What do you think?

[bushies.girl]

There are approx 100,000 homeless people in Aust, yet the liberal gov wants to spent 100 million dollars on a prebicite re gay marriage    .... Surely this money could be used ( better spent ) providing a home for our homeless?

[springyzone]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

i also dont think anyone should be 'forced' to marry same sex couples.

but my thought would be why would anyone want to be married by someone that objects to marrying them?

i'm sure there will be ministers who dont wish to marry same sex couple as i also believe there will be many who are quite happy to perform the ceremony. i may be wrong but thats my thoughts.

also i'm sure there would be some celebrants who dont want to marry same sex couples.

to me it would be a case to find the person the couple feel comfortable with, in or out of church.

---

I would agree that there will be some clergy who will be only too happy to perform the ceremony & if their church is fine with that, okay. But if someone is not happy to do it, gays should respect that too.

As for medical procedures.

Again, if a procedure is legal it should be available, but if it goes against someone's principles, maybe they could negotiate to be assigned to different duties. I have a friend who was a midwife & she did not want to assist at abortions. They were still performed at her hospital, just not with her present, she was in the delivery suite.

Before we get too wound up about conditions here though, it may be worth considering what is happening in some predominantly muslim countries, where some women are serving 30 & 40 year jail sentences for having a miscarriage or abortion. Where's the outrage, where are the women's libbers up in arms? Don't give me the line it is because it isn't happening in our country.

When we saw Pres Trump elected in USA, there were protest marches here in Australia. But a woman jailed for 30 years for having a miscarriage and not an eye gets blinked.

[davidc4430]

well hopefully the day will come when we march in the streets to highlight what we see as wrongs outside australia.

gay or straight, if your going to get married i doubt anyone would have it before someone they know doesnt believe in what they are doing.

ive never been married, not likely to ever get married, but if i was it sure as hell wouldnt be by someone who thought i was a sinner or anything negative.

[lyndal1838]

All Religious Institutions (i.e. Churches) are free to refuse to marry any couple that does not fit their rules.  Think Catholic Church and divorcees, and no church is compelled to marry people of other faiths.

A legal marriage can be celebrated by anyone registered to do so, such as a Civil Celebrant or Registrar in the Registry Office.

In the past a Church Service was only a blessing on the couple given to a couple who had previously been married in a Civil Service.(Think Prince Charles and Camilla)

It is a fairly "modern" thing for Ministers of Religion to be registered to perform the civil part of the service as well as the religious part.

The Civil ceremony is all that is needed for a marriage to be legal....the church service is just the icing on the cake for those who want it not an requirement for the marriage to be legal.

Civil celebrants would also be free to refuse to marry any couple that they were not comfortable with. 
I think the only people who could not refuse would be a Registrar...they are public servants and have to provide the service that they are paid to provide.  I imagine if anyone had a real objection to performing a gay marriage then one of their collegues could/would step in.

I am sure if gay marriage becomes legal there would be plenty of people in the gay community who are already authorised to marry people...and others who would make it their business to become celebrants.

[bushies.girl]

---

@lyndal1838 wrote:

All Religious Institutions (i.e. Churches) are free to refuse to marry any couple that does not fit their rules.  Think Catholic Church and divorcees, and no church is compelled to marry people of other faiths.

A legal marriage can be celebrated by anyone registered to do so, such as a Civil Celebrant or Registrar in the Registry Office.

In the past a Church Service was only a blessing on the couple given to a couple who had previously been married in a Civil Service.(Think Prince Charles and Camilla)

It is a fairly "modern" thing for Ministers of Religion to be registered to perform the civil part of the service as well as the religious part.

The Civil ceremony is all that is needed for a marriage to be legal....the church service is just the icing on the cake for those who want it not an requirement for the marriage to be legal.

Civil celebrants would also be free to refuse to marry any couple that they were not comfortable with. 
I think the only people who could not refuse would be a Registrar...they are public servants and have to provide the service that they are paid to provide.  I imagine if anyone had a real objection to performing a gay marriage then one of their collegues could/would step in.

I am sure if gay marriage becomes legal there would be plenty of people in the gay community who are already authorised to marry people...and others who would make it their business to become celebrants.

---

Not sure what you mean by "modern" be happening for quite a few hundred yrs

[viewmont1071]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

Surprised Labor has not jumped onto the John Howard quotes below from 2004

``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,'' Mr Howard told reporters.

''(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.''

Who's the "we" and "our" John Howard refers too??

another excerpt

"Gay couples will be banned from marrying or adopting children from overseas but will be allowed to inherit their partner's superannuation under proposed changes to marriage laws announced today.(27/05/2004)

Less than an hour after Prime Minister John Howard announced the changes to the Marriage Act, the government rushed legislation enabling the changes into parliament"

So we as taxpayers are spending $122 million so that our elected representatives can then vote how they see fit to possibly amend a law that the coalition in 2004 took an hour to announce and present legislative changes to the parliament 

......I've been sold a pup.....

[lyndal1838]

In terms of religion a few hundred years is "modern".

In the Church of England part of being a Minister is being licenced to perform a civil marrige ceremony, along with being able to perform the religious ceremony.   The only legally binding part of the marriage service is the civil part as far as the Government is concerned.

The Law of the land does not care if your marriage is blessed by a higher being in your faith....only that it is legal in the eyes of the Law.

[bushies.girl]

---

@lyndal1838 wrote:

In terms of religion a few hundred years is "modern".

In the Church of England part of being a Minister is being licenced to perform a civil marrige ceremony, along with being able to perform the religious ceremony.   The only legally binding part of the marriage service is the civil part as far as the Government is concerned.

The Law of the land does not care if your marriage is blessed by a higher being in your faith....only that it is legal in the eyes of the Law.

---

Yep knew that Lyndal    .... being married to an Anglican priest, one does tend to pick up a few points along the way lol

[not_for_sale2025]

---

@davidc4430 wrote:

i'm going to vote to allow people to marry their pets.

then i'll marry foo and adopt rosie. or visa versa

---

Why don't you go the full slog and marry both. After all, you don't want rosie to become a foo fighter.

[lyndal1838]

---

@bushies.girl wrote:

---

@lyndal1838 wrote:

In terms of religion a few hundred years is "modern".

In the Church of England part of being a Minister is being licenced to perform a civil marrige ceremony, along with being able to perform the religious ceremony.   The only legally binding part of the marriage service is the civil part as far as the Government is concerned.

The Law of the land does not care if your marriage is blessed by a higher being in your faith....only that it is legal in the eyes of the Law.

---

Yep knew that Lyndal    .... being married to an Anglican priest, one does tend to pick up a few points along the way lol

---

You never know who you are "talking" to here, do you.  lol

My grandmother had an elderly friend living with her and her son was a CoE minister.  He was a good friend of ours and also knew our local minister.  When I was about to get married I asked if both of them could take part in the service and they agreed.

I was also told in confidence that Alan was going to take over our local parish a few months later.

The service was quite a talking point with 2 celebrants but a few months later there was a real stir when parishoners realised that their new minister had already been involved in my marriage service.  Everyone wanted to know how I knew to ask him. lol

[davidc4430]

Same-sex marriage advocates say anti-LGBTI poster in Melbourne inaccurate, distressing

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-21/advocates-slam-anti-lgbti-poster-on-melbourne-street/8828566