ACT Same-Sex Marriage Act in the High Court (1 Viewer)

[newcastle2012]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

Exactly as SylviaB stated anyway the modern marriage is based of Christendom in both the UK and Australia as our marriage laws are based of the case of Hyde vs Hyde and Woodmanse 1866 (House of Lords) in which it is stated as "Marriage as understood in Christendom, may be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" so it does indeed have very much to do with the Church and as Sylvia has stated the Church would be forced to do it as refusing to would conflict with the Anti Discrimination act 1977 (cwlth) allowing people to sue the Church.

 

[Rafy]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

as refusing to would conflict with the Anti Discrimination act 1977 (cwlth) allowing people to sue the Church.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECT 56
Religious bodies
Nothing in this Act affects:
(a) the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order,
(b) the training or education of persons seeking ordination or appointment as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order,
(c) the appointment of any other person in any capacity by a body established to propagate religion, or
(d) any other act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.

 

[Crobat]

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECT 56
Religious bodies
Nothing in this Act affects:
or
(d) any other act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.

Beat me to it, thanks Rafy

 

[SylviaB]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

But many peoples' beliefs do change, the New Testament even changed a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament.

Yes, but Christianity didn't exist until there was the new testament you dummy.

Lots of Christians I know (who have been brought up in highly conservative households) support gay marriage, lots of pastors support it

Like I said, what's the point of believing that god is absolute and eternal and this his will be done, if you're just going to change your mind on things because of a fad?

Just drop the religion entirely and be done with it.

didn't the Pope even come out and say he supported gay rights?

No he said its alright for priests to be gay (precisely because they're celibate).

 

[Graney]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

Remember marriage is recognized and stems from the Church (and equivalent religions ways) anything apart from those are civil unions and not "marriages" in the traditional sense.

Traditionally marriage was not a strongly religious institution, the catholic church wasn't formally involved in marriage until the council of trent. Martin Luther was staunchly opposed to any church involvement in marriage.

Priests may have been involved in a general sense, but they were loosly involved in all aspects of society, marriage wasn't remarkable.

Anyway all I was stating was forcing the Church or other religions to recognize it would result in large scale protests and a great deal of trouble.

The current law quashes the religious freedom of churches and individuals who wish to perform same sex marriage, resulting in 'large scale protests', you can't defend the status quo under the guise of religious freedom.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

except everywhere where its been legalised



retard

Europe is a bit different because of it's history with the church. In certain European countries there's a church tax if you're a member of the church

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

I think legalizing gay marriage should not affect the function of a church, especially if they refuse to wed gay couples. It's a pretty shitty reason not to let gays get married because a church's freedom will be theoretically infringed.

 

[newcastle2012]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECT 56
Religious bodies
Nothing in this Act affects:
(a) the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order,
(b) the training or education of persons seeking ordination or appointment as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order,
(c) the appointment of any other person in any capacity by a body established to propagate religion, or
(d) any other act or practice of a body established to propagate religion that conforms to the doctrines of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.

You would be mistaken as it has been interpreted that religion does not mean a church as such through this case
http://www.corneyandlind.com.au/resource-centre/not-for-profit/case-notes/nsw-anti-discrimination/
That is the thing with the law it can state something but interpretation is open to the courts who have determined that Religion does not constitute the church but the religion and as such they could very well be sued for refusing to perform the ceremony.

Anyway I can assure you that Christians, Muslims and many other denominations would take to the streets to protest the government interfering in their religions teachings and beliefs.

 

[JohnMaximus]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

I dislike gays, not because they are gay, because they are wasting valuable news time with their petty issues.

Just do your court thing and keep it to yourself, the news is for important things like parrots that do math, and dogs that ride surfboards.

 

[newcastle2012]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

I dislike gays, not because they are gay, because they are wasting valuable news time with their petty issues.

Just do your court thing and keep it to yourself, the news is for important things like parrots that do math, and dogs that ride surfboards.

I agree there are so many more important things such as promotion of social issues such as domestic violence, racial violence and helping to somewhat "educate" people. I say that as the media is highly biased and really twists the truth to support themselves.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

I dislike gays, not because they are gay, because they are wasting valuable news time with their petty issues.

Just do your court thing and keep it to yourself, the news is for important things like parrots that do math, and dogs that ride surfboards.

Yeah because issues directly involving people's livelihood is considered "petty." Is the media spinning shit? You bet. But don't blame people who are actively involved in an issue that affects their livelihood on "wasting people's time." Shit if you don't want to read shit about fags getting married, don't read it. Same if you don't want to hear it on TV, switch the fucking channel or turn it off.

 

[JohnMaximus]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

Voting NO to gay marriage only because they are pestering me through media and as such are a nuisance.

 

[Crobat]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

You would be mistaken as it has been interpreted that religion does not mean a church as such through this case
http://www.corneyandlind.com.au/resource-centre/not-for-profit/case-notes/nsw-anti-discrimination/
That is the thing with the law it can state something but interpretation is open to the courts who have determined that Religion does not constitute the church but the religion and as such they could very well be sued for refusing to perform the ceremony.

Anyway I can assure you that Christians, Muslims and many other denominations would take to the streets to protest the government interfering in their religions teachings and beliefs.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not familiar with this part of the law), but doesn't the Church refer to Christianity overall, not a singular Church? The decision in that case is unsurprising, but I think that there would be some legal turmoil over the Church and a Church.

And so what? Currently there are people taking to the streets in protest as well. Unless they are forced to marry homosexuals (if they were I would be against it) I honestly don't see why their religious beliefs should be forced on people outside of their religion. Religion isn't law (with the exception of Islam), and neither should it be. It's a lifestyle/way of life. Why should their lifestyle/way of life detrimentally impact people outside of their lifestyle?

 

[newcastle2012]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

The church is effectively a building block of religion but The church isn't in itself religion if you get what I mean. It is all quite complex in general even lawyers themselves argue over it and it just ends in massive court trials over the smallest terminology.

There may be people in the street protesting for gay marriage but if it forced religions to recognise them I can assure you there would be many many times as many protesting against it at the moment people assume it will be purely a civil ceremony but if it is to be forced on religions then you will see many more people having problems with it.

In terms religion being law it is as law is a reflection of the beliefs and views of the majority of society (e.g. christian beliefs mean marriage laws and others are made according to it) this is the basic principle of law so different religous majorities in different countries will influence the law differently e.g. Christian majority will have different laws to Atheist, Budhist, Islamic societies and the Australian one is based of Christianity particularly evident through the Marriage Act 1961 (CWLTH) outlining what constitutes marriage Hyde vs Hyde is also quite interesting in this instance to.

 

[Graney]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

You would be mistaken as it has been interpreted that religion does not mean a church as such through this case
http://www.corneyandlind.com.au/resource-centre/not-for-profit/case-notes/nsw-anti-discrimination/

Um, that page says the opposite of what you're saying

"The Appeal Panel decided that the Tribunal’s definition of religion was too narrow and that Wesleyanism did indeed fall within the meaning of ‘religion’. "

There may be people in the street protesting for gay marriage but if it forced religions to recognise them I can assure you there would be many many times as many protesting against it at the moment people assume it will be purely a civil ceremony but if it is to be forced on religions then you will see many more people having problems with it.

Very few people would wish it to be 'forced' upon any churches, and the federal government would be at pains to ensure this does not happen.

law is a reflection of the beliefs and views of the majority of society... and the Australian one is based of Christianity particularly evident through the Marriage Act 1961 (CWLTH) outlining what constitutes marriage.

The howard era amendments to the marriage act, defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, clearly do not reflect the majority view of Australian society today.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

The church is effectively a building block of religion but The church isn't in itself religion if you get what I mean. It is all quite complex in general even lawyers themselves argue over it and it just ends in massive court trials over the smallest terminology.

There may be people in the street protesting for gay marriage but if it forced religions to recognise them I can assure you there would be many many times as many protesting against it at the moment people assume it will be purely a civil ceremony but if it is to be forced on religions then you will see many more people having problems with it.

In terms religion being law it is as law is a reflection of the beliefs and views of the majority of society (e.g. christian beliefs mean marriage laws and others are made according to it) this is the basic principle of law so different religous majorities in different countries will influence the law differently e.g. Christian majority will have different laws to Atheist, Budhist, Islamic societies and the Australian one is based of Christianity particularly evident through the Marriage Act 1961 (CWLTH) outlining what constitutes marriage Hyde vs Hyde is also quite interesting in this instance to.

The point is were not supposed to have religious influence of our laws, hence separation of church and state. I highly doubt people are going to ask church's to be forced to marry gays.

 

[Kiraken]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

I agree there are so many more important things such as promotion of social issues such as domestic violence, racial violence and helping to somewhat "educate" people. I say that as the media is highly biased and really twists the truth to support themselves.

lol so gay marriage isn't a social issue?

 

[DannyBoy33]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

Alot of people seem to respond to this in the familiar manner - "this is not crucial issue, there are more important things".
There allways is something more important, but that's not gonna solve any of the problems if we're just going to avoid every each of them with this approach.

 

[Crobat]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

The church is effectively a building block of religion but The church isn't in itself religion if you get what I mean. It is all quite complex in general even lawyers themselves argue over it and it just ends in massive court trials over the smallest terminology.

A lot of cases end up being down to the smallest terminology so it'd be no surprise that it would be a shitstorm for the lawyers and justices.

There may be people in the street protesting for gay marriage but if it forced religions to recognise them I can assure you there would be many many times as many protesting against it at the moment people assume it will be purely a civil ceremony but if it is to be forced on religions then you will see many more people having problems with it.

Given that marriage is technically legal contract that has its roots in religion but is not governed by religion I think it is already considered a purely civil ceremony (with the exception of full-on religious weddings), especially since you don't even have to have any religious affiliations to marry - you don't even need a pastor, just a JP. I can understand the outrage but it is unlikely the Government would be stupid enough to force gay marriage onto religions. It'd probably be unconstitutional and violate their religious freedom at the very least since they'd be forcing a constraint/condition on religions by saying they have to go against what their religious doctrines say, which would have to be infringing on their "free exercise" of religion (s 116).

In terms religion being law it is as law is a reflection of the beliefs and views of the majority of society (e.g. christian beliefs mean marriage laws and others are made according to it) this is the basic principle of law so different religous majorities in different countries will influence the law differently e.g. Christian majority will have different laws to Atheist, Budhist, Islamic societies and the Australian one is based of Christianity particularly evident through the Marriage Act 1961 (CWLTH) outlining what constitutes marriage Hyde vs Hyde is also quite interesting in this instance to.

Historically yes, but Australia has no prescribed national religion and is largely pluralistic now. The majority of society is in favor of same-sex marriage (52% - 36%). Hyde v Hyde was a decision in 1866, and over a century later, it's pretty clear the social perception of marriage has changed. You recognised that laws are a reflection of the beliefs and views of the majority but the Christian population is no longer the majority. The large point I'm trying to make is that laws have a positivist function in that they are separate from religion and morality, and so they should be in a society as multicultural and pluralistic as Australia.

 

[Crobat]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

Alot of people seem to respond to this in the familiar manner - "this is not crucial issue, there are more important things".
There allways is something more important, but that's not gonna solve any of the problems if we're just going to avoid every each of them with this approach.

Realistically speaking though, it isn't something that's hugely important. It's a social/moral issue that affects a minority of the population with symbolic rather than economic/practical effects. Speaking from a rights perspective, not much really changes since same-sex relationships do legally have the same rights as a married couple. The issue is more of a recognition and acknowledgement of their relationship and equality that qualitatively contributes to standard of living/well-being. It'll contribute to society in a different way than if the Government were to use the same time to discuss things like international agreements, education funding, etc that would affect the country, not just a minority. It really shouldn't take this long to get it over and done with.

 

[puremorning]

Re: ACT Same-Sex Marriage Bill in the High Court

Realistically speaking though, it isn't something that's hugely important. It's a social/moral issue that affects a minority of the population with symbolic rather than economic/practical effects. Speaking from a rights perspective, not much really changes since same-sex relationships do legally have the same rights as a married couple. The issue is more of a recognition and acknowledgement of their relationship and equality that qualitatively contributes to standard of living/well-being. It'll contribute to society in a different way than if the Government were to use the same time to discuss things like international agreements, education funding, etc that would affect the country, not just a minority. It really shouldn't take this long to get it over and done with.

Couldn't agree more!