ACT civil ceremonies to stay
The Australian Capital Territory may have brokered a deal to keep same-sex civil union ceremonies.
An ABC online report earlier today said the ACT Attorney-General Simon Corbell had claimed victory on the scheme.
Corbell met with Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland on Monday to discuss the scheme with reports the Rudd Government was strongly opposed to it.
Gay and lesbian couples will now be able to hold legally binding ceremonies in front of a civil partnership notary in the territory.
The ACT and Tasmania are the only two jurisdictions in Australia to allow same-sex couples to include a legally recognised ceremony.
The ACT parliament passed legislation earlier this month expanding the civil union scheme to allow same-sex couples to have civil union ceremonies recognised.
Locals Chris Rumble and Warren McGaw are the first couple to ‘tie the knot’, holding a ceremony with family and friends in the Old Parliament House rose gardens yesterday.
God married Adam & Eve. NOT Adam & Steve!
Sorry Kathy, I misread your name. Going through the comments again today I’m filled with shock & anger that people such as Bert have the temerity to espouse such bigotted filth. For God’s sake, even Catholic Spain has gay/same sex unions/marriage.
Burt,
I am fed up of closet homosexuals like you comming to gay websites to try and abuse us with arguements that have no factual base. Go see http://www.whywouldwe.net/site and when are ready to accept Jesus did not discriminate but you do, then you can think about the fires in Hell you are going into.
Pre Modern Euorpe accepted Gay Marriage, Imperial China did, and even the early Christian Church did. In 2004 John Howard changed the laws to exlcude us. Oh yes that bitch is also going to Hell with you.
Please Burt know your facts before you come here and prentend that you either know your Bible or History, and do not jerk off reading about us. You are Evil and disgusting to give us such filth. As I said I AM FED UP OF FUCKING CLOSET HOMOSEXUALS!
I applaud the SSO for providing the opportuhnity to express such a diverse range of ‘logic’. Re. Bert; now we see what we’re up against. I use the word ‘against’ not to provoke but to simplify a complex brainwashing technique of current societal controlling religions. Bert, I only agree with you on one point. Let’s abolish the word ‘marriage’ completely and have a squabble about what word to use to describe a unifying, loving relationship between two human beings. Cassie, I admire your biblical knowledge but you’re playing theosophical ping-pong against someone who’ll never be ‘converted’.
Poor Burt. He wants to marry his long term Boyfriend.
Burt, I am struggling to count the number of issues that you raise in your last posting… and on ALL of them I (and many dictionaries) disagree with you.
Firstly, on the definition of morality. My dictionary defines morality as either the quality of being moral, conformity (or degree of conformity) to moral ideals, a system of moral principles… Where is the mention of any god or religion there… A definition of moral is – concerned with or relating to the distinction between right and wrong, or based on a sense of right and wrong.
I suppose that someone who is perceived to be ‘moral’ is a person who tries to live doing what is right, as opposed to doing what is wrong… but by whose definition of what is right and wrong?
Burt, you appear to be a Christian… but saying that you are right because the bible says so, is akin to a politician saying that they are right because their policy material says so…
Right and wrong exist within society irrespective of the existence of any god or religion…. you appear to suggest that those without a Christian belief (irrespective of sexuality) are without morals… atheists more so… Who was it that said ‘judge not lest ye be judged”?
No matter what you think of homosexuals, or whether you agree or disagree with recognising relationships – homosexuality in and of itself is not immoral. The love, and the acts of love, between knowingly consenting adults, is both moral and right – as THEY may define it… I will quote again from your advertising literature (the bible)… Romans 14:13-14 – Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way.
I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
There is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
I know it pertains to food and the Mosaic Purity Laws of Leviticus etc. but the above statement could apply to many other things – and directly to the idea of judging others…
Burt, is it right or moral for a man to retain the right to marry if he regularly beats his wife?
Is it right or moral for a married man to rein the ‘right’ to marry if he is found guilty of child molestation?
Is simply being straight moral and all else immoral?
Dear Burt,
I’m afraid you may have broken Ernie’s dear heart. Here’s hoping you two finally get together. ;)
If gay marriage were allowed, people like Burt will have no choice but to have one themselves, and to finally live the life they’ve always longed for.
Dear Sam,
Using the term immoral itself assumes that man is not just an animal but was created by God. So you will agree that if God did not exist then morals are irrelevant. They simply do not exist. Without a creator then there is no purpose to anything. Any logical thinking person can come to that conclusion.
Marriage has nothing to do with the state. The catholic church introduced paperwork only relatively recently as a means of control. Up until 2006 in Scotland you could pronounce yourself married without signing a single paper. And to this day, the US states of Alabama, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and the District of Columbia, and several provinces in Canada still recognise ‘common law’ marriages.
Marriage is between a man and a woman; the state has never played a part until relatively recently.
If homosexuals desire the same legal rights as married men and women then yes – allow ‘civil unions’. But do not call it marriage. That is all I am saying.
Homosexuals are no more sinners than the average Joe Blow in the street. I am just expressing dismay that the long-standing institution of marriage as it has been in every culture and society on earth, is being completely degraded in a mere few short years.
The state has nothing to do with marriage. A legal license means nothing to God.
There is a way to confirm for yourself if morals actually mean anything. Read Acts 2:38 in your bible (or any bible).
Burt – No one is forcing you to accept anything.
As an analogy: it is currently LEGAL for an 80 year old man to marry an 22 year old woman? Does the fact that it is legal force everyone to like and adore such a union? No.
So two women or two men making a formal commitment and celebrating it with their friends and family in a private reception, does not force you or anyone to believe anything.
Besides which, homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice. That idea implies that heterosexuality is also a choice and that we are ALL born bisexual. I doubt that.
Dear Burt,
I would love it if same sex marriages became legal, partly because I would love to see you have to go to the inconvenience of having to cancel your marriage license, forcing you to also live an immoral lifestyle.
This isn’t about gay rights.
It’s about some people forcing society to accept their immoral lifestyle; something every society has rejected for good reason since the year dot.
As long as they don’t label it MARRIAGE (which it is NOT), they are free to do what they like.
But I would consider revoking my marriage license if we were to be bundled into the same category as homosexuals.