Test 2

Please select your preferred language.

請選擇你慣用的語言。

请选择你惯用的语言。

English
中文简体
台灣繁體
香港繁體

Login

Remember Me

New to Fridae?

Fridae Mobile

Advertisement

More About Us

Advertisement
14 Dec 2013

Honeymoon Over for Gay Couples as Legalization of Same-sex Marriage is Overturned by High Court

On Thursday Australia’s High Court overturned state legislation in the Australian Capital Territory that had legalized gay marriage. This meant that LGBT couples could legally marry for just 5 days. The move has sparked debate about legislation at a constitutional level.

Australia’s High Court has acted to overturn legislation that allowed gay marriage in part of Australia. The Australian Capital Territory (including the capital of Canberra) had passed a bill in October which made it the first territory in legalize same-sex weddings.

However, this motion was challenged by the national government, who argued that it challenged federal law. The High Court made its verdict on Thursday stating: “The High Court decided unanimously that the Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013, enacted by the Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory, cannot operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act 1961.”

The ruling means that there was only a 5 day window in which same-sex marriage was possible in the area. During this period, 27 couples tied the knot. Couples that now face having their marriage revoked by the state. As deputy director of Australian Marriage Equality pointed out, the decision has “taken a toll on the couples who, in only days, have celebrated the heights of joy and love to only have their legal status quashed by technicalities.”

The outlook is not totally bleak, however, as campaigners believe that same-sex marriage could be deemed in line with the constitution if worded differently. Territories including New South Wales, Tasmania, South Australian and Western Australia, all have same-sex marriage laws drafted that are less likely to conflict with the Marriage Act. Furthermore, the High Court highlighted the fact that gay marriages would be constitutionally legal if it wasn’t for the one Act of 1961.

The move has also heightened pressure on the Government to make a nationwide move to vote on legalizing gay marriage. Four Liberal state premiers have all urged Prime Minister Tony Abbott to allow a vote on gay marriage. Premier of New South Wales, Barry O’Farrell stated, “‘I’ve made clear all along that not only do I support marriage equality but I think it should be legislated for at a federal level.”

Reader's Comments

1. 2013-12-15 02:59  
I think it's fair to revoke the legalization IF it's not in line with national policy for the whole of Australia. Otherwise, you end up with the kind of **crazy** system that, for example, America has, where citizens are nominally all equal, yet face different rules - and thus, inequality - depending on where you live, or where you go to.

In this fashion, while many welcome that a part of Australia legalised gay marriage, that immediately creates an inequality for the rest of the country - and for all the other gay people who live under different, localised legislature.

So, fine, reverse the ruling, until such time that the entire country, continent or people enjoy the same rights and protections. That's fair, and true equality - otherwise, it limits such equalities to just some of the people, rather than all the people.

I'm glad that my own country - Ireland - is able to make moves that are applicable to everyone, rather than just some. A referendum on gay marriage is almost certain to go before The People some time in mid to late 2014, where it will either pass, or fail, but at least be decisive. It's a pity that other countries, despite their regional governance, can't roll-out similar policies that have a clear impact on equality, recognition, rights and protection.
Comment #2 was deleted by its author on 2013-12-15 03:00
3. 2013-12-15 07:19  
I think It's Crazy. These Horse Haired >>>>> Over ruling the act.
But Do kind of agree that we need same sex legalized in AU
We might be called DOWNUNDER but there is no need for us to be Backward in Human rights
4. 2013-12-15 07:19  
I think It's Crazy. These Horse Haired Over ruling the act.
But Do kind of agree that we need same sex legalized in AU
We might be called DOWNUNDER but there is no need for us to be Backward in Human rights
5. 2013-12-15 07:19  
I think It's Crazy. These Horse Haired >>>>> Over ruling the act.
But Do kind of agree that we need same sex legalized in AU
We might be called DOWNUNDER but there is no need for us to be Backward in Human rights
6. 2013-12-15 07:35  
We Australian gay couples have had legal equality with hetrosexual couples in all aspects of the law, except we cannot obtain a 'marriage contract'. Rudd put the final legislation through. Why is marriage important? Because 1. some countries require 'marriage certificate', but these same countries require it to be between a man and a woman. 2. emotionally we need to replicate our parents relationship in ours, they were 'marriages' and not 'living in sin' so we now want our relationships and our sex to be not 'sin'. 3. Humans like making big declarations, which they often break. Please feel free to add reasons. The best reason against wanting 'marriage' is that what makes gay relationships work, is NOT fitting the handed down 'marriage gender roles' we work out our relationships, with each other. I would rather celebrate 10 years of keeping the relationship in good health then celebrate that we say we will. In 2016 i expect to celebrate my partner and my 20th anniversary and we might do that with a bang... it proves more that gays can keep a relationship then we get dressed up and have a wedding...
7. 2013-12-15 18:18  
I was curious to see what the openly gay justice will rule. She ruled against ACT's laws.

The High Court did its job adhering to the Constitution and laws, as it should.

During the hearing, one justice asked if something can be trademarked from the 1900s is still valid today, such as a smell. I think she was referring to the word 'marriage' that could have meant two persons of the opposite sex in the 1900s. The justices examined this and conclude same sex marriage is constitutionally valid. One user described this as 'two steps forward, one step back', so it's not all bad.

The judgement is available if anyone is curious: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html
Comment edited on 2013-12-17 11:03:25
8. 2013-12-16 07:18  
i am not an Australian...but how is it feel Man and women cannot marry each other..how is it feel...and how u overcome this..if u love that man or the woman... life is life love is love human is human we all same not different
9. 2013-12-16 14:41  
Just a little point of interest. It should be noted that when the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled against DOMA as being unconstitutional
because it denies equal rights for same sex couples. They pretty
much told states that do not already have same sex marriage
laws if you deny same sex couples the right to marry you are
subject to a Federal Law Suit.
I have been gay so long that I can honestly tell you all gay
people are in a struggle for equality and equal representation.
Yes, two steps forward; one step back and in some cases it has
been two steps back.
Australia in many aspects mirrors the U.S. as we both have
large right wing political parties and conservative religious
driven people. They will always be against anyone who is
not like them or bends to there will. I hope that the powers
that be in Australia will take the time to realize that in
there own families they probably have a relative who is gay
and wants to feel equal even in marriage
10. 2013-12-16 16:20  
Just my two-cents' worth, if I may : marriage is a man-made institution created to prevent a proliferation of bastards and, as it was then thought, domestic anarchy. Unfortunately, the same men who created those laws were in denial because they neglected to admit that, as long as one had a dick, one's schlong had a mind of its own and fidelity was the furthest thing from its head.

Marriage was created by heterosexual people to regulate their own behaviour lest they all behave like dogs in heat. And the operative principle behind that kind of regulation is CONTROL. Just as Church dogma was created by the fathers of the early Christian Church to impose control over the growing congregation and vest power in the hands of a few "consecrated" men in skirts who form what is now the Roman Curia, the institution of marriage was a conduit for vesting the power over domestic affairs in the hands of the state.

So, why all the angst against a heterosexual state seeking to protect a heterosexual institution? If it's an institution that the LGBT community wants, then why not campaign for something that can be wholly and uniquely ours? Why mimic something that was made for heterosexual people to regulate and control their own sexual behaviour? And, why have we fallen into the fairy tale web of delusion that heterosexual people have from one generation to the next been consistently spinning for themselves?

Frankly, I, personally, don't see what all the fuss is about - I'd rather wear my own shoes, a pair that truly fits, than try to wear someone else's that doesn't.
Comment edited on 2013-12-16 19:57:14
11. 2013-12-18 05:54  
The High Court of Australia has made it quite clear they are in favor of equality for gay people by citing incompatibility with the current legislation as they reason for the revoke of ACT's bill. The federal Marriage Act 1961 needs to be challenged through the court system as discriminatory and the High Court is going to find that the current law is unjust and has to be changed giving the government no other option. Easy!
Comment edited on 2013-12-18 06:00:49
Comment #12 was deleted by its author on 2013-12-18 18:42
13. 2013-12-18 18:44  
see around, they exist before we born, but we do not know about.
How many bacteria around you that you knew?
Do you know how all bacteria in marriage?

How do you know that Adam and Eve ever marry? from Holly book?
How do you know that the first Human were Adam and Eve? from Holly book?

What were the first Bird? a couple of woodpacker that then made evolution to cuckoo?

What were the first mamal? a couple of Dinosaur?
( i am here do not describe alot )

What were the first plants? Coconut that made evolution?

Are you sure that Australia High court know everything?
It mean that you are gay/ LGBT should forgive when Australia High Court made mistake.

In Religion. this term called : "God already forgive Prophet's Sins"
So, you are.
In Term of Nation, you may give term : " God already forgive High Court Sin".


But Offcourse, We have to know that God love Good and Better people.
Does God hate People that Better than Prophets?
Only Evil/Satan that Do not want to accept people that Better than prophets, I think.

So, Offcourse, you so do not be angry If Australia High court do not Understand Why Gay have to in Marriage.
But we are gay/LGBT should help Australia High court to know about it, to make them Undesrtand. Not easy for people/Court to understand something that beyond their capabilities.

So, Please gay/LGBT should not be angry to Australia High Court.

My experience at work,
A man wanted to leave job after time schedule to leave obtained. because they want to see their wife, children and fucking..hahahahaha.
It is different from myself. because I am single gay.
I always want to stay in factory to work because nothing to see at home. Even my Superior asked me to leave job at time
But I was stuborn because what I want to see was to do many jobs in factory as much as possible. I had no reason to see wife or children at home.
Also, in the morning. I always wanted to go to work earlier because i had no reason why I had to stay at home.

How people can make soap?
There was incompatibility between oil and water at first.
But Then, some people found something.
Something that make Oil can compatible with water.
something that actually exist around us before we born but we did not realize it.

Mean that, gay should be in marriage first before legislation.
Because High court make decision by data and monitoring data/evident.
And Gay/LGBT their selves should show that We are better.
There must be good impact for gay Marriage.
This is procedure on How High court make decision, i think.
There must be trial for people who do not understand nature.
(in darkness).

But, In Religion
Hollybook reveal term" faith" , a rule to accept something we do not understand.

So, Will Austalia High court have faith to Gay Marriage that they do not understand?
or High court just have faith to Hollybook, old books rather than to God Totaly?

Remember that God is not Holybooks.
And God is not as small as Hollybooks.
So, Will you accept God or Hollybooks?

Please log in to use this feature.

Select News Edition

Featured Profiles

Now ALL members can view unlimited profiles!

Languages

View this page in a different language:

Like Us on Facebook

Partners

 ILGA Asia - Fridae partner for LGBT rights in Asia IGLHRC - Fridae Partner for LGBT rights in Asia

Advertisement