"What is this what is this who is this guy shouting what is this going on in here?" - CP. (re: psxpro)
R.I.P Craigos, you were a champion bloke. One of the best
R.I.P Fardin 'Bob' Qayyumi
Member of the Church of the Holy Glenn McGrath
"How about you do something contstructive in this forum for once and not fill the forum with ****. You offer nothing." - theegyptian.
NSW apparently planning to introduce same-sex marriage laws as well, and by the sounds of things they should stand up in court as being constitutional.
say they won't over-rule state or territory legislation. They could change that law of course but the irony in them having to essentially redefine marriage in order to prevent same sex marriage would be far too delicious.
~ Cribbage ~
Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009
what other things confuse tradies
Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?
With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left
Legalise same sex components!
Exit pursuing a beer
Related to an earlier discussion:
High Court paves the way for same-sex marriage
The High Court has cleared the way for a federal law on same-sex marriage, even though it struck down the ACT law providing for them.
The critical point was that the court held that the word “marriage” in the Constitution means the union of any two natural people. It was not restricted to unions between a man and a woman.
As it happens, the 1961 Federal Marriage Act restricts marriage to unions between a man and a woman, but the court held that it would be open to the Federal Parliament to change that and legislate for same-sex marriages under the marriage power in the Constitution.
Hitherto the point was unresolved. It was thought that if ever the Federal Parliament did legislate for same-sex marriage it would invite a constitutional challenge on the basis that the word “marriage” in the Constitution meant only unions between a man and a woman.
That argument will now no longer run and any future Federal law providing for same-sex marriages would be within the Commonwealth Parliament’s power and a challenge would be futile.
+ time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +
get ready for a broken ****in' arm
It's very interesting that the High Court has taken that view, and as I've been saying this is the central issue in which the whole gay marriage debate (should) revolves around.
I don't think it's as cut and dry as that passage paints but it would be an interesting test.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
And I think furthermore, any change to the law should be done via means of referendum to avoid any future legal debate surrounding it. I think using legislative instruments to change the law would be too grey in the long run and would likely end in a game of legal ping long over time.
Thinking about it, I'd guess the rationale would be that while the Commonwealth won't over-rule the legislation of states of territories on marriage as per the Marriage Act, the ACT law isn't actually on marriage as such as it doesn't fit the definition of marriage supplied. Which is a bit "infinite loop" for mine, but I get it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)