Same-sex reforms warning to Julia Gillard

[mellie]

The Canberra Times Same-sex reforms warning to Julia Gillard The Australian THE nation's top lawyers have demanded the Gillard government revisit gay marriage, warning Labor's reforms will fail to deal with discrimination against same-sex couples unless the Marriage Act is radically changed. The Law Council of Australia has also ... Pressure on courts if gay ties fail - Canberra TimesThe Canberra Times See what public thinks on same-sex marriageSydney Morning Herald NOM Rebuffs Fourth-Grader's 'Perfect Argument' For Marriage EqualityThinkProgress Fond du Lac Reporter -Dublin People -Las Cruces Sun-News all 9 news articles » [Category: Nation].... Published: 30/4/13 12:03am in Google

Marriage is a heterosexual institution this morally bankrupt communist doesn't value.

[mellie]

The Marriage Act needs to stay the way it is, no need for reform, change, or yet another Julia inspired devolution .

Why are the Greens so hell-bent on Gay Marriage?


Because Bob Brown and Mr'rs Brown ( Paul Thomas) want to tie the knot, this is, tie their penises together on board the Sea Sheppard.




Why desecrate a sacred institution? The unity between man and woman?

And why not legalise polygamy and paedophilia and the marriage between man and his best friend who just so happens to be a German Sheppard while they're at it?

They might as well, one must not discriminate afterall, no? *WOOOF*


Where do we as a society draw the line?

Or is that just it, we aren't allowed to anymore because it's politically incorrect and deemed discriminatory (against the law) to uphold ones own values?

[IQS.RLOW]

There will be all manner of nutbag fruitcakes coming out of the woodwork in the hope that they can push their minority agendas onto the majority via a dying ALP govt because they know that they wont get another shot for 15-20 years

[Neferti]

The ACT, under Stanhopeless, already tried legislating for homosexuals to marry in Canberra, way back. It passed in The Assembly but the Commonwealth (or was it the GG?) "disallowed" it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognitio ... _Territory

The Marriage Act was changed (2006?) to include marriage as between a "man and a woman". That would need to be changed, again, to include "man and man", "woman and woman", "man and dog" etcetera. or perhaps "man and anything"?

There is already a Civil Unions/Partnerships Act in Canberra. Anyone who wants to announce to The World that they want to be thought of as ONE, can. There is a real Register for these "commitments", I wonder how many do it? They can even (both) wear wedding dresses, if they want, pay the usual fee for a civil ceremony, etc. A Register will make it so much easier when they decided to terminate the relationship. Family Court will take care of that as that part is also covered under Commonwealth Law

So what is it that the homosexuals/lesbians want? The word "marriage"?

[AiA in Atlanta]

Homosexuality has been suppressed for centuries. Like anything that is suppressed it has to be released sooner or later. If not, it continues to fester.

[IQS.RLOW]

Homosexuality has been suppressed for centuries. Like anything that is suppressed it has to be released sooner or later. If not, it continues to fester.

Are you trying to tell us something AIA?

[AiA in Atlanta]

Yes, I am telling you that you and others like you are wasting your time arguing with reality.

[Black Orchid]

Homosexuality has been suppressed for centuries. Like anything that is suppressed it has to be released sooner or later. If not, it continues to fester.

No-one is asking homosexuals to suppress their sexual preferences but allowing a minority to change fundamental Church beliefs is entirely different.

A Christian baker in Lakewood, Colo., is facing jail time because his conscience would not allow him to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Although he made it clear that he was not anti-gay and would be happy to bake a birthday or graduation cake for a gay individual, he is still facing the threat of imprisonment for refusing to affirm “gay marriage.”

Sadly, this case is not unique. In New Jersey, a Methodist church was sued because it would not allow its facility to be used for a same-sex “wedding.” The judge ruled against the church.

Catholic Charities has been forced out of the adoption business in Massachusetts, Illinois and Washington, D.C., because it would only place children in homes with a mother and a father.

The list goes on. In Massachusetts, a father was arrested for trying to pull his son out of a kindergarten class where he was being taught about homosexuality and “gay marriage;” a doctor in California was punished by the courts because he would not use artificial insemination to create a fatherless child; a photographer in New Mexico was faced with legal action because his conscience would not permit him to photograph a gay ceremony; a Vermont bed and breakfast owner and a New York farm owner were sued because they did not want to host gay “weddings” in their privately-run facilities.

These examples offer a response to those who think that redefining civil marriage will leave the Church free to use its own definition of marriage.

Catholic adoption agencies were not free to simply use “their” definition of marriage – they were required by law to comply with the legal definition. Even the Methodist church was not permitted to use “its” definition of marriage.

The Danish government recently determined that “gay marriage” includes a right to get married in any church in the country, even if that church objects to such unions. Churches throughout the country will now literally be forced to conduct marriages they believe to be invalid and sinful.

Churches can refuse to marry heterosexuals if they choose but they may not be able to refuse to marry homosexuals. It's not about "marriage" it's about "control".

[IQS.RLOW]

Yes, I am telling you that you and others like you are wasting your time arguing with reality.

Reality is marriage is between a man and a woman. If minority sooking changes that, there will be social disorder as has been shown in France, the govt will change along with the policy as occurred in QLD.

Any change will be a fleeting minority win by the govt of the day desperate to win a block of votes no matter how small.

Like the GST back in 2005-2007 that had idiots wanting a solution that cost them to feel better about themselves, that support soon evaporated when the population realised what the actual cost was...and history will repeat itself.

...and please save your women votes, blacks and slavery bullshit for someone who doesn't understand civil rights movements and history who will buy the shit you're selling

[Super Nova]

I'm beginning to feel discriminated against because I'm not gay or a member of any other minority group that demands or needs special treatment under the law or by society.

It very lonely being in the majority.

We are born equal (well some say so) but we evolve our love and hate quickly and it appears to be natural to discriminate against difference. Why legislate to prevent what is natural.