GAY TRUTH

Many Australians have welcomed the High Court’s decision to reject the ACT’s same-sex marriage laws . The ruling upholds uniformity of marriage laws across the country. The ACT’s “marriage” laws were inconsistent with the federal laws and incapable of concurrent operation. This ruling shows it is not the jurisdiction of states to legislate in regards to marriage. It’s important for marriage laws to continue to be administered federally – this is why the Marriage Act was passed in 1961 to have uniform marriage laws. Marriage between a man and a woman is good for society and beneficial for governments to uphold in legislation. It’s about providing a future for the next generation where they can be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible. Many Australians are also concerned for those same-sex couples who thought they were married under the ACT legislation. Were they fooled by the ACT labor and Green politicians?  Understandably they will be disappointed at the decision h

Andrew Bolt writes in the Herald Sun .  IT was meant to stop us worrying, but one bit of Labor's new policy for same-sex marriage is a warning. I mean this: "These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage. I'm sure most of the delegates at Labor's national conference on the weekend did mean it. They just wanted the law changed so men could marry men, and women could marry women. And they didn't want to use equal opportunity laws to then force churches to bless them. But I wouldn't take this guarantee to the bank. The whole idea of changing the Marriage Act is to force us collectively to bless same-sex unions despite the reluctance of many to do so. After all, forms of same-sex civil unions - which I support - already exist in Queensland, Tasmania , Victoria, the ACT and NSW. The legal difference between those unions and marriages are usually small, so what more is gai

Author: Andrew Bolt writes in the Herald Sun .  IT was meant to stop us worrying, but one bit of Labor's new policy for same-sex marriage is a warning. I mean this: "These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage. I'm sure most of the delegates at Labor's national conference on the weekend did mean it. They just wanted the law changed so men could marry men, and women could marry women. And they didn't want to use equal opportunity laws to then force churches to bless them. But I wouldn't take this guarantee to the bank. The whole idea of changing the Marriage Act is to force us collectively to bless same-sex unions despite the reluctance of many to do so. After all, forms of same-sex civil unions - which I support - already exist in Queensland, Tasmania , Victoria, the ACT and NSW. The legal difference between those unions and marriages are usually small, so what mor