Australian marries his Asian bf in Canberra saturday

[lonelywombat]

[attachment=0:3tw80g1b]wedding10-20131209121514756886-620x349.jpg[/attachment:3tw80g1b]

Ivan Hinton and Chris Teoh during their wedding at Old Parliament house on Saturday.Photo: Rohan Thomson. rt131207ivanchris-5175.jpg

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ ... z2mwNT5Px6 (http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/the-pulse-live/politics-live-december-9-2013-20131209-2z01d.html#ixzz2mwNT5Px6)


The papers have been full of the first and maybe only temporary same sex marriages this weekend, This young man married his Asian boyfriend , my goodness what a doll, and they have my total support.

Congrats to the ACT and here's hoping for the High Court supporting this ruling on thursday

[AsiaGuys]

The image above isn't showing but here is a nice pic of them

http://www.asiaguys.net/images/ivan-hinton-chris-teoh.jpg

[Marsilius]

Very sadly, their marriage has very quickly been annulled:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/1 ... gay-voices (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/12/australia-gay-marriage-overturned_n_4429434.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices)

[lonelywombat]

There was a lot of disappointment but the Full Court decision states it is within the Federal Marriage act and the Abbott Government has the right to amend that.

The discussions after the first shock has been, that despite the loss it is another step forward and one step closer to the aim.

The call on Abbott to allow this to be discussed in the Government party room in Feb 2014. is becoming stronger.

[lonelywombat]

Today Friday the pressure starts to come on Abbott from a senior cabinet member of the Government. Malcolm Turnbull was leader of the opposition but lost to Abbott by just one vote.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... y-marriage (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/13/tony-abbott-under-pressure-for-conscience-vote-on-gay-marriage)

[timmberty]

i see no point in gay marriage. never have and never will. that is my point of view. its not a view shared by all but many people feel the same.
am i allowed to add my view or will this be sent off to the holding room because im sure some deinty memebers will be upset by my view and ask the owner to remove it.

[lonelywombat]

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013 ... l-equality (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/12/act-gay-marriage-decision-paves-the-way-for-national-equality)
at 7.30 am there are already 60 comments on this post
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equal marriage campaigners should be celebrating the high courtтАЩs rejection of the ACTтАЩs Marriage Equality Act.

True, months of legislative effort went up in smoke when six judges handed down their unanimous decision. And 31 gay and lesbian marriages celebrated so publicly in Canberra this week bit the dust.

But the high court has done remarkable work. It went out of its way to declare that that there are no historical, religious or constitutional barriers to same-sex marriage in Australia. The way is open so long as the law is national.

Theirs is not the language of equal marriage advocates, but the judges unanimously declared that in 2013 old notions of Christian matrimony donтАЩt decide the meaning of marriage in the Australian constitution.

тАЬMarriage law is and must be recognised now to be more complex,тАЭ they said. тАЬSome jurisdictions outside Australia permit polygamy. Some jurisdictions outside Australia, in a variety of constitutional settings, now permit marriage between same-sex couples.

тАЬThese facts cannot be ignored or hidden. It is not now possible [if it ever was] to decide what the juristic concept of marriage includes by confining attention to the marriage law of only those countries which provide for forms of marriage which accord with a preconceived notion of what marriage тАШshouldтАЩ be.тАЭ

Politicians may decide, as they did under John Howard in 2004, that marriage in Australia will be allowed only between men and women. But thatтАЩs politics, declared the judges, not constitutional law.

For those Australians who support same-sex marriage, the key passage in the high court judgment is a definition of marriage blind to gender: тАЬMarriage is to be understood in the constitution as referring to a consensual union formed between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirementsтАжтАЭ

The ACT law came undone for trying to muscle in on the commonwealthтАЩs territory. Not wanting to replicate in Australia the chaos of marriage laws in the United States, the founding fathers here decided on one national law for marriage and divorce.

The ACT government argued the national parliament had given the territory room to move in 2004 by ruling out same-sex marriage. So the commonwealth would look after heterosexual marriage and the ACT homosexual marriage.

The court was not persuaded. тАЬThe absence of a provision permitting same sex marriage does not mean that the territory legislature may make such a provision. It does not mean that a territory law permitting same sex marriage can operate concurrently with the federal law.тАЭ

So by a vote of 6-0 the ACTтАЩs law died. But the message of the judgment went far beyond the death of this venturesome piece of legislation. The judges are saying as clearly as they can that if the national parliament recognises equal marriage, the high court wonтАЩt stand in its way.

For campaigners, the only battle ahead is political.

I'd do him but his use-by date must be rapidly approaching.