Australia has struck down its gay marriage laws.
The federal government’s lawyer had argued that having different marriage laws in various Australian states and territories would create confusion. The ACT, which passed the law in October, said it should stand because it governs couples outside the federal definition of marriage as being between members of the opposite sex.
The High Court unanimously ruled that the ACT’s law could not operate concurrently with the federal Marriage Act, which was amended in 2004 to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Doubtless the religious will be happy with this. Doubtless those who campaigned for gay marriage will be equally unhappy. Frankly, I have no time for either – because the state should not be in the business of marriage at all, neither sanctioning it nor defining it. Who enters into a contract with whom should be a matter for the two (or more) people involved and no one else, least of all the state.
That way, the issue of gay marriage becomes moot. Christian churches can stick to defining it according to their doctrine and gay couples can enter into partnerships and call it marriage if they want to. Win win. Unless you are a state parasite sucking the lifeblood out of everyone else.
XX Who enters into a contract with whom should be a matter for the two (or more) people involved and no one else, least of all the state.XX
Then they should not expect any tax benefits either.
I preume you do not hesitate in taking advantage of the “married mans tax allowance?”
Yup. The state has no place using the tax system to encourage anything, including marriage.
Maybe not – but if a man on umpty-five thousand a year is supporting a (non-working) wife/spouse/partner (and possibly sprogs) then his ability to satisfy the rapacious demands of the undead at HMRC is generally substantially less than that of a single man on the same income.
Whether or not the state is deemed to be supporting marriage, partnership or whatever, I believe it is manifestly unfair to expect the former to be robbed to the same extent as the latter.
Why should the person who has not chosen to have children and support a spouse be penalised? Better to have a simple flat tax if you must have one.
Or who can’t have children – think “Rhesus” the wrong-way-round, with the feamle being horribly allergy-prone for example ….
What “married mans tax allowance”?
Unless either LR or Mrs LR was born before 6 April 1935, there ain’t one.
“The federal government’s lawyer”
Argghh State sponsored Lawyers – what have we become?
…because the state should not be in the business of marriage at all, neither sanctioning it nor defining it. Who enters into a contract with whom should be a matter for the two (or more) people involved and no one else, least of all the state.
But it is a contract, and a legally binding one, from which stems many a law concerning spousal rights, guardianship of any offspring, inheritance and much more. So government, as the custodian of the law, by default must be involved.
Common law (the law between men), not statute law. The state should have no say in any of those things.
I agree with you in principle, but the reality is that we live under state law. That certainly is not going to change within our lifetimes, nor the lifetimes of our children, if ever. So we must couch our opinions within the framework of the situation that pertains.
So what of gay marriage? My opinion is that if gay couples wish to sign a civil contract along the lines of the traditional (civil) marriage contract, then they should be able to do so.
The subject of getting married in church, which is a religious matter, and nothing to do with the state’s legislative process, is another matter entirely, and one in which the church concerned is fully entitled to decide on according to the beliefs and traditions of that particular faith.
Who enters into a contract with whom should be a matter for the two (or more) people involved and no one else, least of all the state.
Ok, but why then did you get married, rather than just draw up a contract and get it signed in front of witnesses?
That would bring you within the ambit of contract law rather than anything which stems from legislation on marriage.
Because that was what we wanted to do. I cannot control the state, so I work with what we have. Besides, twenty five years ago, I didn’t give these matters a great deal of thought. I do now.
That doesn’t alter my point – that contract should be nothing to do with the state, it should not be in the business of defining that contract, nor passing laws dictating who may enter into it.
My argument is simply one of language. A marriage is an arrangement between a man and a woman; anything else isn’t. Simple answer, too – MAKE UP A NEW WORD, FFS – don’t bastardise an existing one; get on with your life and leave the rest of us in peace.
I’m not fussed what it is called. As long as the state keeps its big nose out.
Still, the decision is swimming against the tide.