Because they have nothing to gain through it, perhaps? Why marry simply for the sake of being married, rather than to show a commitment to someone you love?Tyrannical wrote:Homosexual men and lesbians are free to marry each other, and always have been. Why effeminate men and masculine women don't take more advantage of it, I don't know.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
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...
Are you certain that there are absolutely no legal inequalities between married couples, and couples (of whatever gender) in a de facto relationship?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
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.
Two years, actually, unless there is a child of the de facto relationship, or that the party to the de facto relationship who applies for the order or declaration made substantial contributions of a kind mentioned in paragraph 90SM(4)(a), (b) or (c) of the Family Law Act 1975 or that failure to make the order or declaration would result in serious injustice to the applicant, or that the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory. I think that has pretty much all bases covered that apply to the legislated institution of marriage.JimC wrote:Are you certain that there are absolutely no legal inequalities between married couples, and couples (of whatever gender) in a de facto relationship?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
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.
Without being certain, I gather that you have to be living together for at least a year before certain legal protections kick in, whereas they would apply immediately a marriage certificate is signed...
Fuck off Finland, you emotionless robots you.MiM wrote:We don't have "fault" divorces in Finland. There is not even a place to write the "reason" on the form you use to file for a divorce. Alimony is paid to cover the expenses of children, and only in special cases to spouses, and then only for a limited time.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 36 guests
