Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Not open for further replies.
Nah I thought you did but I wasn't sure as the poster above me missed it.


Oh the fun, Jehova's witnesses at the door this morning. I was too lazy to open the door(was still in bed), so I didn't get the fun talk. But now I kinda wish I did. :lol: I truly wonder how they'd respond, since they always ask if you're married or whatnot.
I once was bored and had a fun talk on the Flying Spaghettimonster, convinced them I'm a firm believer and that his noodliness would come save us from the Jehova's hell. They gave me just the words I needed to have them walk away silently. They asked "But this spaghetti creature, it doesn't exist!". All I replied was "Prove it.". :D They thought, realised I just mirrored their own argument, and left.

I truly have no issue with religious people minding their own business. I do, however, have an issue with people bothering others about it and forcing their kids to go along with it. Then again, all religions pretty much hate me anyway. :wink:
I was outside in the backyard with the dog one afternoon, when I saw a guy wearing a suit with a notebook walking down the sidewalk. I was certain he was a Jehovah's Witness, and really hoped he'd come over, because the dog would have started barking at him. And I decided that if she started barking, I'd start barking with her. But he either wasn't, or didn't see us, and I never got to bark at him.

So you really believe only 144k people are getting into heaven? How many do you have already? I don't think I like my odds of converting at age 30, and competing for only a few more spots. If they're already filled, don't you think my time would be much better spent worshipping satan? I mean, that's where I'll be going if I'm not guaranteed one of those slots, wouldn't it be wiser to get in his good graces instead? And if it's predetermined, and I'm already chosen at random, why try? Sounds like all I need to do is show up once I'm dead, and I'm golden. No life of door knocking or time spent praying that could be otherwise spent playing video games.

Haven't found an English source yet, but in the paper this morning was stated that our laws are making it easier for lesbian couples to gain parental rights. Currently you have the biological mother, and their female partner/wife has to go to court to get adoption rights. That will change, as the new law will immediately indicate the wife as the second parent. One step closer to equality!
High Court overturned our first ever state ssm laws. All the couples who married last week have just had their marriages made invalid.

Understandable from a law point of view but it still fucking sucks.
High Court overturned our first ever state ssm laws.


States possess greater independence of legislation than territories; though I imagine that even if this had been a state law it still would have been overturned.

Understandable from a law point of view but it still fucking sucks.

Co-signed. Ugh.
Pretty sucky day. I have several gay Indian friends and they were really disappointed, a big step away from modernity for India.
I heard it on Australia on the news this morning, that all the marriages already held were annulled. :( Shame.

What exactly went wrong? Cause that I didn't quite catch.
What exactly went wrong? Cause that I didn't quite catch.

The actual Australians can correct me if I'm wrong, but, to my knowledge, the ACT legalized SSM in spite of a federal law now allowing SSM, and the federal law won out, unsurprisingly. The same result would happen in the US if, say, Texas passed a law repealing the Affordable Care Act.
Disappointed with Australia, but not surprised with India. It's a country that doesn't respect women much, so how can we expect them to care about the gay community?
I soooooo don't understand the difference between the ACT and NT and the rest.

Basically, each state is sovereign, having freely joined the Australian Commonwealth, and state legislative powers are constitutionally protected; Commonwealth legislation only affects states where permitted by the constitution.

Territories, on the other hand, are directly administered by the federal government. Self-government has been granted to the ACT and NT (and Norfolk Island too) by the Commonwealth, but the federal government can override any territorial legislation and has full power to legislate for territories on any issue. The Commonwealth also has direct control over some issues in territories that it does not control in states (e.g. administration of Aboriginal lands in NT).

So basically, had the High Court ruled the ACT's marriage equality act constitutional, the federal government could have chosen to override it (though I think this would have had to have been via an act of parliament, which would've been unpopular and likely to fail). However, had this been a state marriage equality act and it had been ruled constitutional, the federal government would have been powerless to change it.

As it stands, the High Court's ruling indicates any state-based legislation for marriage equality would be unconstitutional too.

ah that blows.. but couldn't they have figured out this was bound to happen in advance then?

Well it really seems to have been a test case - marriage equality had failed federally, so could a state or territory get legislation up? Could a lawyer provide a convincingly creative reading of the federal Marriage Act (e.g. that the act only covers heterosexual marriage, not homosexual marriage, so states/territories are free to legislate on the latter)? It was always going to be an uphill battle, especially as the Marriage Act was created in the first place to stop a confusing proliferation of different state regulations for marriage.

I do wish that a state rather than the ACT had been the first to go to court, given their stronger legislative position, but in the end I don't think it would have affected the outcome given the court's justification for the ruling.
This quote form the LA Times article almost made me fall out of my chair (emphasis added):

“If homosexuality is to be made legal, then let everyone be a homosexual,” said Kamal Farooqi, a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, one of the groups that petitioned the Supreme Court. “Homosexuality is against nature's law of reproduction. The world will end in 100 years without reproduction.”

India's Supreme Court reinstates law criminalizing gay sex -
Thanks for clarifying that Ax, it's a rather confusing situation!

:lol: @ martha's quote. Sooooo when homosexuality is legal, that turns everybody into homosexuals and we won't have any babies anymore? Yeah, we sure can't argue with such sound logic.

:shifty: Better not tell him that there's plenty of animal species that have homosexuality then... becuase they're obviously supposed to be extinct.
yep, because it's those pesky laws keeping the opposite sex together. lord knows in countries where homosexuality is legal, there are no straight couples. zilch. hell, in countries where same sex marriage is legal, straight couples don't even get married anymore. :shrug:
And since they're not married, they can't reproduce. Biology be damned, babies are created by legal marriage certificates and ceremonies.
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom