|
Post by matt on Sept 27, 2012 18:56:49 GMT 10
My opinion is people are free to be homosexual, but marriage is a heterosexual institution only. Tasmanian gay marriage bill defeatedAndrew Darby September 27, 2012 Already struggling for numbers in the council, the Same Sex Marriage bill fell after key undeclared MPs raised constitutional doubts. Hobart independent, Jim Wilkinson, said he believed same sex law would continue to be argued. "But I believe it will come back in the Federal arena. In my mind that's where it should be." Among backers of the bill, Devonport MP Mike Gaffney said he was not concerned that the bill might be legally challenged. "If the possibility of an invalid bill stopped us, very little reform would take place," Mr Gaffney said. "If we vote this bill down...the issue will not go away. Most importantly, the Australian community is alive to the issue of marriage equality." Gay marriage advocates have vowed to keep campaigning as numbers mount against them in the first attempt at pioneering state-based same sex marriage. The numbers for reform in Tasmania were lost tonight when the eighth voice against the bill was declared in the 15 member state upper house, the Legislative Council. Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Rodney Croome said lower houser approval and some backing in the council were great achievements, given that Tasmania was last to decriminalise homosexuality. "If opponents of this bill think they have put the debate to bed they are wrong," Mr Croome said. www.smh.com.au/national/tasmanian-gay-marriage-bill-defeated-20120927-26nmi.html
|
|
|
Post by jody on Sept 27, 2012 19:03:30 GMT 10
I believe it is best to not be married regardless of your sexuality
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 28, 2012 10:30:15 GMT 10
I believe it is best to not be married regardless of your sexuality Jody what about a couple who live together de facto? Doesn't the law treat them the same as married people after they've lived together for a certain period of time? I forget how long that is. Apparently if you live with somebody in a de facto relationship, beyond a certain point in time if you break up there has to be a property settlement in which you list your assets and he lists his, and it's all divvied up. A guy I know lost his house that way. Kinda sad though, it means that your "it is best not o be married" has to be amended to "it's best not to live together". Companionship sucks, long live solitude would appear to be the new ethic. Oh brave new world, that hath such people in it!
|
|
|
Post by jody on Sept 28, 2012 11:04:45 GMT 10
So true Darj. I honestly believe that you should only come away with what you went into your defacto relationship with, and halve what was accumulated while you were together. I doubt I will ever get involved again but if I did, he would have his own home, I would have my own home....I would never live with a man again.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Sept 28, 2012 15:14:11 GMT 10
There's a lot to be said for each of the parties to a relationship keeping their personal stuff in a wardrobe in separate houses rather than one saying to the other "make room in the hanging space in your wardrobe 'cos I'm moving in!" Still, it's going to happen. The moving in and shacking up together, I mean! Maybe the best thing in those circs is if you're gonna move in with someone, do it in a rented house ... Hmmmm ... nah!
|
|
|
Post by jody on Sept 28, 2012 15:26:41 GMT 10
nah......seperate homes is the only way to go
|
|