Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

Australia gets a possible marriage window

Timothy Kincaid

December 3rd, 2013

Today the Australian High Court heard arguments as to whether or not the Australian Capital Territory (a political subdivision similar to the District of Columbia) could offer ‘same-sex marriage’.

In a nut-shell the arguments went a bit like this: the Commonwealth (Federal government) argued that it had sole right to define and codify rules relating to marriage and that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. The ACT countered that since the Commonwealth had defined marriage to be between a man and a woman, this new legal contract which they had created called ‘same-sex marriage’ didn’t fit the definition of marriage, was not marriage but something else entirely, and therefore did not fall under the Commonwealth’s control.

It’s a rather fun Catch 22. If they are real marriages, then what business has the Commonwealth in engaging in bigoted discrimination. And if they are not real marriages, then bugger off and leave the ACT alone.(ABC)

The court says it will hand down its decision next Thursday, and in the meantime will allow same-sex marriages to take place in Canberra.

‘Same-sex marriages’ (not to be confused with marriages between the same sex) can begin on Saturday. The court may rule against ACT, and despite the brilliance of the argument, I think it’s likely. However, there is hope that their legal ploy will work and even greater hope that those marriages which are conducted in the interim will retain their legality.

And if the court allows the distinction to go ACT’s way, I wonder whether an opposite sex couple could become ‘same-sex married’.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0

RussTX
December 3rd, 2013 | LINK

The “brilliance of the argument”? Hardly. More like a Three Stooges argument – the lawyers are just playing with words, because they know they have no case. Better to admit defeat and work honestly for SSM in parliament than play such a stupid game with the court.

Dave H
December 3rd, 2013 | LINK

It’s a clever and creative ploy, but I think the consequences will be exactly the opposite of what they want.

If they are successful in creating a separate legal definition called “same-sex marriage,” there are currently no laws on the books (I would imagine) that make any mention of or grant any rights to those in “same-sex marriages.” It’s an empty shell.

Paul Douglas
December 4th, 2013 | LINK

Whether it works or not, its just more water dripping against the stone of patriarchy. Eventually it will crack and erode.
Drip, drip, drip, drip…. .

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.