Abbott to challenge ACT laws in High Court

[i-need-a-martini]

He couldn't let it go, could he?

If this gets through, it will be the lowest point of his government I believe.

Why on earth would they do this? Aren't there more important things to do?? Like, umm, stopping the boats? Fixing the economy??

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-law-high-court-chal...

[lakeland27]

More votes lost (already) at the next election. one term tone is looking likely.

[freshwater-2]

This is the man who said his personal Beliefs wouldn't effect his decisions.

So why is he pouring more taxpayer money down the drain....and for what?

Most of the population don't give a hoot, one way or the other.  

Makes me wonder why he is so obsessed with the issue.

[the_great_she_elephant]

In all fairness I don't believe this High Court challenge is anything to do with Gay Rights - it is about whether any State or Territory has the right to pass laws which the current Federal Governent believes is its prerogative. 

I really hope the outcome favours the ACT - it might encourage other States/Territories to do the same.

[ca04]

 wish someone would start a good news thread about our new government.

=============================================================

They are not Labor

they are not The Greens

Both good points.

[freshwater-2]

I think both Labor and the Greens would agree with that statement..

[monman12]

TGSE: "In all fairness I don't believe this High Court challenge is anything to do with Gay Rights - it is about whether any State or Territory has the right to pass laws which the current Federal Government believes is its prerogative. "

I agree TGSE, and I would expect the High Court to uphold that view., not that most of those above can be bothered considering the ramifications of Federal/State laws that conflict. In the meantime some of the Myopics suffering from PPTSD still sound like a  worn:

[lurker17260]

But would he/they be able to mount a High Court challenge if it were a state governernment that passed the bill?  That's the point of at least mine and grandmoons posts.  ACT residents don't appear to have the same rights as those in the states.

I'm sure you will correct me if my understanding is wrong.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@monman12 wrote:

I agree TGSE, and I would expect the High Court to uphold that view., not that most of those above can be bothered considering the ramifications of Federal/State laws that conflict.  

---

Monman, you know very well that all it would take is a slight change of wording the the (Federal) Marriage Amendment Act 2004 to resolve this country wide.

As it is the ACT are using that wording to differentiate their law in the same way they used it to introduce the Civil Union laws. I am sure it isn't quite the result that Howard had intended when he changed the Marriage Act in 2004 but it did create this VERY SMALL semantic loophole. The ACT is comning at it from a different legal angle and appear to have blitzed it legally.

And if their decision is upheld in the High Court it will mean the 2 other pending state acts will be a shoe in. And from there all states will follow.

[***super_nova***]

But why not just get on with it and amend the marriage law?  It might be about the principle, but why to fight about this principle about something that some 70% of people want to change ASAP and without further fuss.

[i-need-a-martini]

Because he an out of touch dinasour with very little grey matter.

Of course, it's handy to scream "The Constitution won't allow it" as a cowardly defense whilst 'forgetting' how quickly Howard was able to amend that constitution when it suited his religious and moral values.