Australian Politics Forum - Same sex marriage

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #45 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:19am

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

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #46 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:20am

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... Grin

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?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26508
Australia

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #47 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:21am

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

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

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!

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

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #48 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:22am

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Same sex marriage Reply #49 - 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...
Back to top	I condemn Male Violence Against Women The Government Supports Gynocide There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #50 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:33am

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

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

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

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #51 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:34am

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

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

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Same sex marriage Reply #52 - 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...
Back to top	I condemn Male Violence Against Women The Government Supports Gynocide There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men IP Logged

adelcrow Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20133 everywhere Gender:	Re: Same sex marriage Reply #53 - 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
Back to top	Go the Bunnies IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #54 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:38am

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. Grin

"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. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Same sex marriage Reply #55 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:39am 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 Nope - we will challenge any amendment on gay marriage without a referendum mandate...there's the rub loony tunes...
Back to top	I condemn Male Violence Against Women The Government Supports Gynocide There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men IP Logged

rabbitoh07 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2783 Gender:	Re: Same sex marriage Reply #56 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:40am 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 I'll bet they are working on his float for next year's mardi gras already.
Back to top	IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #57 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:41am

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

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 Cheesy

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7169
Stop Men

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #58 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:43am

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

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. Grin

"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. Grin

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...

Back to top

I condemn Male Violence Against Women
The Government Supports Gynocide
There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #59 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:45am

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

Back to top

IP Logged