GAY TRUTH

The High Court heard the ACT same-sex marriage case on Tuesday, December 3rd, reserving its decision until December 12. ACL’s Research Officer Daniel Simon attended the hearing and reports on the arguments presented. The Commonwealth argued that the ACT’s same-sex marriage law, passed in October and taking effect on December 7, is invalid because it is inconsistent with the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961 . Under the Australian Constitution , the federal government has the power to legislate for marriage. The Constitution also says that any state or territory law inconsistent with a federal law is invalid. In its arguments, the Commonwealth, represented by Solicitor-General Justin Gleeson SC, made two main points: the uniformity of marriage law in Australia , and the intention to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. One law for Australia Firstly, marriage is a federal power because this allows for one uniform law throughout the country. Prior to 1900, the separate colo

The future of the ACT's immoral homosexual marriage laws rightly hang in the balance today as the High Court prepares to hear a Commonwealth challenge to the legislation. The ACT Legislative Assembly with only the Greens and Labor (9 people only) passed the law in late October and the first immoral weddings are due to take place next Saturday in total defiance and presumption of the law. Nine people nine politicians think they have the authority to change the law of the land. The principle question in the case is whether the law is inconsistent with the Federal Marriage Act. The answer is obviously no. But homosexual advocates rarely accept no, but always seek to defy the law constantly. The Howard government and later Labor governments correctly blocked earlier efforts by the ACT to shove homosexuality and homosexual relationships on the nation. This displays again the level of arrogance by some state leaders. Constitutional law expert George Williams says this time the Com

Australian Coat of Arms (adopted 1912) (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Yesterday the NSW Upper House voted to protect marriage. For the 9th time, the attempt by radical activists to redefine the meaning of marriage in Australia has failed. In a 21-19 vote against the bill, NSW has joined Tasmania and the Commonwealth parliament in rejecting attempts to redefine marriage. Furthermore, the High Court decision , due early December, is likely to declare ACT’s attempt to redefine marriage as invalid. This would likely settle the matter for good, protecting marriage from any future attacks via state or territory legislatures. This would make the 10th such time activists have been defeated. Keep up the effort to defend children’s birth-right to their mother and father. However homosexual advocates don't obey nor support the rule of law. They care little about anything except themselves. They will continue to push their isolated immoral views, playing the victims, blame suicides,