Gun-slingin’ equality
Many of you would脗聽 have heard by now that Iowa, yes Iowa, has become the third state in America, after Connecticut and Massachusetts, to legalise gay marriage.
Last week, the Iowa Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a 1998 law saying that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
What is most interesting about the decision is the reliance on the principles of equality in the Constitution to render the marriage law invalid.
The judges wrote, The legislature has excluded a historically disfavored class of persons from a supremely important civil institution without a constitutionally sufficient justification-娄 We have a constitutional duty to ensure equal protection of the law.脗聽 Faithfulness to that duty requires us to hold Iowa’s marriage statute-娄violates the Iowa Constitution.
Intersestingly, the consideration of another class of relationship recognition, such as civil unions, drew a scathing response from the judges: A new distinction based on sexual orientation would be equally suspect and difficult to square with the fundamental principles of equal protection embodied in our constitution.
My first reaction to the judgement was if Iowa -鈥� a conservative, midwestern, bible-bashing, gun-slinging state -鈥� can allow gay marriage, then why can’t Australia.
Crucially, Australia does not have a mechanism whereby laws can be judged on the basis of their human rights implications, either in our Constitution, or in the form of a human rights act.
But right now in Australia we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to change this. At present, the Federal Government is conducting consultations around the country about the desirability of greater human rights protections.
In Australia, human rights inscribed in our Constitution, or the introduction of a human rights act, would make Federal Parliament ensure laws did not treat gays and lesbians any differently. One of the laws that would warrant close scrutiny under such an act would be the Marriage Act.
I encourage you to tell the Government why you think we need greater human rights protections in Australia: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/letstalkaboutrights/info.html
Emily Gray is the convenor of the NSW Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby.
A constitutional amendment would over rule any state decision in US Law.
“constitutional amendment”. Bush & the Republicans tried, but the “opposition” Democrats refused, so it had no chance of becoming law.
But in Australia, when Howard & the Libs tried a ban, the “opposition” Labor SUPPORTED IT and it passed into law in 2004! Yes, and as shocking as that is.. worse still is Labor even continue to support it to remain in place to this day, (as they are under the mistaken impression that they only won power in government due to the support of Evangelical Christian Extremists- so not true).
Bush tried to get a constitutional amendment up banning same-sex marriage but Congress voted it down (including some Republicans – I think they were concerned about interference in states’ matters).
As for court rulings having greater legal power than constitutional amendments, I’m not so sure. I would have thought national constitutions do take precedence over mere court rulings (although courts interpret the constitution in various ways).
Fanatics can and will pursue homophobic agendas regardless of cost. That’s what happened to same-sex marriage in Hawaii and elsewhere. I hope US gay groups are prepared for such a fight which will come.
That’s a bet you would lose. A constitutional amendment cannot overrule a court decision. In any event such a thing would cost Iowa taxpayers a bundle of money and people in states like Iowa hate paying taxes.
I bet you 100 percent – there will be a “consitutional amendment saying a union between a man and and a woman” will pass now in Iowa!!!
California – Not so liberal after all. Vermont is actually the most liberal!!!!
I want to marry 100 men!!! It is my right to do that!!!
Brendan what are talking about? – it sounds like complete dribble. Oh and for your information I do support gay marriage and polygamy as well!!! I FULLY SUPPORT marriages that are –
* Between opposite-sex couples
* Between same-sex couples
* Polygamy and monogamy
* Inter-racial marriages
I DO NOT EVER support marriages that are –
* Forced or arranged
* Between two kids/teenagers
* Between an adult and a child
* Between a dead person and a person that is alive
* Between relatives
* between a person and an animal
Horses don’t pay tax. Same-sex Attracted citizens of this country pay FIRST CLASS TAXES, for Second Class Citizenship rights.
It’s time Australia got with the times, and started to lead instead of follow. Leading in this area would involve KRudd allowing full equal Civil Marriage. For our taxes, we deserve the right to get married in a goverment registry office like everyone else can. (then, as a bonus, there are also a string of churches eager to also perform same sex weddings when they get permission). Forget civil unions, we now want FULL equal rights in the form of civil marriage!!!
“man i am sick and tired of this political correctness!! next thing it will be some ones right to marry a horse!!”
Is that just a statement or are you proposing?
“My first reaction to the judgement was if Iowa -鈥� a conservative, midwestern, bible-bashing, gun-slinging state -鈥� can allow gay marriage, then why can’t Australia” asserts Emily Gray.
First of all, Iowa is a relatively liberal midwestern state and, unlike many Southern states in the US, it has gone Democrat more often than not in presidential elections since the Reagan era – including the last one.
Secondly, rednecks and anti-same sex marriage zealots are everywhere in the US (and Australia, for that matter).
Finally, are Australians really more opened-minded and pro-gay than Americans? I think that’s an inaccurate assumption and a naive underestimation of the anti-same sex marriage forces here.
man i am sick and tired of this political correctness!! next thing it will be some ones right to marry a horse!!