Australian Parliament Allows Same-Sex Marriages

Amendments meant to safeguard freedoms of speech and religion for gay-marriage opponents were all rejected, though those issues may be considered later.

Members of parliament, from left, Cathy McGowan, Adam Brandt and Andrew Wilkie celebrate the passing of the Marriage Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives at Parliament House in Canberra, Thursday, Dec. 7, 2017.

By Published on December 7, 2017

This article is available to read at the Associated Press Archive Link here:

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • JP

    Gay “marriage” is impossible. To have a marriage you must have a husband and a wife. Only a man can be a husband and a woman a wife. Without these 2 different sexes in a marriage you don’t have a marriage. What we have are legal fake marriages.

    • If two Gay men get married, they are both husbands. If two Lesbians get married, they are both wives. What else is there to understand?

      Whether YOU consider it marriage is irrelevant. There was never any constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and opportunities that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

      Oh, I know what you’re saying: “But … but … only a man and woman can create new life together!”

      Again, it’s irrelevant. Couples do not need to marry to make babies, and the ability or even desire to make babies is not a prerequisite for marriage license.

      • JP

        2 husbands don’t make a marriage nor do 2 wives. You need one of each in a relationship to each other to make a marriage. What else is there to understand?

        • From the government’s standpoint, you’re wrong. But feel free to hold on to your prejudices.

      • Andrew Mason

        So by your logic, when a man marries a little girl she becomes a wife, if school teacher marries her 5 year old pupil they become husband and wife? Just because you write a law saying black is white or up is down does not make it so.

        Homosexual couples already had full equality with non-homosexuals. Now inequality reigns. The Australian government has been quite clear that they refuse to protect freedom and equality but are instead committed to empowering bigotry.

        • Andrew, you cases you cite are violations of age of consent laws. They are no more relevant to Gay marriage than Straight marriage.

          • Andrew Mason

            Actually the examples I gave are no different to SSM. You have to modify the law to make it legal sure, but once the law is changed then child marriage would be just as legal as homosexual marriage. Some countries currently outlaw both, others permit one or the other.

          • Yeah, right. If you allow a Gay couple to marry, you have to let fish marry bicycles. Slippery slope and all that.

          • Andrew Mason

            The term slippery slope is used to disparage arguments yet ignores the fact that some slippery slope arguments are based on observation. X happens then Y happens then …

            As for fish marrying bicycles, do fish or bikes marry? Since they don’t marry here the risk is none one that perturbs me. By contrast the arguments for homosexual marriage aka ‘marriage equality’ also demand that other forms of marriage be legalised – polygamous, incestuous, child etc.

          • Polygamy, incest, and pedophilia are still illegal. If you wish to change that, have at it, but you’ll get no help from me.

          • Andrew Mason

            Actually polygamy is merely not recognised by Western law. A polygamous de facto relationship is legal, and marriages in jurisdictions where polygamy is legal are generally treated as de facto. There was a court case in Ireland not so long ago as I recall when a man’s first wife sought to join the second wife in Ireland. From memory the court reclassified the ‘original’ (second) wife as a defacto, recognised the first wife as the original wife, and granted her spousal legal status.

            As for incest, whilst marriage may not yet be legal, many incestuous relationships are no longer criminalised.

            Actually paedophilia is legal in most, possibly all countries, including the US. Like homosexuality it is a lifestyle that is punished in various countries, but the orientation itself is legal.

          • Well, there are plenty of men that are married, and have other girlfriends on the side. And even if the guy calls them “sister wives” or whatever, they are no recognized for any legal purpose.

            In any case, after “Lawrence v. Texas,” there was simply no legal justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same right to marry as Straight couples, especially since so many of the financial and legal incentives to marry come from the government.

Is Santa Claus Our Projection of The Messiah?
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us