# Australia bans gay marriage



## Vikrant

SYDNEY: Australia's highest court struck down a landmark law on Thursday that had begun allowing the country's first gay marriages, shattering the dreams of more than two dozen same-sex newlyweds whose marriages will now be annulled less than a week after their weddings. 

The federal government had challenged the validity of the Australian Capital Territory's law that had allowed gay marriages in the nation's capital and its surrounding area starting last Saturday. 

For Ivan Hinton, who married his partner Chris Teoh on Saturday, the result was heartbreaking. The couple just received their marriage certificate on Wednesday and immediately applied to change their surnames to Hinton-Teoh. Still, Hinton said he doesn't regret going through with the wedding, and will always consider Teoh his husband. 

"This was an unprecedented and historic opportunity," he said. "I wouldn't have missed it for the world." 

The federal government's lawyer had argued that having different marriage laws in various Australian states and territories would create confusion. The ACT, which passed the law in October, said it should stand because it governs couples outside the federal definition of marriage as being between members of the opposite sex. 

The High Court unanimously ruled that the ACT's law could not operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act, which was amended in 2004 to define marriage as between a man and a woman. 

"The Marriage Act does not now provide for the formation or recognition of marriage between same sex couples. The Marriage Act provides that a marriage can be solemnised in Australia only between a man and a woman," the court said in a statement issued alongside its ruling. "That Act is a comprehensive and exhaustive statement of the law of marriage." 

Rodney Croome, national director of the advocacy group Australian Marriage Equality, said his group knows of about 30 same-sex couples who have married since Saturday, though the actual number may be slightly higher. The court decision essentially nullifies their marriages, as it means the ACT law under which they were wed was invalid. 

Outside the court in Canberra, a tearful Croome, flanked by several same-sex couples who were married in the past week, said the ruling was a defeat for marriage equality but there had been a greater victory this week. 

"And that victory was the nation saw for the first time, I believe, what is really at the core of this issue  they've seen that marriage equality is not about protest or politics or even about laws in the constitution, ultimately. Marriage equality is about love, commitment, family and fairness," Croome said. 

In its decision, the court wrote that the federal government is responsible for deciding whether same-sex marriage should be legalized. The ruling means that no Australian state or territory can make that decision, said Sydney University constitutional lawyer Anne Twomey. 

Lyle Shelton, managing director of Australian Christian Lobby, which opposes same-sex marriage, praised the court ruling and said common sense had prevailed. 

As for the ruling's impact on the newly-wedded couples, Shelton said it was "really sad that they were put in a position" in which they were allowed to marry before the court handed down its judgment. 

Prime Minister Tony Abbott opposes gay marriage and his coalition blocked two federal bills last year that would have allowed legal recognition of same-sex partnerships. 

The ruling comes a day after India's Supreme Court struck down a 2009 lower court decision to decriminalize homosexuality. 

Gay marriage has legal recognition in 18 countries as well as 16 US states plus the District of Columbia. 

Australian court rejects law allowing gay marriage - The Times of India


----------



## ScienceRocks

Abbot is a fascist.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Good thing to hear.


----------



## Tank

Outback not broke back


----------



## Noomi

The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Noomi said:


> The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.



Now you know how Most Americans feel when a activist judge legislates from the bench.


----------



## novasteve

Noomi said:


> The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.



Alec Baldwin thought process. Claim you are pro gay then make a homophobic comment


----------



## Sunni Man

Good for Australia!!  ........


----------



## peach174

Noomi said:


> The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.



If the majority of the people support same sex marriage, why did your voters vote Abbott in by an overwhelming majority?


----------



## Katzndogz

Australia is grasping at sanity.   Good for them.


----------



## sfcalifornia

Noomi said:


> The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.



I have no doubt Australia will approve and support same sex marriage in the very near future.  Australia has always been more advanced socially than the US.  This is a minor set back.  The fight for marriage equality will continue in Australia and around the world despite the ignorance.


----------



## sfcalifornia

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know how Most Americans feel when a activist judge legislates from the bench.
Click to expand...


I think you mean:  Now you know what happens when the will of the majority is deemed unconstitutional.


----------



## novasteve

sfcalifornia said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt Australia will approve and support same sex marriage in the very near future.  Australia has always been more advanced socially than the US.  This is a minor set back.  The fight for marriage equality will continue in Australia and around the world despite the ignorance.
Click to expand...


If you believe in marriage equality you believe in incestuous marriage


----------



## sfcalifornia

novasteve said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt Australia will approve and support same sex marriage in the very near future.  Australia has always been more advanced socially than the US.  This is a minor set back.  The fight for marriage equality will continue in Australia and around the world despite the ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe in marriage equality you believe in incestuous marriage
Click to expand...


I believe you're an idiot.


----------



## R.C. Christian

I don't care what OZ does but poop pushers should not be allowed to marry in my country. They can move to France or somewhere gay like that.


----------



## sfcalifornia

R.C. Christian said:


> I don't care what OZ does but poop pushers should not be allowed to marry in my country. They can move to France or somewhere gay like that.



Speaking of idiots, why is it dumbfucks like you always claim gays are the only ones pushing poop?

You wack off constantly to women getting fucked up the ass porn in between posting stupid stuff here on USMB.  

There's so much straight anal porn nowadays, you have a hard time picking your favorite.

So should straight poop pushers not be allowed to marry here as well or just the gay ones you hate so much?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

sfcalifornia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know how Most Americans feel when a activist judge legislates from the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you mean:  Now you know what happens when the will of the majority is deemed unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


All I have to say is Proposition 8 
Now what you fucking hack?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

sfcalifornia said:


> novasteve said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt Australia will approve and support same sex marriage in the very near future.  Australia has always been more advanced socially than the US.  This is a minor set back.  The fight for marriage equality will continue in Australia and around the world despite the ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe in marriage equality you believe in incestuous marriage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you're an idiot.
Click to expand...


It is a valid point.


----------



## sfcalifornia

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you know how Most Americans feel when a activist judge legislates from the bench.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean:  Now you know what happens when the will of the majority is deemed unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I have to say is Proposition 8
> Now what you fucking hack?
Click to expand...


Proposition 8 no longer exists.
Now what you fucking hater?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

sfcalifornia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you mean:  Now you know what happens when the will of the majority is deemed unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I have to say is Proposition 8
> Now what you fucking hack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proposition 8 no longer exists.
> Now what you fucking hater?
Click to expand...


What happen to the will of the people?
The majority wanted it.


----------



## Vikrant

*
ACT gay marriage law is ruled invalid by high court of Australia
*

ACT gay marriage law is ruled invalid by high court of Australia | Society | theguardian.com


----------



## Noomi

peach174 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the majority of the people support same sex marriage, why did your voters vote Abbott in by an overwhelming majority?
Click to expand...


Because they hated the fact the Labor Party kept switching leaders, and the fact that we allowed asylum seekers to enter our country.

Abbott's scare campaign worked. He claimed he would stop the boats coming, yet they are still arriving.


----------



## sfcalifornia

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I have to say is Proposition 8
> Now what you fucking hack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proposition 8 no longer exists.
> Now what you fucking hater?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What happen to the will of the people?
> The majority wanted it.
Click to expand...

Seriously?  Are you so fucking new to this you don't know how this works?

If the majority want it so badly, then _amend the Constitution_ to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.  

See how simple that is?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

sfcalifornia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proposition 8 no longer exists.
> Now what you fucking hater?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What happen to the will of the people?
> The majority wanted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously?  Are you so fucking new to this you don't know how this works?
> 
> If the majority want it so badly, then _amend the Constitution_ to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.
> 
> See how simple that is?
Click to expand...

Your words, OR  would you like to retract what you said. 



sfcalifornia said:


> *I think you mean:  Now you know what happens when the will of the majority is deemed unconstitutional.*


----------



## sfcalifornia

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What happen to the will of the people?
> The majority wanted it.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Are you so fucking new to this you don't know how this works?
> 
> If the majority want it so badly, then _amend the Constitution_ to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.
> 
> See how simple that is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your words, OR  would you like to retract what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think you mean:  Now you know what happens when the will of the majority is deemed unconstitutional.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Oh my god, seriously?  You seemed to be a little smarter than ShootSpeeders but now I'm not so sure.    

The will of the majority was deemed unconstitutional in the Prop 8 case because the will of the majority hasn't amended the Constitution to discriminate based on sexual orientation yet.  

Amend the Constitution first to allow discrimination against gays, _then_ pass local laws that discriminate against gays. 

It's really not that hard.  You do know how the government works?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

sfcalifornia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Are you so fucking new to this you don't know how this works?
> 
> If the majority want it so badly, then _amend the Constitution_ to allow discrimination based on sexual orientation.
> 
> See how simple that is?
> 
> 
> 
> Your words, OR  would you like to retract what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I think you mean:  Now you know what happens when the will of the majority is deemed unconstitutional.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my god, seriously?  You seemed to be a little smarter than ShootSpeeders but now I'm not so sure.
> 
> The will of the majority was deemed unconstitutional in the Prop 8 case because the will of the majority hasn't amended the Constitution to discriminate based on sexual orientation yet.
> 
> Amend the Constitution first to allow discrimination against gays, _then_ pass local laws that discriminate against gays.
> 
> It's really not that hard.  You do know how the government works?
Click to expand...


In other words the will of the majority can go pound sand if they don't agree with you?
GOT IT.


----------



## sfcalifornia

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your words, OR  would you like to retract what you said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, seriously?  You seemed to be a little smarter than ShootSpeeders but now I'm not so sure.
> 
> The will of the majority was deemed unconstitutional in the Prop 8 case because the will of the majority hasn't amended the Constitution to discriminate based on sexual orientation yet.
> 
> Amend the Constitution first to allow discrimination against gays, _then_ pass local laws that discriminate against gays.
> 
> It's really not that hard.  You do know how the government works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words the will of the majority can go pound sand if they don't agree with you?
> GOT IT.
Click to expand...

It's not me they disagree with, it's the Constitution.  The will of the majority has to change the Constitution first before they can pass laws against gays.


----------



## High_Gravity

Hmm, I thought it was already legal there? odd.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

sfcalifornia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my god, seriously?  You seemed to be a little smarter than ShootSpeeders but now I'm not so sure.
> 
> The will of the majority was deemed unconstitutional in the Prop 8 case because the will of the majority hasn't amended the Constitution to discriminate based on sexual orientation yet.
> 
> Amend the Constitution first to allow discrimination against gays, _then_ pass local laws that discriminate against gays.
> 
> It's really not that hard.  You do know how the government works?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words the will of the majority can go pound sand if they don't agree with you?
> GOT IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not me they disagree with, it's the Constitution.  The will of the majority has to change the Constitution first before they can pass laws against gays.
Click to expand...


The people of California said no to gay marriage passage of Prop 8 Judge says hell no and tells the majority no.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your position?


----------



## sfcalifornia

bigrebnc1775 said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words the will of the majority can go pound sand if they don't agree with you?
> GOT IT.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not me they disagree with, it's the Constitution.  The will of the majority has to change the Constitution first before they can pass laws against gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people of California said no to gay marriage passage of Prop 8 Judge says hell no and tells the majority no.
> *Do you not see the hypocrisy in your position?*
Click to expand...


Nope.  That's the way the law works.  Don't like it?  Change the law.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

sfcalifornia said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not me they disagree with, it's the Constitution.  The will of the majority has to change the Constitution first before they can pass laws against gays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The people of California said no to gay marriage passage of Prop 8 Judge says hell no and tells the majority no.
> *Do you not see the hypocrisy in your position?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  That's the way the law works.  Don't like it?  Change the law.
Click to expand...


The majority of California supported prop 8 and the law was overturned by a judge and that is how laws work? Are you smoking crack?


----------



## Damien

Just because some other countries have made it legal for homosexuals to marry does not mean that Australia has to follow suit. Thankfully we have a Prime Minister with a bit of courage (unlike Obama who is sitting on the fence). And the majority of Australians DO NOT support homosexual marriage. That is the lie of the homosexual community wanting you to believe that. And if homosexual marriage is so important here in Oz why haven't the members of parliament who are homosexual and have partners do it??


----------



## Luddly Neddite

R.C. Christian said:


> I don't care what OZ does but poop pushers should not be allowed to marry in my country. They can move to France or somewhere gay like that.



Then go live in Iran or Russia because, like it or not, the US has the Constitution and you will never change that.


----------



## Sunni Man

Luddly Neddite said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what OZ does but poop pushers should not be allowed to marry in my country. They can move to France or somewhere gay like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then go live in Iran or Russia because, like it or not, the US has the Constitution and you will never change that.
Click to expand...

Faggots and the right to pack fudge aren't mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

True story.........


----------



## Delta4Embassy

That's sad to hear. But laws come and go and their very nature means they can change. The democratic world will fully allow and support gay marriage eventually. It's unavoidable in a democracy since forbidding it via secular law is impossible to justify. 

Resistance is futile.


----------



## bianco

peach174 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal Government has no right interfering in the will of the people. The majority of Australians support same sex marriage, and if Abbott doesn't like it, he can go and suck a dick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the majority of the people support same sex marriage, why did your voters vote Abbott in by an overwhelming majority?
Click to expand...


There were more important issues to worry about...like money, ... stupid carbon tax, people-smuggling boats arriving from Indonesia etc every other day costing taxpaxers $12million each boatload of illegals/asylum-seekers/economic immigrants call them whatever you like...etc, etc etc.

Gay marriage is way down the list...unfortunately for gay people.


----------

