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...

[monman12]

INAM: "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."

And now for reality.

Out of touch?, I am sure he is not, but his personal feelings are.

"Little grey matter", now do you feel better?

How exactly did Howard "amend the  constitution" INAM?  I seem to have overlooked/missed the required referendum that is needed  to achieve that,  and which requires just a "little" input from the Australian population.

Did I mention a majority?

[monman12]

 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."

And now for reality.

Out of touch?, I am sure he is not, but his personal feelings are.

"Little grey matter", now do you feel better?

How exactly did Howard "amend the  constitution" INAM?  I seem to have overlooked/missed the required referendum that is needed  to achieve that,  and which requires just a "little" input from the Australian population.

Did I mention a majority?

[i-need-a-martini]

Not all sections of the constitution require a referendum John.

Section 51(xxi) of the constitution says that the federal government can make changes to the Marriage Act contained in the Consitution.

They did so in 1975 to include defactos in the Marriage Act.

They did so again in 2004. Howard was in a panic because a) legislaton was being penned across the globe moving towards same sex marriage. b) NSW , Tasmania and Victoria were drafting legislation to legitemise same sex marriage. NSW came very close to concluding that legislation prior to the changes made by Howard. c) he was about to lose the next federal election and felt that Labor would not stop the states legislating the change.

His party changed the Act in the Constitution to include the words that marriage was "between a man and a woman" and that no other arrangement would be acceptable and that any same sex marriages overseas would not be recognised here. The act SPECIFICALLY says that OTHER unions are not lawful.

He rushed it in as one of the last bits of legislation before his election loss whilst he still had the support of One Nation and Family First Party. 

The ARHC said that the bill breached international discrimmination laws. But their advice was ignored. 

Two HUGE critics at the time were Bob Brown and Anthony Albanese. Albanese was then supporting the bill through the NSW parliament. Bob Brown called the amendment the "Straight Australia Policy" - an apt term resurrected a bit over the last years as the issue is being discussed. He may also have called it the 'Marriage Discrimination Act" at the time. Or someone of note did anyway.

[i-need-a-martini]

Here is the discussion being had by the ACHR at the time.

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/marriage-legislation-amendment-bill-2004

[i-need-a-martini]

And I just found a quote from Albanese that summed up his opposition well:

"what has caused offence is why the government has rushed in this legislation in what is possibly the last fortnight of parliamentary sittings. This bill is a result of 30 bigoted backbenchers who want to press buttons out there in the community."

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

And I just found a quote from Albanese that summed up his opposition well:

"what has caused offence is why the government has rushed in this legislation in what is possibly the last fortnight of parliamentary sittings. This bill is a result of 30 bigoted backbenchers who want to press buttons out there in the community."

---

Thanks for clearing that up Martini - that was my understanding too.

As I said before, I really hope the High Court finds in favour of the ACT. 

[monman12]

INAM:  "Not all sections of the constitution require a referendum John.
Section 51(xxi) of the constitution says that the federal government can make changes to the Marriage Act contained in the Consitution."

INAM,  there is vast difference in making a change to an act (Marriage), or any act in fact , and changing/amending the Constitution under which it is enacted.  So I still require a reference to support this comment of yours:

"Howard was able to amend that constitution when it suited his religious and moral values."

Also  some reference to amending the constitution  outside of a referendum, because Section 128 provides "that constitutional amendments must be approved by a referendum. Successful amendment requires ":

    "an absolute majority in both houses of the federal parliament; and the approval in a referendum of the proposed      amendment by a majority of electors nationwide, and a majority in a majority of states."

As to the topic, and conflicting State/Federal law:

section 109 of the Constitution of Australia provides that:
“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 effect of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cwlth) and section 109 of the Constitution is that the Commonwealth has exclusive jurisdiction over the formation of marriages in Australia (i.e. there is no room for States to legislate).

Finally, I certainly would hope to see same sex marriage become law, but it is unlikely when it is a State law at odds with that of  Federal legislation,  and which  would not survive challenge  under section 109 of the Constitution (in my opinion).

nɥºɾ

[lakeland27]

have to agree. Ted's govt said upon election (and before his own knifing of course)  that they would 'allow cattle grazing in national parks'

Tony burke put that to the sword, i think brandis can in regard to the marriage act as well, unless the act contains clauses and amendments that are open to interpretation .. a loophole as is being claimed.

[j*oono]

Bob only reads his own threads.

[i-need-a-martini]

In all fairness, I think he has been os.

[lightningdance]

---

@monman12 wrote:

INAM: "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."

And now for reality.

Out of touch?, I am sure he is not, but his personal feelings are.

"Little grey matter", now do you feel better?

How exactly did Howard "amend the  constitution" INAM?  I seem to have overlooked/missed the required referendum that is needed  to achieve that,  and which requires just a "little" input from the Australian population.

Did I mention a majority?

---

The left on the debate on gay marriage will not ask for a referendum because the internal polling by both parties know that THE MAJORITY of Australians do not want the law changed for a  minority who do.

They are so fond of spouting that THE MAJORITY of people want the change but this is patently untrue & they know it.

In the 70's the gay movement despised marriage, hated it to the extent that they denigrated it at every opportunity.

Now we all know what this is about, it's political, always has been, & now we see the LABOR t

Canberra Territory push the envelope out to wedge the Abbott govt.

The same way as we see the hysterical bleating about Global warming that seemed to die away under the Labor govt just like gay marriage & boat people but now they rally to the lost causes that saw labor ousted.

[lightningdance]

 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."

And now for reality.

Out of touch?, I am sure he is not, but his personal feelings are.

"Little grey matter", now do you feel better?

How exactly did Howard "amend the  constitution" INAM?  I seem to have overlooked/missed the required referendum that is needed  to achieve that,  and which requires just a "little" input from the Australian population.

Did I mention a majority?