|
Here in Australia there are actually things legally required to be said as part of the ceremony. One of these is a line added by the Howard government a few years ago that means any celebrant carrying out a wedding has to say the following.quote:Celebrants must also cite words from section 46 of the act, known as the ''monitum'', which include ''marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life''. If whoever is performing the ceremony doesn't say that, it isn't a legal ceremony.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:01 |
|
Senor Tron posted:Here in Australia there are actually things legally required to be said as part of the ceremony. One of these is a line added by the Howard government a few years ago that means any celebrant carrying out a wedding has to say the following. gently caress Australia.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 13:27
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Shhh, don't interrupt the narrative. What's the narrative?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
I suppose it's for the best that we deal with these stalling tactics now and get this set of problems out of the way. I have no doubt other states are going to look for their own ways to drag this out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Here in Australia there are actually things legally required to be said as part of the ceremony. One of these is a line added by the Howard government a few years ago that means any celebrant carrying out a wedding has to say the following. Hoooooly gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Are people allowed to pronounce "woman" as "Whoa, man!"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:gently caress Australia. That's pretty astonishing, but I shouldn't be astonished by the depths of Australian bigotry and how much they'll tell you it isn't bigotry. I suppose we should be thankful for our concept of negative rights that would never abide including specific language in all religious ceremonies. Really astonishing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That's pretty astonishing, but I shouldn't be astonished by the depths of Australian bigotry and how much they'll tell you it isn't bigotry. I suppose we should be thankful for our concept of negative rights that would never abide including specific language in all religious ceremonies. Fortunately, at least on the issue of same sex marriage the Australian public is consistently in favour. It's the socially conservative politicians that keep loving it up for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Senor Tron posted:Fortunately, at least on the issue of same sex marriage the Australian public is consistently in favour. It's the socially conservative politicians that keep loving it up for everyone. Then who votes the politicians into power?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Then who votes the politicians into power? Obviously it must be voter apathy, if compulsory voting was in effect people w- oh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Then who votes the politicians into power?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
That's pure political red meat. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't broadly popular with at least their own base.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:The people who want to gently caress immigrants over more than they want to avoid loving over gays. Soooo people who don't actually support gays then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
No Pants posted:The preliminary injunction also ordered officials throughout the state to stop enforcing anti-SSM laws. That part was pretty clear. Are county clerks "officers, agents, servants, employees, or attorneys" of the Secretary of DMS or the Surgeon General? It's not at all clear that they are. The fact that some statewide offices are bound doesn't mean all statewide offices are bound. Again: it's clear that the ruling should apply statewide logically, but the order itself is unclear. In the absence of an order, generally speaking you don't want government officials to sua sponte decline to follow a valid law due to their belief it's unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Then who votes the politicians into power? The problem is that it's widely supported in the australian public but that doesn't mean it's a number one issue, and also australian government seats can be pretty divided so the handful of swing seats that actually "decide" the election (like your states) end up being the most pandered to. They are generally some socially more conservative seats so you get this weird situation where even our "left" wing party is spineless and sells out major principles that even their party supporters want due to havingn a chance at getting a few seats back. Like if Obama just ignored New York because he has a chance at Ohio for example. If Australia had state by state ruled a couple of states would have gay marriage already  I'm getting married this year and after the celebrant says "government defines as between a man and a woman" we are getting her to say "which is something the bride and groom hope will change sometime in the near future" 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Are county clerks "officers, agents, servants, employees, or attorneys" of the Secretary of DMS or the Surgeon General? It's not at all clear that they are. The fact that some statewide offices are bound doesn't mean all statewide offices are bound. You forgot about the "and others in active concert or participation with any of them." Marriage licenses are granted by statewide authorities that fall under one of those two named officials, so of course county clerks are acting in concert or participation with them. The defendant list was pruned down to those two officials because everyone agreed that they were all that was needed for a ruling to affect the entire state.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
teacup posted:I'm getting married this year and after the celebrant says "government defines as between a man and a woman" we are getting her to say "which is something the bride and groom hope will change sometime in the near future" It's awesome she'd do that. Good for ya'll!
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
No Pants posted:You forgot about the "and others in active concert or participation with any of them." Marriage licenses are granted by statewide authorities that fall under one of those two named officials, so of course county clerks are acting in concert or participation with them. The defendant list was pruned down to those two officials because everyone agreed that they were all that was needed for a ruling to affect the entire state. "Of course they're acting in concert or participation" because, what, they submit forms to them for recordation? You're reading way too much into that phrase. Also, you seem to believe there's been a ruling on the merits. There wasn't. (It's incredibly unlikely the eventual ruling will be different, but technically the law is not yet struck down, which is why this is an issue in the first place.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Gainesville Sun reports:quote:Clerks around the state had a lengthy conference call late Friday morning, in which they were told that U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle had clarified his Washington County ruling to mean that county clerks should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or risk being sued. All of the state’s clerks have said they will issue licenses, although clerks in Duval, Clay, Baker, Santa Rosa and Okaloosa counties say they no longer will perform marriage ceremonies. So it's official, done and done, and another state's on the board in 4 days. Who didn't see this coming? Love conquers all 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:So it's official, done and done, and another state's on the board in 4 days. Who didn't see this coming? Love conquers all Despite Florida's best efforts to the contrary, at that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Edit: I disagree, but I'll drop it, since it doesn't matter anymore.
No Pants fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 05:22
|
|
|
A. Beaverhausen posted:It's awesome she'd do that. Good for ya'll! Yeah it's annoying, we don't know anyone who would complain if she ever didn't say it but if someone reported it and she was found to have not said it it's a voided marriage and I believe she loses her license and is fined thousands, it's just stupid. We stole the idea from someone else, essentially as long as they say the bullshit man and woman part you could like almost literally just say "gently caress JOHN HOWARD AND TONY ABBOTT" afterwards and it'd still be legal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Despite Florida's best efforts to the contrary, at that. Still being babies about it though. The list of counties that are now saying they just won't do courthouse ceremonies anymore is now apparently at least 13 (was originally 5). Wouldn't be Florida if they weren't sore losers, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
My home state of Indiana showing once again why we can't have nice things. A proposed bill posted:...bakeries, caterers, florists and other small businesses [could] refuse services to gay couples based on the owner's religious beliefs. http://www.wthr.com/story/27752587/bill-would-allow-hoosiers-to-refuse-gay-weddings
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Saw this one just now on the whole florida thing, and it had one quote from the county clerk that pretty much sums it all up. http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/in-north-florida-a-views-collide-over-gay-weddings-as-many-clerks-opt-out/2212297 Paco County Clerk of Court Paula O'Neil - quote:"The problem is we can't discriminate,"
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Millions posted:My home state of Indiana showing once again why we can't have nice things. I'm kind of glad that my favorite pizza chain there is apparently gay rights.  . Pizza King Indy @PizzaKingIndy · Sep 4 Someday soon, the Pizza King will get to marry the Pizza Prince. http://indy.st/1AboQfJ What a loving dick move though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:Still being babies about it though. The list of counties that are now saying they just won't do courthouse ceremonies anymore is now apparently at least 13 (was originally 5). Wouldn't be Florida if they weren't sore losers, I guess. FlamingLiberal fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Jan 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:I'm kind of glad that my favorite pizza chain there is apparently gay rights. Reads like a slippery slope thing to me. Might be accidental, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
RottenK posted:Reads like a slippery slope thing to me. Might be accidental, of course. Sounds like it is saying gay marriages will lead to legalized gay incest pedophelia to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Too late, I've married my pizza
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Aleph Null posted:Sounds like it is saying gay marriages will lead to legalized gay incest pedophelia to me. Prince consort is the official title of Queen regnant's husband if he isn't King in his own right, so a King absolutely would marry a Prince  Interestingly that means the wife of a Queen Regnant would be Queen consort because the female spouse of a monarch is always a Queen. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Equality Case Files @EQCF #Florida defendants won't file 11th Circuit reply brief; "appeal may be submitted to the Court" http://bit.ly/1BgVRdR @equalityfl @ACLUFL Is Bondi essentially giving up the whole case? (IANAL; I don't know if this is unusual or not.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Millions posted:My home state of Indiana showing once again why we can't have nice things. Does any state actually think that Kennedy's going to side with conservatives in allowing
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Does any state actually think that Kennedy's going to side with conservatives in allowing I just got the mental image of Scalia getting badgered into a unanimous decision a la Brown v Board, getting picked to read the ruling, puking explosively all over, then saying "that was my only copy oh well can't read it now."
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I just got the mental image of Scalia getting badgered into a unanimous decision a la Brown v Board, getting picked to read the ruling, puking explosively all over, then saying "that was my only copy oh well can't read it now." Personally I'm expecting him to read his concurring opinion which involves evil scientist background music and him claiming everyone fell into his trap.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Personally I'm expecting him to read his concurring opinion which involves evil scientist background music and him claiming everyone fell into his trap. Then, as Blue Footed Booby above said, he hate-vomits all over his documents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2015 08:06
|
|
|
Marriage equality in Florida gets a head start in Miami-Dade County. It'll still be midnight for other counties, and in some cases, probably not until the offices open tomorrow morning.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Marriage equality in Florida gets a head start in Miami-Dade County. http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/more_than_a_dozen_florida_counties_just_got_out_of_the_wedding_business Of course, some counties are pulling the 'If gays marry, NOBODY MARRIES' tantrum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
My home state depresses me sometimes. Motherfuckin' crybaby counties. Sack up, you sore losers. I'm hugely relieved that my home county isn't on the list of whiners.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
The panel makeup for the 5th circuit SSM case was announced last week. Two Reagan nominees and one Obama nominee. One of the Reagan judges is very likely to be anti-ssm but the other is unknown.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2015 19:10
|
|
