AdamSmith Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2013/12/australian-court-strikes-down-gay-marriage-201312122383966415.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest hitoallusa Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Oh my that's unfortunate.. I don't know Australia law..well enough to comment on the decision.. So what's the implication? Will the federal parliament introduce some law and vote on it soon? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caeron Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 This is to be expected. There is a federal law against gay marriage, and one small federal province (the Australian version of the district of columbia) legalized it there. The federal court just did what it had to do and said that a province can't overrule federal law. It was a worthy effort, but had to fail. I don't know enough about the Australian legal system to know if there is any other way to overturn the federal ban besides legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RA1 Posted December 12, 2013 Members Share Posted December 12, 2013 Interesting. I wonder what "registering your union" means legally even though you are not "married"? Apparently Australia has some of the same "difficulties" with conflicting state and federal laws. Not the same difficulties but difficulties nonetheless. Without any reason beyond personal belief, I have always considered "married" as being a religious status while a civil union was legal but not necessarily recognized by a religion. Slowly, very slowly, that is changing but I am not sure upon what it might be based, other than "good will" towards others. Having whatever country one lives in to recognize a civil union with all legal rights and privileges is the most important first step or so I think. Best regards, RA1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CharliePS Posted December 12, 2013 Share Posted December 12, 2013 Interesting. I wonder what "registering your union" means legally even though you are not "married"? Apparently Australia has some of the same "difficulties" with conflicting state and federal laws. Not the same difficulties but difficulties nonetheless. Without any reason beyond personal belief, I have always considered "married" as being a religious status while a civil union was legal but not necessarily recognized by a religion. Slowly, very slowly, that is changing but I am not sure upon what it might be based, other than "good will" towards others. Having whatever country one lives in to recognize a civil union with all legal rights and privileges is the most important first step or so I think. Best regards, RA1 My feeling about the definitions of "marriage" and "civil union" are the same. Unfortunately, all the laws regarding relationships are written in favor of marriage in most places, even where it is claimed that they are equivalent institutions. I would have been happy to have been legally united with my partner in a civil union rather than marriage, if we had exactly the same rights as those who are defined as married, but we did not, and the likelihood of getting the federal laws rewritten to make both institutions recognized as equal was virtually nil. So we co-opted marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamSmith Posted December 12, 2013 Author Share Posted December 12, 2013 More detail & possibly better news upon people having studied the ruling: ...The ruling had also given campaigners a clear path forward, [gay rights campaigner Rodney] Croome said, putting the ball squarely in the parliament's court, and affirming for the first time that lawmakers "definitely" had the power to legalise same-sex marriage. "Many people had assumed that until now, but it has never been declared by the court," he said. Others also took heart from the court's declaration that, while the Marriage Act was restricted to male-female unions, the constitution did not inherently exclude same-sex couples from the definition of "marriage", underscoring that it was a political rather than legal issue. But religious groups including the Australian Christian Lobby welcomed the ruling, saying the issue was irrelevant to most Australians and it was "time to move on". The conservative government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott is opposed to gay marriage, despite Abbott's sister being a lesbian who hopes to marry her partner. Attorney-General George Brandis welcomed the decision and urged MPs to "uphold and respect" the ruling, which he said went to the question of uniform marriage legislation. "The proceedings in the High Court have never been about the desirability or otherwise of same-sex marriage," he said. The Labor opposition called on Abbott to allow a conscience vote on the issue, where lawmakers would be free to cast on personal rather than party lines. A previous ballot in September 2012 failed by 98 votes to 42, after Abbott imposed the party line on his MPs. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hv99aBpZkcGCoHf7vRUKYIacaGdQ?docId=0ca0bcc7-aea9-44f5-90f7-f20ca34b62a0&hl=en Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
