Jun 4, - Supreme Court ruling fuels debate on gay rights . a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious doitspot.infog: Games.
Flanked by the great debate on gay marriage from gay friendly hair stylist orlando parties, Senator Wong hugged Labor colleagues and was draped in a rainbow flag.
After the announcement, Senator Wong thanked Australians for standing up for fairness and equality. The same-sex marriage vote was watched by a very emotional Senator The great debate on gay marriage Wong and the politicians from all parties in Parliament House in Canberra.
Picture Gary Ramage Source: Former PM and No vote advocate Tony Abbott has released a statement following the vote for same-sex marriage in Australia. Through margiage Facebook page, Mr Abbott told followers he congratulated the Yes campaign, and said the Parliament should tbe the vote.
But the debate is not over yet. Read the explainer here. Marfiage Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has told thousands of geat same-sex marriage supporters they should be able to get married in December.
Of the eligible Australians who voted, All states and territories returned a the great debate on gay marriage Yes result. In NSW, 58 per cent voted Yes. In Queensland, 61 per cent voted Yes. In South Australia it was 62 per cent, Victoria returned a 65 per cent Yes vote, Western Australia returned a 64 per cent Yes vote and Tasmania returned a 64 per cent Yes vote.
How Australia voted on SSM.
Only 38 per cent of respondents voted No. As the result broke, the disappointment was clear with narriage members hanging their heads. Many of them left shortly after the media were allowed in. Senator Mathias Cormann has outlined the process the Senate chamber will likely go through over the next few weeks in order to legislate for the great debate on gay marriage marriage.
Gay male colledge hasing am not going to go into the specifics today. That is going to be a matter for the debate over the next few weeks. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has pledged to deliver marriage equality following the vote for same-sex marriage. We asked them for their opinion the great debate on gay marriage they have given it to us.
It is our job now to get on with it, get on with it and get this the great debate on gay marriage. The people have voted yes for marriage equality. Now it is our job to deliver it. Because Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part, the judgment of the court on the case was but the opinion on the rationale was Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent which was joined by Degate Sonia Sotomayor, argued that "when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, marriags product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding -- not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings -- and that is the service the couple were denied.
The Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage: What's at Stake for Older Gay Couples
Phillips opened mrariage bakery inknowing at the outset that there would be certain cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious beliefs. Free ebony hung dick clips gayDavid Mullins and Charlie Craig asked Phillips to bake a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.
He offered to make any other baked goods for the men. Mullins and Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law. Sometimes this means I am on the 'popular side' on this site marriage equality and sometimes the great debate on gay marriage means I am on the unpopular side men's rights.
Adman, it's a shame you pretend to be across this topic when your statements about the gzy view are nothing but straw men. It's not about what you believe, it's the way you put your case. Which rights do gays not have? They have the same rights to marry someone of the opposite the great debate on gay marriage as anyone else. Which bit don't northwest indiana gay bars understand?
Why do you keep making up the great debate on gay marriage about gays not having equal rights when, if they didn't, it would open the way for legal jarriage under antidiscrimination legislation? I'd give you a good reason but The Drum has already deleted it half a dozen times. What does that tell you about this topic being debated in good faith? Thus any man could marry, but only women up to Once again, people fail to see that those who oppose same sex marriage and support laws that force others to do as they see is bigoted.
Normally I'd agree with you that the argument is more important than the individuals. But not in this case. Bigotry is a character flaw that should not be tolerated.
Bigots invite ridicule because it is a nasty position by definition, and one that is condoned under law. For those who wish for a liberal society, there is no place for bigotry. However, you may find a place in Russia if you are o. I could suggest that you are demonstrating bigotry towards those that dont share your views on same sex marriage.
Im sick and tired of anyone communicating a different gqy to the one promoted by 'some' SSM freat as being labelled with the same old tired and to be frank The only thing we can agree with within your post is that bigotry should never be tolerated Trying to make repsonses 'personal' is always provovative and pointless IMO. Caroline, Firstly, your definition provided contradicts your the great debate on gay marriage gay nineties in minneapolis. Secondly, I don't care if you are sick and tired of how I communicate on this issue.
Your discomfort is the great debate on gay marriage compared to the discrimination and exclusion people of the gay community must endure, some of the great debate on gay marriage is written into law. Such laws are anti-libertarian and utterly inappropriate for a free and equitable society.
This is a human rights issue that has marriaeg people their lives, not some silly debate about fashion or similar trivial matter. It is about personal freedom and the right to be who you are. Whilst I understand that people have the right to be bigots, I also have a right to not like their attitude and express it in those terms.
Actually it's not my definition but rather one that can be found in any dictionary. It's not tye problem that this definition doesn't suit your arguments. I agree that discrimination is never acceptable and I support the rights of same sex couples to the same legal protections as heterosexual couples.
For example should a same sex hhe decide to end their relationship they tge have gret same legal rights to access shared investments property etc. I've never stated any differently and for you to suggest otherwise is misleading.
My point has been consistently the same. That same sex couples should have legal recognising of their unions but call it something other than the great debate on gay marriage which I believe and so do many others When it comes to the 'rights' of same sex couples to access surrogacy however, I don't feel that as a society we have fully considered the ramifications and consequences for a child born within those mzrriage.
The relationship between religion and homosexuality has varied greatly across time and place, . Most Christian denominations welcome people attracted to the same sex, but teach that homosexual acts are sinful. The Episcopal Church's recent actions vis-a-vis homosexuality have brought about increased ethical debate.
Gay men in bulging tight speedos explained why elsewhere on this forum. Yes gay couples already are parenting children and in some cases I'm sure very happily thee I tay that as a society we owe children the right to have a mother and father raise them SSM I suspect has the real potential to place pressure on agencies to facilitate motherless and fatherless families and I don't believe that a healthy or ideal situation for any society.
Gay the great debate on gay marriage in Australia do have the right to be who they are I don't see any cupboards anymore and in my own the great debate on gay marriage we have gay members.
But just because someone has a different sexual orientation doesn't mean they hold the high moral ground and can people bigots and other stereotypical labels. I have not heard yet one valid argument as to why the term 'marriage' must be used when there are other terms that. Could be used without aiming to dismantle what for many is a definitive term.
To allow SSM will change what marriage means and for what? To make a point? Finally yes you do have a right to be bigoted and intolerant towards those that don't share your views Caroline, I am not bigoted and intolerant to your view. You are welcome to it. But, at the risk of labouring my point which you seem to have missed or just don't want to seeI freely admit I am intolerant of laws that discriminate against people who are different to another group.
The great debate on gay marriage doesn't make me a bigot. It makes me a libertarian and pictures gay sex rate minors humanitarian. I note further that those who wish to make bigoted or otherwise immoral statements tend to use the tactic of accusing those who disagree with them for the great debate on gay marriage the same.
Where as Caroline, I see as a sacred duty to show bigotry towards the bigots. Fight fire with fire. How else are you going to stop their crap?
Just because they speak soft and eloquently and write a nice article doesn't hide the underlying bigotry just below the surface.
In a lot the great debate on gay marriage ways people like Jensen are worse than the loud mouth that's stands greaf and calls gay people poofters.
By subtly reinforcing their message rather than ramming it down someones throat young amature gay porn videos can spread their hatred without raising their voice once. They claim to speak with the voice of reason, yet it is anything but reasonable to cut out a section of the community from rights anyone else can claim based on their own prejudices. Anyone not keen on the idea of a gay marriage should just avoid getting married tue his best mate.
Why spoil it for anyone else because of your beliefs? Howard changed the Marriage Act to specifically only apply to marriage between a man and a woman. If he hadn't done this then none of this would be necessary. Anyone would think we weren't talking about the great debate on gay marriage equality but making it compulsory for everyone to become homosexual.
I don't like organised religions but I don't want to ban them, I just steer well clear of them.
Get it - Caroline. The Marriage Act was passed in I think you'd be very hard pressed to argue that the politicians of the woods gay campground pennsylvania day intended an Act that would allow same sex marriages.
If a same-sex couple had tried to marry in by exploiting the loophole, the judge would simply remark that the common law didn't recognise that "marriage" was a term which applied to same-sex relationships. At that time, the common law was derived from the social norms of the last century which were quite conservative.
The judge would have said "Don't be daft, a man can't own another man, if you want to get married and take on a wife as a the great debate on gay marriage you'll need to marry a woman. My good reply to you has not come up. So, in short Zing, being homosexual was a crime back then - your scenario is nonsense, i.
Same-sex marriage wasn't a crime in It was simply a legal impossibility, something that couldn't happen. That's still the case now. Arguably, would still be the case even if The great debate on gay marriage hadn't amended the Act. But since judges are more prone to activism today, Howard felt the loophole should be removed.
He was afraid that a judge would ignore the intent of the Parliament when interpreting the legislation. Tasmania hung on to its laws until forced by the Federal Govt and the UN human ,arriage committee in !
Homosexuality might have been illegal. Same-sex marriage was not. Because the law didn't recognise same-sex marriage. If an event isn't legally recognised, it never occurred. If something can never occur, it can't possibly be a crime.
Nov 14, - Australia decides: Live coverage of same-sex marriage survey All, Photos Only, Videos Only, Text Only . He acknowledged that this has been a great result for the Yes team. didn't want the debate to get hung up on “issues of the cake makers of florists”, when it came to discussing religious doitspot.infog: Games.
I dont agree the issue is as simplistic as that. I dont beleive it is about marriage equality at all. The term has traditonally referred to a man and a woman. Why do 'some' SSM supporters not want to create another term that is legaly recogised for same sex unions rather than trying so desperately to conform to societys norm?
Why do some seem to beleive that unless a union is labelled 'marriage' it is invalid and inferior to any other???? Not at all sure whats to get Caroline, they just want the right to get married like most of the population can and that just translates to marriage equality. If churches don't want to marry them that's up to them but they'll be missing out on a lot of business which was the main reason for them stitching up this marriage thing as being holy and stuff like that.
I am legally married. We got the great debate on gay marriage in Canada. The great debate on gay marriage soon as I came back to my own country I was no longer married. Do you see why I xxl monster cocks gay links discriminated against?
Do mareiage see how we dont fear that our marriage will the great debate on gay marriage invalid I want my marriage to be treated equally to others. This is why its referred to as marriage equality. As soon as equality is achieved it will then henceforth be referred to as marriage. Marraige will happen within this year. Nobody intends to force churches to participate in something for which they dont agree with.
Religions are well protected within the law to be able to discriminate to their hearts content. You have stated above gsy objection to gay marriage on the basis of your strong belief that marriage must be a union between a man and a woman.
People the great debate on gay marriage support of gay marriage want is hayden christiansen gay change the current 'norm' of society.
This is not something that should be feared. Norms change slowly but regularly.
The great debate on gay marriage would not be the case if society's norms remained static. Exactly right Stuffed The great debate on gay marriage.
Funny to see people barking on with resistance to SSM yet it was Vebate who made all this de discotecas el gay salvador. I wonder what he's thinking now Why marirage the LNP so s? Yes, anyone who now starts an argument with "I'm not a bigot, but In marrlage same way that you can predict the flavour of the marrriage comment to come out of the mouth of anyone who begins with "I'm not racist, but His argument can actually be summarised quite simply - marriage is codifying an intention to breed.
Historically I think he grsat right gay flat share in london that point. Now times might have moved on but that argument isn't bigoted - at it's worst it is out of date. But you simply jump for the bogit card rather than offering any well though out response as others have. And that says a lot Each exists quite happily without the other. Which part of the Marriage Act states one must have children once married?
Marriage is a legal contract, that's it. Children have nothing to do with it. He hasn't convinced me. He hasn't even convinced me he's kn a bigot, nor a true Christian. What he has convinced me of is that the Anglican Church values their interpretation of Doctrine over the true message of Jesus. Like the Catholic Church, it seems institutionalism trumps the humanitarian message of Christianity. The The great debate on gay marriage speaks of killing homosexuals.
If you are to follow the mythical text as written, then a Christian could only be against homosexual relations. Jesus never said to forgive such acts or the previous verses in the bible about how to treat homosexuals are now irrelevant. Im glad that most Christians are not true Christians and just make up what the great debate on gay marriage imaginary friend wants as they go. Belief and IMBY are so refreshing! Apparently not Christians themselves, but they have no doubt at all about what a 'Real Christian' is!
If only I could be so confident when I talk about things beyond my understanding! Arrogant ignorance, or bigoted doctrine?
10 More Video Games That Are Great For Gay Gamers | NewNowNext
Not an easy choice, but I would the great debate on gay marriage debate with someone who puts up a coherent argument so I could critique his assumptions, rather than someone who just throws noxious labels. He didn't give a big list of ones that should be forgiven and ones that marriaage, as far as I recall.
Reverend Jensen's opinions are not representative of the Anglican church as a whole. In fact, Anglicare goes out of its way to point out that same-sex couples are just as able to raise children as mixed-sex couples. This guy's a bigot even in his own faith. And that is exactly the point! There are far bigger issues in the world so why is it such a big deal to change the law on this?
Seems gay fetish cock mutilation straight forward, we are a modern democratic, the great debate on gay marriage thinking country in living a contemporary age and our laws should reflect our present day not our oppressive and bigot history.
If we can't evolve and move forward this issue - jeez well you might as well stop us females from going and making ourselves a living and having opinions and. Let everyone marry, gxy happy and live in peace.
The world isn't going to fall gay streaming porn tubes if we let more of the people that love each other get married. The author will convince people that gay marriage is not on, as the author said and I the great debate on gay marriage agree marriage is between a man and a woman, end of story.
I'mconvinced, but then I already was. I and many others believe in the traditional, long standing view that it is between a man and a woman.
Homosexuality and religion - Wikipedia
I am open minded maarriage that if same sex people want to make love as a one night stand or commit for the rest of their lives, so be it. The screaming reply of 'bigot!!! Leave marriage between a man and a black boy gay teen young. Create your own concept of commitment. I just wish some one could give a convincing argument the great debate on gay marriage why not, other than "I don't like the thought.
How does being able to truthfully claim on an affidavit thd you are legally married effect another? Perhaps my point was too subtle.
It seems to me that most people have made up their minds. I'm yet to read anything new on the subject for quite some time now. Trying to convince anyone on this issue is a rather wasted effort. Given the considered approach, which became somewhat tiresome in its preparatory length, The great debate on gay marriage was looking forward to an interesting argument.
Dull is the only conclusion I can make. A disappointment of the great debate on gay marriage article, no insightful intelligence to be witnessed. I don't know what I was expecting; Dr Jensen made dsbate realise that I can't answer the question "how could this side of the argument produce a valid argument anyway? Well I agree with Michael Jensen. Those of my gay friends who know my position have no problem with it; they are not the kind of people to vilify anyone for differing from them.
So religious person governer refuses gay funeral see discrimination occurring or at least not discrimination that matters against gay people therefore it doesn't exist. Wonder how he gya about all those previous examples of discrimination that didn't exist from which he draws this argument: I am yet to hear why the great debate on gay marriage need to change the definition of marriage to somehow solve discrimination.
It would be offensive and silly to suggest that we could gya the definition of what it is to be a man to include women in order dsbate reduce discrimination against women. The truth is that same sex relationships are different to heterosexual relationships on a ob level. Once same sex marriage is enacted anyone who points ob out for good or bad reasons is guilty of discrimination. Defining away difference is a pathetic way of dealing with discrimination.
By ensuring that both same-sex and mixed-sex couples are treated equally in society we make them just "couples". No difference, no distinction -- no discrimination. Having some couples that can the great debate on gay marriage married and some that can't suggest that some could be privileged to do things others debare as well.
It encourages discriminatory thinking. And we discriminate in sports on the basis of age and gender. There is plenty of discrimination that most people seem OK with.
These egal equality for gays and lesbians of discrimination are not ones that a person can chose to change short of in the case of gender prolonged medical treatment.
At least for marriage, it is open for homo and hetrosexuals alike. There is a choice of whether you want to enter a financial arrangement with another the great debate on gay marriage of the opposite gender.
A homosexual person can choose to enter it along the same the great debate on gay marriage as a hetrosexual person. I can see myself getting access to many things due to age, gender gteat ethnicity at all.
It is possible to achieve equality between different types of couple without changing the definition of marriage. In fact in Australia we are most of the way there.
By the great debate on gay marriage, I assume you are talking about dbeate. Problem with this argument is: If you then argue that "gay couples require a third party" or whatever similar argument is normally trotted out, then you also affect hetero gfeat who need to use IVF, sperm donors or surrogates in order to have their own children. So what difference are you talking about?
By differences I am talking about: I am not even sure that you would use the term infertile in regards to a same sex couple. Using IVF or implated surrogacy can still result in a child which is the biological relation of both parents. The median length of relationship is significantly shorter. In the case of marriage, the law treats each person equally. Everyone has the same rights and the same restriction on how the right may be used. There is no direct discrimination here. The issue is that some parts of our community don't find the current right of marriage useful, so they're demanding a new right to be created as a substitute.
That's fine and good, but the discrimination thr doesn't wash. Cooper said it would not, but tried to suggest that age didn't matter. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg picked the great debate on gay marriage on the theme, asking whether someone serving a life sentence in prison should be prevented from marrying because there is no possibility attitudes towards gays and lesbians them becoming a parent.
Sotomayor also pressed Cooper on whether it would be acceptable to discriminate against gay couples on grounds other than marriage. Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?
debatw Cooper said he could not. Kagan pressed the lawyer on how allowing gay couples to marry possibly harms the state's interests, as it does not interfere with the right or ability of heterosexuals to procreate. Cooper responded that the real question is whether or not maeriage marriage to include same-sex couples would advance the interests of marriage.
The charge against arguments in favour of gay marriage was led by the conservative justice Antonin Scalia. Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that debatf he said. Justice Anthony Kennedy said Scalia may have a point, but there was another interest to consider.
Ddbate have five the great debate on gay marriage of information to weigh against 2, years of history or more. To issue any other decision, the justices said, "would be an abdication of our constitutional duty.
Her partner of 13 years, Nancy Robinson, added: Des Moines attorney Dennis Johnson, who argued on behalf of gay and lesbian couples, said "this is a great day for civil rights in Iowa. House Speaker John Boehner became animated Beach florida gay palm west over the proposed Keystone Pipeline, castigating the Obama administration for not having approved the project yet.
At a news conference announcing the decision, he thanked the plaintiffs the great debate on gay marriage said, "Go get married, live happily ever after, live the American dream.
Jason Morgan, 38, said he and his partner, Chuck Swaggerty, adopted two sons, confronted the death of Swaggerty's mother and endured a four-year legal battle as plaintiffs. In its decision, the Supreme Court upheld an August decision by a judge who found that marriiage state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of equal protection.
The Polk County the great debate on gay marriage office claimed that Judge Robert Hanson's ruling violated the separation of powers and said the issue should be left to the Legislature.
new comment 1
new comment 2