Irish security, beware the dangerous Minions

[spacesailor]

There they go again : Irish referendum". The people of Lesbos island had Nothing whatever to say or do in another country,s politics.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[kasper]

much clipped...Yes, sure, you can't currently get a marriage certificate, so what, it will come in some form to you shortly without doubt, but in the meantime as Couples you have every single right afforded to you under law that any other Partnered Couple does and yet recently there has been an over the top, selfish, childish social guilt movement for a piece of paper that apparently should take centre stage over housing, employment, medical care, crime, poverty, etc etc ..

I personally disagree that so much publicity is being given to this (relative) non-issue while for example, so many people hand over most of their wages just to live in a house - including Gays and Lesbians, it affects us all.

 

I'll say that again for those who may not be clear, Gay or Lesbian Partners living together have every legal right recognised as a Defacto couple in Australia - this is all over the actual marriage certificate, there is NO discrimination otherwise.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia

But without the certificate I DO NOT have the same rights and protections as a married couple - and the fact that I do not have the option means that in law I am not treated equally. And its always been the equality issue that galls me ... I had available in the UK registered civil partnerships years before marriage came about and I am very clear on this - its equality or I will not engage in second best - near enough it not good enough with an issue of equality.

 

Trust me on this one, setting up our legal arrangements to provide mostly the same level of access and control around whats avaialble/going to happen at the end of life the main area where its a right pain in the arse to get avoid ALL the problems that many straight de facto couples 'believe' they have as 'equal to marriage'... if we were able to be married we would automatically have this.

 

 

[kasper]

much clipped...Yes, sure, you can't currently get a marriage certificate, so what, it will come in some form to you shortly without doubt, but in the meantime as Couples you have every single right afforded to you under law that any other Partnered Couple does and yet recently there has been an over the top, selfish, childish social guilt movement for a piece of paper that apparently should take centre stage over housing, employment, medical care, crime, poverty, etc etc ..

I personally disagree that so much publicity is being given to this (relative) non-issue while for example, so many people hand over most of their wages just to live in a house - including Gays and Lesbians, it affects us all.

 

I'll say that again for those who may not be clear, Gay or Lesbian Partners living together have every legal right recognised as a Defacto couple in Australia - this is all over the actual marriage certificate, there is NO discrimination otherwise.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia

But without the certificate I DO NOT have the same rights and protections as a married couple - and the fact that I do not have the option means that in law I am not treated equally. And its always been the equality issue that galls me ... I had available in the UK registered civil partnerships years before marriage came about and I am very clear on this - its equality or I will not engage in second best - near enough it not good enough with an issue of equality.

 

Trust me on this one, setting up our legal arrangements to provide mostly the same level of access and control around whats avaialble/going to happen at the end of life the main area where its a right pain in the arse to get avoid ALL the problems that many straight de facto couples 'believe' they have as 'equal to marriage'... if we were able to be married we would automatically have this.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Disolve ALL marriges, After 53 years shouldent my wife be released without parole for time served. we wern,t given any choice in the mater of "defacto living arrangments".

 

spacesailor

 

 

[spacesailor]

Disolve ALL marriges, After 53 years shouldent my wife be released without parole for time served. we wern,t given any choice in the mater of "defacto living arrangments".

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Marty_d]

Current figures put couples at near 80% under 30 not married, 50% under 40 not married, with marriages declining, certainly Church marriages declining rapidly with celebrant marriages on a shallower slope. Marriage is becoming far less important in society and "Gay rights" have gradually matured and have found acceptance and without a single doubt, Australia is one of the World's most tolerant societies of those who choose to live outside what was previously the accepted 'norm'. And when I say tolerant, I actually mean most Australians just don't give a toss either way (and constantly shoving it in their faces can backfire).

 

Sure, any minority group will always get some bigotry along the way, take a teaspoon of cement and harden up, but there can be no doubt as to Gay Partnerships that a reasonable balance, i.e. "Equality", has been achieved to date.

 

Yes, sure, you can't currently get a marriage certificate, so what, it will come in some form to you shortly without doubt, but in the meantime as Couples you have every single right afforded to you under law that any other Partnered Couple does and yet recently there has been an over the top, selfish, childish social guilt movement for a piece of paper that apparently should take centre stage over housing, employment, medical care, crime, poverty, etc etc ..

 

I personally disagree that so much publicity is being given to this (relative) non-issue while for example, so many people hand over most of their wages just to live in a house - including Gays and Lesbians, it affects us all.

 

I'll say that again for those who may not be clear, Gay or Lesbian Partners living together have every legal right recognised as a Defacto couple in Australia - this is all over the actual marriage certificate, there is NO discrimination otherwise.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia

All this is true, but if it's not really important and there are more pressing issues (and yes, there are more pressing issues - kids 6 years old trying to hang themselves in offshore detention, for instance) - then why the hell can't they just fix the marriage act back to what it was before Johnny meddled with it and be done with the issue? Simple! There's a bill before the parliament right now. All they have to do is allow members a conscience vote and it could be done and dusted. Ask Tony why he won't.

 

I'm not gay so I can't say how much impact this has on people. However if there was something I really wanted to do which was legally available to the majority of adults in the country but not to me, I might feel fairly strongly about it.

 

The reasons the LNP front bench give against gay marriage are varied but equally ridiculous - from the increasing divorce rate (well, let's make marriage illegal for everyone then) to the assertion by Abetz and Joyce that it'll make our Asian neighbours look down on us (apparently turning back asylum seekers boats and invading Indonesian territorial waters won't), then the pearler from Cory Bernadi that it'll lead to bestiality.

 

There are no valid reasons not to do this and get it out of the way. Marriage may ruin many good relationships but it's every adult's right to learn that for themselves.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Current figures put couples at near 80% under 30 not married, 50% under 40 not married, with marriages declining, certainly Church marriages declining rapidly with celebrant marriages on a shallower slope. Marriage is becoming far less important in society and "Gay rights" have gradually matured and have found acceptance and without a single doubt, Australia is one of the World's most tolerant societies of those who choose to live outside what was previously the accepted 'norm'. And when I say tolerant, I actually mean most Australians just don't give a toss either way (and constantly shoving it in their faces can backfire).

 

Sure, any minority group will always get some bigotry along the way, take a teaspoon of cement and harden up, but there can be no doubt as to Gay Partnerships that a reasonable balance, i.e. "Equality", has been achieved to date.

 

Yes, sure, you can't currently get a marriage certificate, so what, it will come in some form to you shortly without doubt, but in the meantime as Couples you have every single right afforded to you under law that any other Partnered Couple does and yet recently there has been an over the top, selfish, childish social guilt movement for a piece of paper that apparently should take centre stage over housing, employment, medical care, crime, poverty, etc etc ..

 

I personally disagree that so much publicity is being given to this (relative) non-issue while for example, so many people hand over most of their wages just to live in a house - including Gays and Lesbians, it affects us all.

 

I'll say that again for those who may not be clear, Gay or Lesbian Partners living together have every legal right recognised as a Defacto couple in Australia - this is all over the actual marriage certificate, there is NO discrimination otherwise.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia

All this is true, but if it's not really important and there are more pressing issues (and yes, there are more pressing issues - kids 6 years old trying to hang themselves in offshore detention, for instance) - then why the hell can't they just fix the marriage act back to what it was before Johnny meddled with it and be done with the issue? Simple! There's a bill before the parliament right now. All they have to do is allow members a conscience vote and it could be done and dusted. Ask Tony why he won't.

 

I'm not gay so I can't say how much impact this has on people. However if there was something I really wanted to do which was legally available to the majority of adults in the country but not to me, I might feel fairly strongly about it.

 

The reasons the LNP front bench give against gay marriage are varied but equally ridiculous - from the increasing divorce rate (well, let's make marriage illegal for everyone then) to the assertion by Abetz and Joyce that it'll make our Asian neighbours look down on us (apparently turning back asylum seekers boats and invading Indonesian territorial waters won't), then the pearler from Cory Bernadi that it'll lead to bestiality.

 

There are no valid reasons not to do this and get it out of the way. Marriage may ruin many good relationships but it's every adult's right to learn that for themselves.

 

 

[Kiwi303]

meh.

 

Over here live together in a relationship for 3 years and you're legally given all the same relationship protections as legally married couples. De Facto couples get to be included in inestate no-will death divvy-ups, break up after 3 years and a couple of months and you get a claim on Matrimonial Property same as any non-PreNup married couple getting divorced.

 

IIRC it doesn't even mention sex, just "Living together in the nature of a marriage" without actually being married.

 

 

[Kiwi303]

meh.

 

Over here live together in a relationship for 3 years and you're legally given all the same relationship protections as legally married couples. De Facto couples get to be included in inestate no-will death divvy-ups, break up after 3 years and a couple of months and you get a claim on Matrimonial Property same as any non-PreNup married couple getting divorced.

 

IIRC it doesn't even mention sex, just "Living together in the nature of a marriage" without actually being married.

 

 

[old man emu]

As I said earlier: "I also find it interesting that a law of the Commonwealth made using the powers granted to the Commonwealth by the Australian Constitution says that marriage is "for life", but another Act, the Family Law Act allows the breaking of this law by permitting divorce." It's all about distribution of property and access to the laws governing the dissolution of relationships. Note that the Family Law Act does not use the word 'divorce'. It now terms it 'dissolution of marriage'

 

As for allowing politicians a 'conscience' vote. The only conscience vote a politician ever truly takes is when choosing which Party to join and promote its philosophy. A politician is returned to parliament by the votes of the enrolled members of one electorate to bring the will of that electorate to the parliament. They must do what the electorate tells them, not enforce the politician's personal beliefs to a topic. It would seem that the majority of Abbott's electorate support the alteration to the Marriage Act, either actively or through apathy to the subject. So he is duty bound to represent that support in parliament. I for one do not wish to deny him his personal opinion, but that personal opinion cannot reject the opinion of his electorate.

 

OME

 

 

[old man emu]

As I said earlier: "I also find it interesting that a law of the Commonwealth made using the powers granted to the Commonwealth by the Australian Constitution says that marriage is "for life", but another Act, the Family Law Act allows the breaking of this law by permitting divorce." It's all about distribution of property and access to the laws governing the dissolution of relationships. Note that the Family Law Act does not use the word 'divorce'. It now terms it 'dissolution of marriage'

 

As for allowing politicians a 'conscience' vote. The only conscience vote a politician ever truly takes is when choosing which Party to join and promote its philosophy. A politician is returned to parliament by the votes of the enrolled members of one electorate to bring the will of that electorate to the parliament. They must do what the electorate tells them, not enforce the politician's personal beliefs to a topic. It would seem that the majority of Abbott's electorate support the alteration to the Marriage Act, either actively or through apathy to the subject. So he is duty bound to represent that support in parliament. I for one do not wish to deny him his personal opinion, but that personal opinion cannot reject the opinion of his electorate.

 

OME

 

 

[Marty_d]

Ah, but the problem with that OME is when the "philosophy" of the party is fundamentally disconnected to the will of the electorate. In that case either the philosophy of the party must change, or the members of the party should be free to represent the will of their electorate despite it being opposed to the party line.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Ah, but the problem with that OME is when the "philosophy" of the party is fundamentally disconnected to the will of the electorate. In that case either the philosophy of the party must change, or the members of the party should be free to represent the will of their electorate despite it being opposed to the party line.

 

 

[facthunter]

To get elected you must first get pre-selection but the local party structure. That can be a tin of worms. Then you have to "work" the electorate to win their confidence...Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

To get elected you must first get pre-selection but the local party structure. That can be a tin of worms. Then you have to "work" the electorate to win their confidence...Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

But what about the Minions?

 

 

[nomadpete]

But what about the Minions?

 

 

[facthunter]

Can you still buy them? Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Can you still buy them? Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Paint George Brandis yellow and he'd be the spitting image. Pretty sure he'd be for sale too.

 

[ATTACH=full]37408[/ATTACH]

 

 

[Marty_d]

Paint George Brandis yellow and he'd be the spitting image. Pretty sure he'd be for sale too.

 

 

 

[Chird65]

... Note that the Family Law Act does not use the word 'divorce'. It now terms it 'dissolution of marriage'...OME

Actually it still does

 

PART VI--DIVORCE AND NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

 

Though I got to say this was never very "Humorous" just plain painful.

 

 

[Chird65]

... Note that the Family Law Act does not use the word 'divorce'. It now terms it 'dissolution of marriage'...OME

Actually it still does

 

PART VI--DIVORCE AND NULLITY OF MARRIAGE

 

Though I got to say this was never very "Humorous" just plain painful.

 

 

[PA.]

[ATTACH=full]37409[/ATTACH]

 

 

[PA.]