Same-sex, whole-milk marriage: 50 Shades of Gay

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I suspected that was the case.

[Túrin Turambar]

This issue has just taken off here again. Last week the Parliament of the Australian Capital Territory passed a law establishing same-sex marriage in the territory. This afternoon the Federal Government filed a legal challenge in the High Court.

I read the Commonwealth’s writ (in that article) and I have to admit that, to my legal mind, their case seems very strong. The Parliament of the ACT doesn’t have the constitutional power to pass laws with respect to defining marriage. A state or territory cannot define marriage any more than it can raise an army or print money. The purpose of the Commonwealth’s marriage power is to ensure that marriage is defined consistently across the entire country, and there is no question that someone married in one state is married is another.

The ACT is arguing that their same-sex marriage regime is different to the one existing under federal law, but they still have no authority to create an institution recognised as marriage by the Federal Government or the governments of the other states and territories for the purposes of their own laws. So it seems like a purely symbolic exercise to me.

The Federal Attorney-General, George Brandis, is pro-SSM. But he has an obligation to defend the Commonwealth’s laws. I sympathise with his position. While I would like to see SSM legal across the country, I have to accept that the Commonwealth Parliament has the ultimate say on the definition of marriage, it has defined marriage as being between a man and a woman, and as a result the Federal Government is obliged to challenge in court attempts by state or territory parliaments to creep in on its power. Parliamentary sovereignty and all that.

That said, the law may stand, although I cannot really see any reason why it would outside political sympathy on behalf of the High Court. And this may eventually force another vote on the Commonwealth Marriage Act. Other states, Tasmania in particular, are waiting on the outcome of this case with their own proposed legislation.

At any rate I might reserve judgement until the ACT files its defence on October the 31st.

[Eldy]

Congrats to NJ!

We're very close to the point where even the strongest opponents of SSM will have to concede that a Constitutional amendment outlawing SSM nationwide is not going to happen.

IMO, we're well past that point. The momentum -- and public opinion -- has shifted. A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage was always a long shot. Now? It's a pipe dream. There's still plenty of work to be done though, of course.

[nerdanel]

We're getting very close in Hawaii:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marria ... lity-house

Senate said yes, House is debating and is closer now (but is expected to pass next week), and the governor has pledged to sign the bill.

We are directly benefiting from the fact that Hawaii passed a rather different anti-SSM amendment in the 1990s than many other states did. As Wikipedia explains:

Amendment 2 differed from amendments that followed in other states in that it did not write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state's constitution; rather, it allowed the state legislature to enact such a ban. On November 3, 1998, Hawaii voters approved the amendment by a vote of 69.2–28.6%, and the state legislature exercised its power to ban same-sex marriage.

The language added by the amendment reads:

The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.
—Article I, section 23, The Constitution of the State of Hawaii

[nerdanel]

Well, number 16 was not Hawaii (still pending), but Illinois!

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gay ... 7118.story

[Passdagas the Brown]

My thoughts go to the people of Hawaii. Hope their legislators have the courage to be on the right side of history now, rather than later.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It looks very good in Hawaii.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow ... z2kCTX0P00

Interesting though that it has taken this long, and that the debate has been so acrimonious, since it was the fear that Hawaii would legalize same sex marriage that sparked the passage of DOMA almost 20 years ago.

[narya]

When I was in Hawaii recently, I was subjected to this egregious commercial at least once an hour on TV. Here's the text for it, spoken by a warm, native Hawaiian-accented man, to a back drop of warm fuzzy pictures of families.

The heritage of Hawaii's people is rooted in Family. Mothers and fathers united in marriage, caring for each other and their keiki [children]. But some politicians want to redefine marriage, damaging our people, who believe marriage unites one man and one woman. When marriage is redefined, people and families are punished for not agreeing. We can preserve the traditions of our Island ohana [family] by preserving marriage. Tell your state representative to let the people decide on marriage. Now.

[yovargas]

When marriage is redefined, people and families are punished for not agreeing.

He's got a point considering that part of the law now says dissenters must be whipped at least twice per month.

[nerdanel]

I know I tend to jump the gun with thread title changes, but I'm comfortable going ahead and adding Hawaii to the tally now. Should be official later today or tomorrow: http://www.advocate.com/politics/marria ... -due-today

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Best title yet.

ETA: (Although I am tempted to wave "hi!" back at it. )

[narya]

It must be official - the POTUS just tweeted it!

[yovargas]

So where do people who actually live in Hawaii go for their honeymoon??

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Tahiti?

[nerdanel]

In picking vacation spots, I'm imagining Hawaiians have the same problem as self-satisfied Bay Areans but even more so: how do you improve on perfection?

I was going to head over there for vacation in a couple of weeks but got dragged into a friend's Bermuda trip for Thanksgiving instead. :| You might be tempted to dismiss this as first world problems, but when you consider that my parents do not yet know that I am going to Bermuda rather than to see them for Thanksgiving, we are talking SERIOUS first world problems.

[River]

If there isn't a very gentle way of telling the truth tell them you're completely bogged down at work. Given your profession this should be completely plausible. To maintain cover, be excruciatingly careful with what leaks onto any social media sites you're using.

We gave my family the "S is expecting a heavy workload" line for why we're not going back for Thanksgiving. In our case it's not a complete lie but it's not a complete truth either. And he might not be as busy as he anticipated as his potential client is playing silly buggers with their contract and since S is not the kind of guy who just signs anything the games will continue until the offending clauses are removed or the clients find a more vulnerable consultant. But, whatever happens with that, we'll have a nice dinner with some lovely friends and, to make it up to my family, we're going to be in Seattle from the winter solstice to the day after New Year's.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Or, just tell the truth.

[nerdanel]

Haha, I'll tell the truth. They'll deal with it, and it's honestly not going to be close to the most awkward situation I've dealt with this past month (won't even hit the top five), so it's all good. But I definitely understand your need for discretion, River.

I may or may not be able to make it back in December, either, which is the element that makes my decision to go to Bermuda so potentially thorny. We'll see.

[Túrin Turambar]

As much as I love Brisbane, I have never felt under any obligation to go back and visit, nor have my family ever asked me why I'm not going back for any particular event or holiday. I have to say that I don't really understand any awkwardness that comes from not visit interstate or overseas family - travelling costs a lot of time and money, and it hardly seems fair to demand it of someone.

[JewelSong]

I have to say that I don't really understand any awkwardness that comes from not visit interstate or overseas family - travelling costs a lot of time and money, and it hardly seems fair to demand it of someone.

Well, because it's family, that's why.

After my father died, my brothers and I went almost 3 years without seeing each other, all together. We realized that the glue that brought us together - my parents - was gone and unless we made a point of getting together, we'd be one of the those families who said things like, "I have a brother who lives in *wherever* but I haven't seen him in 10 years. You know, too busy, too far away, no time...."

Then all of a sudden, you're getting older and suddenly...well.

So my brothers and I made a kind of pact. We meet every year for what has come to be called "Tree Burn." Basically, it started because the first year we did it, we met at my oldest brother's house (a big tract of land in upstate NY) and after a sufficient amount of beer, we burned last year's Xmas tree which had been saved and dried. It went up like a rocket. It also happened to be a full moon. We decided it was so awesome, that we would do it every year, come hell or high water.

So now, we have it annually...and it has become quite a family reunion. Spouses, significant others, close friends, relatives, cousins...everyone can be an honorary "Chilton" for the weekend. I think we're in our 10th year. We now have tee-shirts, and a picture album and last year, the first grandchild showed up.

But the most important thing is that the four of us siblings are able to be there. And we come from wherever we are. No matter how far.