Marriage is totally Gay


Are you alluding to the Essendon Fitzroy game in the early 90s at Hobart. Otherwise, except for Port Arthur in 1996, I’m struggling to work out what happened in Tassie.


Howard refused to enforce federal law on Tasmania regarding homosexuality.
Shortly after, he decided federal law did trump state law as regards to euthanasia.

Twenty-five years ago, you could (technically) be sentenced to twenty-five years jail for being a gay male in Tasmania.
And Howard was okay with that.
More than okay with it.
He was against gay adoption too.

But what I was specifically alluding to, was Howard changing the wording of the Marriage Act in the Nineties.
Just so we were all sure where he stood.


Not many people nowadays can claim to have attended the Colosseum in its heyday.

Were you a thumb up or thumb down kind of guy?


Wim: To be fair, the Commonwealth can override Territory laws at will ( as it did in the NT re euthanasia and the ACT on SSM), but its powers are more circumscribed re the States where it does not have exclusive power under the Constitution) . In such circumstances State laws prevail to the extent they are not inconsistent with Commonwealth laws ( and the Commonwealth has validly exercised its powers under the Constitution).
That is why Howard changed the Marriage Act definition ( with Labor support).


OK. Just wasn’t sure where you were heading.

I’ve simply never taken much interest in the subject. Didn’t impact my friends or immediate family, and only subsequently discovered one or two sons of my cousins were gay.


I know these days my thumb would be pretty predominantly turned down.

My usual reaction to the news is “up against the wall”. Mainly for liars and cheats and habitual criminals and drug dealers and generally people who give me the sh*ts.


You know thumbs down actually meant live, and thumbs up meant Death yeah?

I’m starting to think you were never actually there…?? :thinking:


I must admit I thought it was the other way round. After 1800 years, my memory must be a tad hazy.


How’s the hairline?


A lot better than a guy on my plane yesterday. Grey at the temples, but the rest of it was like there was a raccoon on his head…beautifully lush and lustrously brown.


Move to N.Z. NZ seems to be more progressive than we are.


IRELAND passed SSM before we did…


Argentina too


Start with Catholic Cardinals and Priests and continue from there.


Can’t stop watching this.


Bob Katter perpetually looks like a man who has stood on fresh dog ■■■■ in bare feet.


Bakers, florists and other service providers will not be exempt from discrimination laws, meaning they will not be allowed to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings.


From the article

'Liberal senators James Paterson and David Fawcett will not continue the argument that those service providers should be able to say no to a same-sex wedding if they are opposed to gay marriage.

But the two senators have flagged they will introduce five other amendments, including having two definitions for marriage.

They want to keep the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman as well as having a separate definition that covers same-sex couples that says “marriage is the union of two people to the exclusion of all others”.

The two senators argue that having both definitions clarifies that both views are legitimately held."

Far out, isn’t that what it was prior to John Howard changing it. We had to go through this whole stupid exercise when really they could/should have put it back to the original wording.


They are flogging a dead horse. They should just shut up and move on. They had their go, they lost now get over it.


It’s depressing. They just can not handle being a minority, which is ironic.