What are your views on Abortion and gay marriage, not a political thread

[margomeoz]

but something to think about when casting your vote.

My personal view is that each person should be able to decide their own future in both these cases.

But in case you don't wish to share your own views I have added a poll.

If Tony gets in your choice will be very limited.

[*crikey*mate*]

can't remember, or I would have named it - one about the menu where you asked me would I have the same opinion if the menu was about the LNP, insinuating that my opinion was biased.

[azureline**]

I would need to read it again and determine the answer to that, based on what I know to have occurred in 2004.

[**meep**]

do you agree that the definition of the word marriage was NOT changed in 2004, especially by the amendment to the Marriage Act of 1961?

after just having another read, i agree with that. 

[cherry*135]

The Act was merely to insert the already established definition - its purpose was not to change the meaning.

OK, no problem with that.

What was the reasoning behind the amendment?

The Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004 inserted a definition into s5(1) of the act, that reads:

“Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."

The 2004 amendment addressed the issue of gay marriage in Australia.

It is generally accepted that for the time being, the Marriage Act 1961 excludes the possibility of gay marriage in Australia.

wiki

azureline: the meaning/definition of marriage was only changed in recent times when they got scared it might allow gay marriage. (2004)

The reason given for the change/amendment is correct.

[cherry*135]

Howard to ban gay marriages

May 27, 2004

Prime Minister John Howard will introduce changes to the Marriage Act to exclude gay couples and ban same-sex couples from adopting children from overseas, Mr Howard said today.

"We are also going to amend the legislation to ensure that same sex couples ... will not be eligible as prospective adoptive parents under any multilateral or bilateral agreement concerning the adoption of children to which Australia is a party," he told reporters.

Mr Howard said the Marriage Act would be changed to include the commonly accepted definition of a marriage as the voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others.

"We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation," he said.

"(It should) not over time be subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country."

[azureline**]

Thanks AM3, that is what I thought it was about....

so was I correct in my thoughts?

[cherry*135]

Yes, I think so, and haven't read anything to the contrary.

[azureline**]

Thank you

So, my answer to Crikey is..... I still don't agree.

[cherry*135]

I think she was wound up making a technical point or whatever one would like to call it. But the reasoning behind the amendment is/was well published.

[azureline**]

Yes, I recall when it was done, it was a big deal as my OH and his parents were quite adamant that Mr Howard was right to do that. I spent a lot of time biting my tongue.:-p