Same-sex marriage in Oz

[Forty Two]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -down.html

Despite strong popular support for marriage equality, Australia is seen as lagging behind other nations which allow homosexual couples the right to wed.

How can that be, given the civilized nature of Australia? It's probably more civilized because they have not yet allowed homosexual couples the right to wed....

[JimC]

It is a consequence of political manoeuvrings by right wing religiously aligned politicians. They are only delaying the inevitable - support for same-sex marriage steadily grows...

[laklak]

There are no gays in Oz, obviously. The men are Real Men and the sheep are real nervous.

[Brian Peacock]

An Ozzie farmer is driving across his plot when up on the hill he sees a Kiwi bloke ball deep in one of his prize ewes. "Hey mate!" He shouts, "That sheep's for shearing!" To which the Kiwi replies, "Fuck that! Get yer own. I'm not shearing this beauty with anyone."


I am reliably informed that this is a hilarious joke.

[Brian Peacock]

Booting the issue to a Senatorial plebocite was a shoddy, cowardly manoeuvre. Just change the law for chrissakes. The only people objecting are the rampant god-bottherers anyway.

[JimC]

Booting the issue to a Senatorial plebocite was a shoddy, cowardly manoeuvre. Just change the law for chrissakes. The only people objecting are the rampant god-bottherers anyway.

The whole thing rests on the Liberal Party refusing to allow a conscience vote by their own MPs. The right-wing rump of the party is virtually blackmailing cabinet, as far as I can see...

[NineBerry]

Make Australia gay again!

[JimC]

Endless re-runs of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, that's the ticket!

[Scott1328]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -down.html

Despite strong popular support for marriage equality, Australia is seen as lagging behind other nations which allow homosexual couples the right to wed.

How can that be, given the civilized nature of Australia? It's probably more civilized because they have not yet allowed homosexual couples the right to wed....

Fuck you shit bag

[Scot Dutchy]

You are really backward.

[Hermit]

Booting the issue to a Senatorial plebocite was a shoddy, cowardly manoeuvre. Just change the law for chrissakes.

The threadbareness of the argument for a plebiscite is obvious: The Marriage Amendment Act 2004 was worded, proposed, and ratified without resorting to a plebiscite. The wording goes like this:

• Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
  Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

Originally there was no Australian Commonwealth law concerning marriages. The matter was left to the legislatures of the various states and territories, which generally used them for barring marriages between Caucasians and Aborigines. Eventually (in 1959) the inherent racism lead to an outcry in the Northern Territory, when a black woman, Gladys Namagu, had been denied permission by the Director of Welfare in Darwin to marry her fiancé, a white drover named Mick Daly. The federal government intervened with the introduction of a federal marriage bill. The Marriage Act of 1961 was the result. It overrode the state and territory versions and did not define marriage in terms of gender lines. Exclusion of non-heterosexual couplings was not explicitly stated until the 2004 amendment, which, as I already pointed out, was carried out without the perceived need of a plebiscite.

[Scot Dutchy]

Marriage is between two people.

[Svartalf]

meaning most homo cretinus individuals are not eligible.

[Brian Peacock]

[pErvinalia]

I want to marry my couch.