Well, technically the Australia ruling isn't by any stretch an act of bigotry, it's an act of federalism - marriage act laws being a federal matter, not a territorial one. Court as much as outright says that if a federal law saying the exact same thing came through, it would be fine. India, though ... yeah.
Wrong court, sadly. Its more "court confirms australia still living in Century of the Fruitbat despite best efforts"
This is summary that a friend wrote:
"" The bad: So the ACT same sex marriage act is dead. In fact it's deader than disco. (Good news as disco is like a zombie, and keeps coming back...) The attempt by the ACT gov was simply never going to work. As soon as this legislation hit the courts, there could be no result but a dismissal of the law. States and Territories can not make legislation that directly contradicts federal law due to jurisdictional precedent. If they do, the result below happens. If the high court had allowed it to live, it could have torn the country apart as the states could legislate the federal government into obscurity, and split the nation in to half a dozen brand new city states. Bad, bad idea.
The good! (What you've all been waiting for.) the high court in this case was given an in, to go and define marriage as it stands under the law. The commonwealth may well prohibit same sex marriage, but one of the arguments for not changing this for a long time now, has been that the definition of marriage in the constitution was such that it would have to change before the commonwealth law would be able to go through without the exact same challenge we are seeing here. Turns out that there is no gender identification in the constitution. Why is this good? That can't be changed by the government without going to a referendum. The government can't change it. Only the voting public can. So, as it is now confirmed ok under the constitution and unlikely to change, then there is now an avenue open to change it in federal law and have it stick. So there is a win here for same sex couples. ""
So, kinda sacrficing a queen (so to speak) to get the king in check.
aeduna provides a better summary than I could, but WRT your second point, there's some federal politicians trying to do just that (https://twitter.com/sarahinthesen8/status/410942822263443456). Although it probably won't get passed, because, y'know, bigots...
well, no, that's kind of the point - a referendum would be needed if the constitution said explicitly man/woman. It doesn't, its gender neutral. So one is not needed, which is good, because that would take another 10 years if it ever happened. There's been one in my voting life time and it was a sham. Of course, the same could be said for the election just past, but hey.
Not by our current government but the High Court ruling has made it easier for a subsequent government to enact same sex marriage.
The ACT (state - kind of) ruling was bound to fail but it did clarify (and simplify) the road ahead. It has been rumoured that that was the original intention.
There is a conversation at the moment in aus saying basiclly don't blame the court, fed has jurisdiction here, blame the fed for not fixing the god damn law.There was fear that the court agreeing to the law would have set up a fucked up swore are but equal system.
I'm not sure how your courts work, and whether they could do an American/Canadian style "Yup, that law conflicts with the fed law. The fed law is wrong, though" ruling - but I'm not blaming *the court* for saying "Nope, you can't pass that law". I'm blaming the Feds for saying "Nope, you can't pass that law, and we haven't and won't, and COURT! COURT! They're making illegal law!"
Well, the important thing is to protect those traditional Australian family values. (http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/the-secret-life-inside-the-depraved-family-who-live-in-the-hills-of-a-quiet-country-town/story-fnixwvgh-1226781706111)
I wonder how much that has to do with the nature of the original colonists, and their basic desire to say screw it to the basic super restrictive laws they came from...
[Setup: Watson and Holmes are taking the train to visit a lady in distress who lives on an estate outside of the city of Winchester.]
It was an ideal spring day, a light blue sky, flecked with little fleecy white clouds drifting across from west to east. The sun was shining very brightly, and yet there was an exhilarating nip in the air, which set an edge to a man’s energy. All over the country-side, away to the rolling hills around Aldershot, the little red and grey roofs of the farm-steadings peeped out from amidst the light green of the new foliage.
“Are they not fresh and beautiful?” I cried, with all the enthusiasm of a man fresh from the fogs of Baker Street. But Holmes shook his head gravely.
“Do you know, Watson,” said he, “that it is one of the curses of a mind with a turn like mine that I must look at everything with reference to my own special subject. You look at these scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their isolation, and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there.”
“Good heavens!” I cried.
“Who would associate crime with these dear old homesteads?”
“They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful country-side.”
“You horrify me!”
“But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard’s blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock. But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser. Had this lady who appeals to us for help gone to live in Winchester, I should never have had a fear for her. It is the five miles of country which makes the danger.”
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-12 09:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-12 09:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-12 09:59 pm (UTC)After all, if they *weren't* bigots, they would have said "uh, you can't do that. Here's a federal law that says the same thing, though."
(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-12 11:39 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-12 11:53 pm (UTC)This is summary that a friend wrote:
""
The bad: So the ACT same sex marriage act is dead. In fact it's deader than disco. (Good news as disco is like a zombie, and keeps coming back...) The attempt by the ACT gov was simply never going to work. As soon as this legislation hit the courts, there could be no result but a dismissal of the law. States and Territories can not make legislation that directly contradicts federal law due to jurisdictional precedent. If they do, the result below happens. If the high court had allowed it to live, it could have torn the country apart as the states could legislate the federal government into obscurity, and split the nation in to half a dozen brand new city states. Bad, bad idea.
The good! (What you've all been waiting for.) the high court in this case was given an in, to go and define marriage as it stands under the law. The commonwealth may well prohibit same sex marriage, but one of the arguments for not changing this for a long time now, has been that the definition of marriage in the constitution was such that it would have to change before the commonwealth law would be able to go through without the exact same challenge we are seeing here. Turns out that there is no gender identification in the constitution. Why is this good? That can't be changed by the government without going to a referendum. The government can't change it. Only the voting public can. So, as it is now confirmed ok under the constitution and unlikely to change, then there is now an avenue open to change it in federal law and have it stick. So there is a win here for same sex couples.
""
So, kinda sacrficing a queen (so to speak) to get the king in check.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-12 11:59 pm (UTC)Although it probably won't get passed, because, y'know, bigots...
(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-13 02:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-13 02:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-13 03:29 am (UTC)The ACT (state - kind of) ruling was bound to fail but it did clarify (and simplify) the road ahead. It has been rumoured that that was the original intention.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-13 10:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-13 11:03 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-14 05:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-14 07:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-12-14 10:28 pm (UTC)It was an ideal spring day, a light blue sky, flecked with little fleecy white clouds drifting across from west to east. The sun was shining very brightly, and yet there was an exhilarating nip in the air, which set an edge to a man’s energy. All over the country-side, away to the rolling hills around Aldershot, the little red and grey roofs of the farm-steadings peeped out from amidst the light green of the new foliage.
“Are they not fresh and beautiful?” I cried, with all the enthusiasm of a man fresh from the fogs of Baker Street. But Holmes shook his head gravely.
“Do you know, Watson,” said he, “that it is one of the curses of a mind with a turn like mine that I must look at everything with reference to my own special subject. You look at these scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their isolation, and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there.”
“Good heavens!” I cried.
“Who would associate crime with these dear old homesteads?”
“They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful country-side.”
“You horrify me!”
“But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard’s blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours, and then the whole machinery of justice is ever so close that a word of complaint can set it going, and there is but a step between the crime and the dock. But look at these lonely houses, each in its own fields, filled for the most part with poor ignorant folk who know little of the law. Think of the deeds of hellish cruelty, the hidden wickedness which may go on, year in, year out, in such places, and none the wiser. Had this lady who appeals to us for help gone to live in Winchester, I should never have had a fear for her. It is the five miles of country which makes the danger.”