Australia bans same sex marriage.

[Selene]

Let us hope and pray that the United States follows the example of Australia. Same sex marriage or unions was never about equal rights. It is about getting rid of a restriction to marriage.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/22/australia-gender-discrimination-challenge-to-equal-marriage-ban-thrown-out-by-judge/


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


An Australian judge this week threw out a challenge to the national ban on equal marriage, on the grounds that the law banning same-sex marriage does not discriminate against people based on gender.
Federal Court Justice Jayne Jagot ruled that the ban on same-sex marriages does not amount to gender discrimination because neither lesbians nor gay men can marry, reports Bloomberg.
“A man cannot enter into the state of marriage as defined with another man just as a woman cannot enter into the state of marriage with another woman,” she wrote. “The redress for these circumstances lies in the political and not the legal arena.”
In doing so, Judge Jagot upheld the Australian Human Rights Commission’s decision to terminate the complaint from Simon Margan, a gay rights activist, who sought to legalise equal marriage.
On 19 September, lawmakers in the Australian Parliament overwhelmingly rejected a bill that would have introduced equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
In her ruling, Judge Jagot wrote that gender discrimination is constituted by the treatment of a person of one gender being compared with the treatment of a person of the other gender.
“There cannot be discrimination by reason of the sex of a person because in all cases the treatment of the person of the opposite sex is the same,” the judge continued.
She went on to clarify that the Marriage Act federally defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
“By statutory definition, persons of the opposite sex may marry and persons of the same sex may not,” she wrote.
Equality organisations have urged the country’s federal government to follow the lead of the UK Government in legalising same-sex marriages.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has previously spoken of her opposition to same-sex marriage adding that her beliefs state that marriage is “between a man and a woman.”

 

[KCKID]

Let us hope and pray that the United States follows the example of Australia. Same sex marriage or unions was never about equal rights. It is about getting rid of a restriction to marriage.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/02/22/australia-gender-discrimination-challenge-to-equal-marriage-ban-thrown-out-by-judge/


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


An Australian judge this week threw out a challenge to the national ban on equal marriage, on the grounds that the law banning same-sex marriage does not discriminate against people based on gender.
Federal Court Justice Jayne Jagot ruled that the ban on same-sex marriages does not amount to gender discrimination because neither lesbians nor gay men can marry, reports Bloomberg.
“A man cannot enter into the state of marriage as defined with another man just as a woman cannot enter into the state of marriage with another woman,” she wrote. “The redress for these circumstances lies in the political and not the legal arena.”
In doing so, Judge Jagot upheld the Australian Human Rights Commission’s decision to terminate the complaint from Simon Margan, a gay rights activist, who sought to legalise equal marriage.
On 19 September, lawmakers in the Australian Parliament overwhelmingly rejected a bill that would have introduced equal marriage rights for same-sex couples.
In her ruling, Judge Jagot wrote that gender discrimination is constituted by the treatment of a person of one gender being compared with the treatment of a person of the other gender.
“There cannot be discrimination by reason of the sex of a person because in all cases the treatment of the person of the opposite sex is the same,” the judge continued.
She went on to clarify that the Marriage Act federally defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
“By statutory definition, persons of the opposite sex may marry and persons of the same sex may not,” she wrote.
Equality organisations have urged the country’s federal government to follow the lead of the UK Government in legalising same-sex marriages.
Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has previously spoken of her opposition to same-sex marriage adding that her beliefs state that marriage is “between a man and a woman.”

Interesting that while Prime Minister Julia Gillard believes that marriage is between a man and a woman SHE and her live-in partner are UNmarried!

 

[meshak]

Interesting that while Prime Minister Julia Gillard believes that marriage is between a man and a woman SHE and her live-in partner are UNmarried!

How do you know that they are sex partners?

there are many people cohabit without sex, you know not?

 

[KCKID]

How do you know that they are sex partners?

You're right ...I don't know. I guess I'm simply putting two and two together the same as others do when they assume that gay people who co-habit are sexually involved with one another. Perhaps we all need to use your approach on such issues and remain unjudgmental. Good point.

there are many people cohabit without sex, you know not?

Again, I agree with you that we should not simply ASSUME anything . . .you just made me realize that I'm no better than those I criticize.

Actually, the best approach is probably for each one of us to mind our own business with regard to what couples might do or not do when in private . . .

 

[meshak]

You're right ...I don't know. I guess I'm simply putting two and two together the same as others do when they assume that gay people who co-habit are sexually involved with one another. Perhaps we all need to use your approach on such issues and remain unjudgmental. Good point.


Again, I agree with you that we should not simply ASSUME anything . . .you just made me realize that I'm no better than those I criticize.

Actually, the best approach is probably for each one of us to mind our own business with regard to what couples might do or not do when in private . . .

How do you know that people who are same sex living togethere are gays or lesbians?

 

[Foreigner]

Interesting that while Prime Minister Julia Gillard believes that marriage is between a man and a woman SHE and her live-in partner are UNmarried!

-- Interesting indeed. It appears she is actually living what she believes.

 

[meshak]

-- Interesting indeed. It appears she is actually living what she believes.

Are you saying she is lesbian too?

 

[Rach1370]

Interesting that while Prime Minister Julia Gillard believes that marriage is between a man and a woman SHE and her live-in partner are UNmarried!

If you look into it, Julia Gillard has a long and glorious history of pinching other women's husbands. She's a home wrecker and has the morals of an alley cat.
She may have supported hetero marriage, but it was not for the right reasons. Can't wait til the nasty woman get axed at election time...she's a real bad role model for anyone.

 

[KCKID]

How do you know that people who are same sex living togethere are gays or lesbians?

I presently share accomodation with another male and neither of us are involved in a gay relationship with one another or anyone else. I've shared accomodation with quite a number of young male uni students over the years and, as far as I know, the Church I attended and was a prominent member of never even raised the possibility that 'gay hankypanky' might be going on. And, it could quite easily have been. ON THE OTHER HAND, one young hetero couple with the same Church (friends of mine) were co-habiting for economical reasons (sharing rent) and this DID necessitate a visit from the pastor! The couple in question were quite ticked off that their platonic relationship would have been viewed as a possible sexual one. Another hetero couple from the same Church (also friends) were also co-habiting and were very likely engaged in coitus (as Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory refers to it) since they were a professed 'couple'. The same pastor paid them a visit and they in turn showed the pastor the door. Neither attended Church again for a number of years. By the time they returned they had married some years before and had several kids. The pastor, of course, was simply doing 'his job' since the appearance of morality within the Church family from his perspective were important. Poor guy, he was damned if he didn't and damned if he did.

So, why DO we assume that sex is involved whenever two people - either heterosexual or homosexual - are living together? In most cases it's simply ASSUMED by 'the accuser'. People are quite naturally busybodies and gossips whether Christian or not. And, we often think the worst about someone. This helps us to maintain an element of self-righteousness, especially so when we feel that we can 'legitimately' slam someone's perceived 'sins' publicly.

 

[JB_Reformed Baptist]

Praise ye the LORD! As long as a nation upholds God's law it will be blessed of the LORD. It's good to know that we still have people of character in this great land of ours.

 

[Angelina]

Usually...when Australia makes a political decision such as this one, New Zealand tends to follow suit...here's hoping :huh:

 

[Graceismine]

Good on them!

 

[KCKID]

Praise ye the LORD! As long as a nation upholds God's law it will be blessed of the LORD. It's good to know that we still have people of character in this great land of ours.

This has got nothing to do with upholding God's law. Australia is basically an atheist nation so whatever it does has got nothing to do with the Christian God or ANY god! So, just let us put this into perspective and stop being religiously giddy about it.

ALSO, it's offensive to WHOEVER is not a Christian - and not simply GLBTs - to imply that they are therefore without character as you do above. Furthermore, Australia is no more greater than are the countries others on this forum reside in. That being said and back to the topic, it will only be a matter of time - and will have nothing to do with you or me - before gay marriage is common place and accepted in this country. I'm not saying that this is good or bad ...simply that it WILL happen!

Usually...when Australia makes a political decision such as this one, New Zealand tends to follow suit...here's hoping :huh:

Why? Allowing gay marriage does not mean that YOU must participate in a gay marriage . . .it should not affect you in the slightest.

 

[Angelina]

Why? Allowing gay marriage does not mean that YOU must participate in a gay marriage . . .it should not affect you in the slightest.

...because I have a right to have an opinion on this board, just as you have a right to have your's - so build a bridge and get over it! :huh:

 

[meshak]

I presently share accomodation with another male and neither of us are involved in a gay relationship with one another or anyone else. I've shared accomodation with quite a number of young male uni students over the years and, as far as I know, the Church I attended and was a prominent member of never even raised the possibility that 'gay hankypanky' might be going on. And, it could quite easily have been. ON THE OTHER HAND, one young hetero couple with the same Church (friends of mine) were co-habiting for economical reasons (sharing rent) and this DID necessitate a visit from the pastor! The couple in question were quite ticked off that their platonic relationship would have been viewed as a possible sexual one. Another hetero couple from the same Church (also friends) were also co-habiting and were very likely engaged in coitus (as Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory refers to it) since they were a professed 'couple'. The same pastor paid them a visit and they in turn showed the pastor the door. Neither attended Church again for a number of years. By the time they returned they had married some years before and had several kids. The pastor, of course, was simply doing 'his job' since the appearance of morality within the Church family from his perspective were important. Poor guy, he was damned if he didn't and damned if he did.

So, why DO we assume that sex is involved whenever two people - either heterosexual or homosexual - are living together? In most cases it's simply ASSUMED by 'the accuser'. People are quite naturally busybodies and gossips whether Christian or not. And, we often think the worst about someone. This helps us to maintain an element of self-righteousness, especially so when we feel that we can 'legitimately' slam someone's perceived 'sins' publicly.

This kind of witnessing is avoided if people stay with their parents until they get married like Japanese tradition. It is that simple. I live in states but I let my children stay with me until they get married. If they dont, they can live with me until I die.

I feel sorry for western chaotic society.

 

[KCKID]

...because I have a right to have an opinion on this board, just as you have a right to have your's - so build a bridge and get over it! :huh:

Fair enough.

So build a bridge and get over it! ...I like that . . .

 

[1peterlight]

http://www.france24.com/en/20130324-gay-marriage-protest-france-paris

Almost a million people showed up to protest. Is this happening in the US anywhere??

 

[Groundzero]

I'm sorry to bust the bubble guys, but I'm from Australia, and while this may seem really good. That's just the surface. There's nothing nice about what's underneath in Aus. :/


We have a major political party, the Greens, whose agenda is to push homosexual-rights. I think that says it all.

 

[KCKID]

http://www.france24.com/en/20130324-gay-marriage-protest-france-paris

Almost a million people showed up to protest. Is this happening in the US anywhere??

300,000 people (the figure given by police) sure is a lot of people but it falls way short of the million people erroneously reported to have participated in the event by the organizers of the protest. Apparently this event was initially orchestrated by the Catholic Church so was/is not necessarily of great secular concern by the French. As said, 300,000 sure IS a lot of people but it's still only a miniscule of the more than 66 million people (the population of France) that DID NOT protest.

I'm sorry to bust the bubble guys, but I'm from Australia, and while this may seem really good. That's just the surface. There's nothing nice about what's underneath in Aus. :/


We have a major political party, the Greens, whose agenda is to push homosexual-rights. I think that says it all.

Don't worry yourself too much. You'll find that the sky will not fall simply because people who love each other have chosen to - and are allowed to - commit themselves to one another. I've little doubt that the Australians of the future (Australia by then, hopefully, a REPUBLIC!) will be laughing at the "none issue" that their parents and grandparents got their tights in such a twist over ...!

 

[1peterlight]

the article says 300,000 to 800,000. I was going with the 800,000 figure which is close to 1 mill. Truthfully it was prob somewhere in the middle. Even half a mill, even 300,000 is a lot of people. I dont see this happening here.