Australian Politics Forum - Same sex marriage

Prevailing

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7169
Stop Men

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #60 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:49am

rabbitoh07 wrote on 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

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...

Back to top

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

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #61 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:51am

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'. Grin

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #62 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:56am

adelcrow wrote on 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

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

FFS!

Back to top

IP Logged

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #63 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 11:59am

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

adelcrow wrote on 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

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.

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Same sex marriage Reply #64 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:02pm 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...
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 #65 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:04pm

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

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'. Grin

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Same sex marriage Reply #66 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:06pm Two words..struck down in the High Court...
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 #67 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:10pm 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?
Back to top	IP Logged

Prevailing

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7169
Stop Men

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #68 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:13pm

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

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?

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...

Back to top

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

IP Logged

BigOl64

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #69 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:17pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Same sex marriage Reply #70 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 12:22pm 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...
Back to top	I condemn Male Violence Against Women The Government Supports Gynocide There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men IP Logged

Prevailing Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 7169 Stop Men	Re: Same sex marriage Reply #71 - 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...
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 #72 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 1:33pm

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

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.

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #73 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 1:37pm

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74579
Gender: male

Re: Same sex marriage
Reply #74 - Aug 12^th, 2012 at 1:40pm

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

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..

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

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged