There were tears of indignation outside of Australia’s High Court yesterday, but it was the result that everyone expected: a law passed on December 3 authorising same-sex marriage in the Australian Capital Territory was unconstitutional. The marriages of the 30 or so gay and lesbian couples who had exchanged vows under the law have now been annulled.
“This is devastating for those couples who married this week and for their families,” said the spokesman for Australian Marriage Equality, Rodney Croome. “However, this is just a temporary defeat. What is far more important is that the ACT’s law facilitated the first same-sex marriage on Australian soil and showed the nation the love and commitment of same-sex couples. The marriages in the ACT prove that this reform is not about politics, but about love, commitment, and fairness.”
Indiana’s Libertarian Party chair, Dan Drexler, announced in early November his opposition to a proposed constitutional amendment that would prevent Indiana from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. But the libertarian reason he gave for his opposition does not support that opposition.
Drexler stated, “Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. . . .Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.” He added that he supports efforts “to remove government from intervening in personal relationships altogether.”
Clearly, the logical libertarian conclusion would be to keep government out of the relationship-licensing business as much as possible, not to support the extension of governmental “seals of approval” from heterosexual friendships to homosexual ones as well.
In 2008, Lauren Beth Czekala-Chatham and Dana Ann Melancon traveled from Mississippi to San Francisco for their dream wedding.
A few short years later the dream dissolved and now Czekala-Chatham wants Mississippi to grant her a divorce. Small problem. Her home state doesn’t recognize female marriage. No marriage, no divorce.
Have gay rights activists overplayed their hand? Will Czekala-Chatham’s wedding buyer’s remorse be followed by American voter remorse as more citizens learn of the disruption caused by same sex marriage laws passed in some states, but not recognized in others?
“Czekala-Chatham, a 51-year-old credit analyst and mother of two teenage sons from an earlier straight marriage, filed for divorce in chancery court in September. She wants to force Mississippi to recognize the same-sex marriage for the purpose of granting the divorce.”
Liz Cheney (left) and Mary Cheney (right) at the 2005 Presidential Inauguration
When Senate hopeful Liz Cheney stated on Fox News that she supports traditional marriage, her sister Mary and her partner, Heather Poe, quickly expressed their outrage on social media. Much to the disappointment of their father, former Vice-President Dick Cheney, Liz and Mary’s private disagreement about the definition of marriage has now become very public.
We might never run for public office, but in the future, many of us will face Liz Cheney’s dilemma: How do we support our same-sex attracted friends and relatives without being compelled to endorse same sex marriage?
“Having been married only a year and a half, I’ve recently come to the conclusion that marriage isn’t for me. Now before you start making assumptions, keep reading.
“I met my wife in high school when we were 15 years old. We were friends for ten years until…until we decided no longer wanted to be just friends. :) I strongly recommend that best friends fall in love. Good times will be had by all.
I'm only half-kidding. Australian woman Jodi Rose did in fact marry Le Pont du Diable bridge (also known as the Devil's Bridge) on June 17. But it cannot be confirmed that the bridge, raised by Benedictines, remained Catholic throughout its lifespan. This peculiar union was not blessed by a Catholic priest. It was blessed instead by the mayor of the neighbouring town. For those who are wondering, here are five reasons why the Catholic Church would never have allowed marriage between this woman and this bridge.
1. The bridge never consented.
Ms. Rose took advantage of the bridge's inanimate nature and married it even though the bridge could not possibly express its consent to the marriage.
This weekend my daughter was catching up on her college homework. Chapter Ten in her psychology textbook is titled “Sex and Gender.” It covers topics such as gender differences, similarities, and stereotypes. The chapter wends its way from transgender issues to sexual harassment to the glass ceiling in the workplace, the boundary beyond which women are not welcome. The book defines sexism as “differential treatment of an individual on the basis of his or her sex.”
Nowadays more than half of all women in the United States work outside the home. Although they are garnering high-profile positions in private industry, government and politics, there is one domain in which they are increasingly discriminated against and excluded: families.
Today in Canberra nine people – eight Labor and one from the Greens – will set themselves up to decide marriage policy affecting the entire nation.
Capitalising on the normal disruption of a change of federal government, the ACT government will introduce a bill for same-sex marriage into the territory’s 17-member assembly. With no residency requirement, the Labor-Greens government is mischievously creating a problem for interstate people who will not be married when they cross back over the border.
The Liberals, sensibly, are not buying into it and will oppose the bill on constitutional grounds.
The commonwealth parliament has the power to override territory legislation and, because marriage is a federal responsibility, it should do this. It is not in Australia’s interest to have a hodgepodge of marriage laws. It is concerning that same-sex marriage advocates say they…
click here to read whole article and make comments
If you can bear the clinking of plates, this address by Sherif Girgis is well-worth listening to. He is a Princeton graduate, Rhodes Scholar and graduate student at Princeton and Yale in law and philosophy. As a colleague of Princeton Professor Robert P. George he wrote a widely-read paper defending traditional marriage and attacking the notion of same-sex marriage. His words are cool, charitable and lucid.
Thank you, Brian Greig, for summing up the ultimate outcome of the same-sex marriage campaign in four crisp sentences: the abolition of marriage altogether.
Mr Greig is a former Senator from Western Australia who was the first open homosexual in Federal Parliament. In 1999 he told the Senate that no gays and lesbians he knew wanted same-sex marriage. (See yesterday's Conjugality.) Now, in a letter to The Australian, he explains why he has changed his mind.
The purpose of the campaign, he says, is to attain “respect and recognition”.
“I see now that exclusion from such a fundamental social and legal institution as marriage runs to the heart of the prejudice and stigma gay and lesbian people still face.