Well -- that is true as far as it goes. However, Section 46 of the Marriage Act commanded celebrants of marriages (those performing the ceremony) to explain the nature of marriage to the couple involved. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/ ... 5/s46.html This incorporated the language of the case law at the time, from a case called Hyde v Hyde (1866) LR 1 P&D 130 and in that case Lord Penzance wrote, ‘marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.' Essentially, the legislature assumed the common law definition of marriage in the western world.Hermit wrote:The Australian Commonwealth Marriage Act (1961) contradicts this. In 2004 it was amended to specifically define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The amendment reads thus:Coito ergo sum wrote:In all fairness, they're not wanting to extend. They're wanting to preserve the status quo. Gay marriage is new, and the civil law never permitted it in the western world until, like 10 years ago, and most places on the globe still don't permit it.JimC wrote:What I find very irritating is churches campaigning against it. Naturally, they have a right not to conduct marriage ceremonies for gays within their churches, but they want to extend that to an area that's none of their business, civil marriage services, which is what most gay couples would want, I'd imagine...
PS - If gay marriage was legal, but a pair of gays was moaning because they couldn't get married in church like their parents, I'd tell 'em tough shit...
Previous to 1961 there was no Commonwealth law regarding marriage. The matter was left in the hands of the state governments. The amendment is the only change made to the act since its inception and the present.
- Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia
In 1961, the idea of a man and a man getting married was laughable. It wasn't even entertained as a serious notion. And, frankly, it would likely have been considered an admission of the crime of sodomy, which which was a crime in Australia until the mid 1970s. It really strains credulity to think that a legislature criminalized a man and a man fucking, but legalized their marriage.
I get why pro gay marriage folks want to portray this as "taking away" rights, but really -- the fact remains that the 1960s and 70s were considered progressive at the time because they decriminalized same sex relationships and merely recast them as a mental disorder to be treated. Prior to the 1960s, they were jailed and a few decades earlier, hanged.
Yes, I would support either elimination of all civil unions and instead just treat everyone as individuals, or alternatively just allow for any marriage of one human and another human, and leave it at that.Hermit wrote: Having said all that, let me register my opinion that I do not care about the institutions of marriage one jot. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam began legislating rights for partners who are in a de facto relationship in the early 70s. Since Kevin Rudd cleaned up the remaining legislative inequities before he was turfed out by the right wing of the party he lead, that institution has become redundant from a legislative point of view. Except, of course, for those who see it as a backstop for their antiquated moral tenets.
