Tasmania’s gay marriage Bill fails for the second time…

MEDIA RELEASE: 29 October 2013

“On gay marriage: not Territories, not States, not even Federal Parliament.  On this most intimate matter, let the people speak in a Referendum!”

“The Labor-Green leadership of the ACT and Tasmania have shown contempt for our Constitution in trying to smuggle gay marriage in by a back door” said Dr David van Gend, a family doctor in Toowoomba, Queensland, and President of the Australian Marriage Forum.

“Our Constitution clearly declares marriage to be a matter for Federal Parliament, and in Federal Parliament a Bill for same sex marriage was defeated by a large 2:1 majority only a year ago.

“That is the proper venue for the nation to deliberate on marriage, but the Labor-Green leadership of the ACT and Tasmania have not shown respect for due process; they are obsessed with re-engineering society in their own radical image.  In Tasmania, with half its adult population functionally illiterate and its economy struggling, the elected Labor-Green leadership has just wasted further precious Parliamentary time debating a motion to re-heat their Bill on same-sex marriage, which has flopped again in the Upper House.

“The constitutional larrikinism of Territories and States meddling with marriage needs to be quashed by the High Court, and the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament made clear. But beyond that, such a radical reordering of society would demand more than just a Federal Parliamentary debate: nothing less than the ultimate democratic authority of a referendum would validate transforming the institution that most intimately affects every person in Australia”, Dr van Gend said.

“Give all Australians a conscience vote on this proposed revolution in marriage and family, with its legislative creation of generations of motherless or fatherless children and its cultural enshrining of Mardi Gras morality. I have faith in the Australian people that, faced with a choice between the demands of two men to be called a marriage and the needs of a child to have, where possible, both a mum and a dad, they will vote on behalf of the child,” Dr van Gend concluded.

END

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

6 Responses

  1. Obeserver

    If the federal government has the power to make laws re marriage and marriage is between a man and a woman then the federal govenment lacks powers to make laws with respect to gay unions under the marriage section of the Australian constitution. On that basis every state has power to make laws with respect to non-marriage unions. A state could make laws with respect to “garriage” which would be define as relationships between 2 humans of marital age not being a man and a woman. The state could grant them the same rights as exist under the federal marriage act under the laws of that state.

    Relatively few Australians don’t live in a State.

    What do you think?

    • AMF

      Frank Brennan outlined the silliness of these word games in his article yesterday: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=38430#.UnBriFR-_5o

      “… The result is a dog’s breakfast. And everyone is now off to the High Court.

      Just to give one morsel from the dog’s breakfast: The long title of the Act has been amended to read: ‘An Act to provide for marriage equality by allowing for marriage between two adults of the same sex, and for other purposes’. But another amendment provides a definition of marriage: ‘Marriage means a marriage under the Marriage Act 1961’. But the main ‘dictionary’ definition given in the Act states that ‘marriage does not include a marriage within the meaning of the Marriage Act’.

      So there you have it: under some provisions of the ACT Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act, marriage means a marriage under the Commonwealth Marriage Act (which excludes same sex marriage) except presumably when it is a marriage under the ACT Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act, between two adults of the same sex.

      Under the Constitution, the Commonwealth Parliament has power to make laws with respect to marriage. So too do the states. And since 1978, so too does the ACT Legislative Assembly. But if a Commonwealth law covers the field, any state or territory law does not operate to the extent of any inconsistency.

      Undoubtedly the Commonwealth will argue in the High Court that it has covered the field on marriage since 1961 and it should be left to do so. Advocates for ‘marriage equality’ frustrated by the slow pace of change at a Commonwealth level have decided to pursue state and territory legislation for forms of unequal and inferior marriage recognition in the hope of providing further political pressure for the Commonwealth to act.

      All this is being done in the name of ‘marriage equality’. The sort of marriage being offered same sex couples by the ACT law is so ‘equal’ as to provide: ‘A marriage under this Act ends if either of the parties to the marriage later marries someone else under a Commonwealth law (including a marriage in another jurisdiction that is recognised by the Commonwealth as a valid marriage)’. No need for a minimum time of separation; no need for a court order; just up and off!”

  2. Clive Jensen

    As an agnostic it is great to see some sense in this debate

    Firstly Marriage Redefinition should be a Federal issue rather than a State Issue. Political parties should have the courage to make this their policy rather than hiding behind a conscience vote which is okay on the issue itself but not on whether it is a Federal issue versus a State issue

    On the redefinition question itself:
    If A and B are different then a relationship between two things that are different namely AB is obviously quite different to relationships between two things that are equal namely AA or BB.
    The Marriage Equality argument, while superficially seeming to make sense, is actually a philosophically and logically flawed argument that actually when properly thought through makes no sense

  3. AMF

    Thank you Dania – and yes, there is wisdom in learning not to be provoked by hostile comments online. Free speech, yes – but we are free to treat such speech with complete disdain.

  4. AMF

    As an agnostic it is great to see some sense in this debate

    Firstly Marriage Redefinition should be a Federal issue rather than a State Issue. Political parties should have the courage to make this their policy rather than hiding behind a conscience vote which is okay on the issue itself but not on whether it is a Federal issue versus a State issue

    On the redefinition question itself:
    If A and B are different then a relationship between two things that are different namely AB is obviously quite different to relationships between two things that are equal namely AA or BB.
    The Marriage Equality argument, while superficially seeming to make sense, is actually a philosophically and logically flawed argument that actually when properly thought through makes no sense

Leave a comment