the Constitution and save Democracy from itself"!!! I am sorry, but you are ignorant, uneducated and unable to give an informed opinion on the timeless covenant nature of the constitution and law we are under.  You confuse your ideological beliefs with the Law itself... :) :) I am sorry, but I have to ask, are you related somehow to "Longweekend", as your use of words has a certain familiarity & seems a bit like Longy? Only kidding? Seriously? You are confused! If you think the Constitution OR the Magna OR any Politician is going to solve anything, YOU are sadly misinformed, irrespective of anyone's ideological beliefs or any Law - past, current or future! But, good luck with your legal challenge & when you get it under way, send me a PM & I will ask the PM (Julia OR Tony OR ???) to donate to your cause & I'm sure they will oblige? Atheists dont have the same legal right to arrest or to defend themselves.  I don't believe they can be PM either... :) :) Actually, they do, it's guaranteed in OUR Constitution! It guarantees "freedom of & therefore from religion". And frankly, whether you believe anyone can or can not be be the PM, doesn't carry much weight with anyone besides yourself!

I think you will find you  are mistaken, the constitution only guarantees the freedom of the church as described above and those covenanted by the constitution.  An atheist cannot lawfully occupy an office under which they are not covenanted - you dont even believe in the constitution - how can you claim the right to the benefits and power it confers?... :) :)

Any citizen subject to the covenant of constitutional protection should certainly sue any pollie who attempts to abuse the power of the state to violate their constitutional rights for unlawful ideological reasons or under the authority of foreign law.  Social law and ideology carries no weight against us... :) :)

Where does an atheist get off talking about rights? :-?  Where does he derive such a sense of entitlement from? ::)  Its not reflected in his ideological social law - entitlement and rights are not consistent with social law which is essentially anarchy...and they cant claim constitutional rights when they don't believe in it in the first place...Atheists are a law unto themselves - they dont draw up charters and ,models for civilized behavior and order... :) :)