Immoral Homosexual marriage laws shoved down the throats of Australians by nine ACT politicans face off in High Court
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 Commonwealth is arguing its Marriage Legislation and the Family Law Act set up an exclusive, complete regime for dealing with marriage.
"They've only dealt with heterosexual marriage which they say still covers the whole field," he said. This was strengthened in 2004 when the Howard government amended the Federal Marriage Act to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, in a bid to knock out same-sex marriage.
The ACT has a very poor even arrogant argument that the Self-Government Act gives them room to move. But Professor Williams says this may in fact have created a loophole.
"The Commonwealth is arguing those amendments make it absolutely clear that federal law only covers marriage between a man and a woman and that there's no room left for the states and territories to pass a law about same-sex marriage," he said.
"What the ACT will argue on the other hand is that the Commonwealth law has now been narrowed. "It only deals with heterosexual marriage and so it leaves room for a state or territory to pass a law on different forms of marriage."
The ACT law would then be able to sit side by side with the federal law. Not all would agree. He says the case could go either way, and may depend on how the High Court views those 2004 amendments. This is called twisting words with no support from Australians. This should go to a referendum.
Professor Williams says the Commonwealth case is strong. "The ACT has a strong argument that the Self-Government Act gives them room to move and in fact there's extra scope for a territory to pass a law in this area as opposed to a state," he said.
"It really will turn on the High Court's vision of what scope a territory has to pass laws on the same topic as the Commonwealth." What a dangerous game. The 2004 amendments were very clear in both intent and purpose, but homosexual advocates refuse to abide by the law, they live in their own little world and are happy to destroy heterosexual marriage for their own purposes, which according to Penny Wong is just 'acceptance' but they are destroying marriage in order to achieve that unlikely unachievable goal.
Thankfully, a recent similar bill in Tasmania was defeated, and a bid by the New South Wales Upper House to legalise homosexual marriage was lost by a single vote.
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 Commonwealth is arguing its Marriage Legislation and the Family Law Act set up an exclusive, complete regime for dealing with marriage.
"They've only dealt with heterosexual marriage which they say still covers the whole field," he said. This was strengthened in 2004 when the Howard government amended the Federal Marriage Act to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, in a bid to knock out same-sex marriage.
The ACT has a very poor even arrogant argument that the Self-Government Act gives them room to move. But Professor Williams says this may in fact have created a loophole.
"The Commonwealth is arguing those amendments make it absolutely clear that federal law only covers marriage between a man and a woman and that there's no room left for the states and territories to pass a law about same-sex marriage," he said.
"What the ACT will argue on the other hand is that the Commonwealth law has now been narrowed. "It only deals with heterosexual marriage and so it leaves room for a state or territory to pass a law on different forms of marriage."
The ACT law would then be able to sit side by side with the federal law. Not all would agree. He says the case could go either way, and may depend on how the High Court views those 2004 amendments. This is called twisting words with no support from Australians. This should go to a referendum.
Professor Williams says the Commonwealth case is strong. "The ACT has a strong argument that the Self-Government Act gives them room to move and in fact there's extra scope for a territory to pass a law in this area as opposed to a state," he said.
"It really will turn on the High Court's vision of what scope a territory has to pass laws on the same topic as the Commonwealth." What a dangerous game. The 2004 amendments were very clear in both intent and purpose, but homosexual advocates refuse to abide by the law, they live in their own little world and are happy to destroy heterosexual marriage for their own purposes, which according to Penny Wong is just 'acceptance' but they are destroying marriage in order to achieve that unlikely unachievable goal.
Thankfully, a recent similar bill in Tasmania was defeated, and a bid by the New South Wales Upper House to legalise homosexual marriage was lost by a single vote.
