Same Sex Marriage: A Foreign Precedent?
March 21, 2007 | By Jack Yoest
L to R: Your Business Blogger,
Charmaine
Senator Guy Barnett
Our liberal homosexual activist friends will always cite foreign law as a precedence for new law here in the US of A.
But there is one country that the activists and mainstream media will never mention in this debate:
Australia.
Your Business Blogger and Charmaine joined Guy Barnett, a Senator from the Land Down Under for dinner the other night at the Occidental in DC. (Do try the crab cakes.)
Same sex marriage was one of our topics and our concerns.
But it is not a concern in Australia. It has been tested by their courts and is "settled law."
The Australian law states that,
Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages.A union solemnised in a foreign country between:
(a) a man and another man; or
(b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.
We should also look to the Aussies for homosexual adoption:
They don't allow it.
We should also look to the Aussies for Civil Unions.
They don't allow it.
Australia might also be ahead of us on the thought-control/mind-control/hate-crime nonsense. The Australian Supreme Court recently stood up to the Muslim victim-lobby when the courts permitted two pastors to quote from the Quran. WorldNetDaily reports,
Quran did tell men they could beat their wives [and]Yes, it did have verses calling on Muslims to fight infidels until they submitted
Infidels. They would be non-Muslims in America: Republicans. (The Democrats have already submitted.)
WND continues,
Many of the "hate crimes" proposals in the United States are based on a similar concept: designating as "crimes" the statements people make about their own beliefs or convictions.
The Aussies are ahead of us on marriage, homosexuals and thought crimes.
Now if they could only get 'gays in the military' right...
Thank you (foot)notes:
Guy Barnett is the (classical) liberal senator for Tasmania. He was recently at the UN working with Bill Clinton on support for diabetes education.
Jihadists and homosexuals: please log you death threats here.
Comments
"Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."
Obviously not, as they still allow divorce. Life might be an intention, or an ideal, but not a legal requirement.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | March 22, 2007 11:52 AM
Hmm. Did Guy Barnett tell you this? It makes Australia sound like Utah. But actually, as an Australian I can tell you things aren't really like that here.
Every single state in Australia has gay domestic partnerships (just not civil unions with ceremonies).
Abortion laws are fairly liberal. The subject hardly ever comes up in politics as a matter of fact. The pro-life movement is tiny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Australia
Gay adoption isn't banned per se - I think there was talk of banning overseas gay adoption some time ago but I wasn't really paying attention. According to Wikipedia "In Australia, same-sex adoption is legal in the Australian Capital Territory and Western Australia, while stepchild adoption is possible in Tasmania." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_adoption
A poll taken in October 2004 found that just 28% of Australians wanted Bush to win the election.
Gays have served openly in the military of fifteen years and it hasn't harmed our defense in the slightest.
John Howard may be fiscally conservative and a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq but he's not really socially conservative.
There just isn't a big US style religious right here - Australia is a socially libertarian strong of place.
Guy Barnett isn't really typical of Australians. It would be like talking to Cynthia McKinney and thinking that her views are typical of he great state of Georgia.
Posted by: NPS | March 22, 2007 12:45 PM
I have some Australian friends, and they all have one thing in common, regardless of their political and ideological beliefs. They are all politically incorrect. They all make fun of every race, every nationality, every sexual orientation, every disability, and so on.
Posted by: Will Franklin | March 22, 2007 10:23 PM
You neglect to mention that this was not Australian statute law until 2004. Your argument is rather misleading.
Posted by: Someone | May 1, 2007 6:14 PM