SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Same-sex marriage officially signed into law in Australia
Same-sex marriage has been officially signed into law in Australia, a day after MPs overwhelmingly approved a historic bill. Australia's Governor-General Peter Cosgrove signed off on the law on Friday - a formality required to enact the legislation. The vote on Thursday set off rarely matched celebrations in parliament, including cheers, hugs and a song. Supporters celebrated across Australia, many donning rainbow colours.
"So it is all done. It is part of the law of the land," Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said after a brief ceremony on Friday.
He said the law would take effect immediately after midnight.The first marriage ceremonies will happen from 9 January, given couples must give a month's notice of their intention to wed.
MP Tim Wilson proposed to his gay partner from the floor of Parliament during the debate.
Meanwhile: Austria to allow same-sex marriage with couples able to legally marry from 2019 at latest
Austria's top court has ruled that same-sex couples can marry from 2019 at the latest, bringing the often conservative Alpine country into line with more than a dozen other European nations. Gay marriage is now recognised in more than 20 countries, of which 16 are in Europe. "The Constitutional Court nullified with a decision on December 4, 2017 the legal regulation that until now prevented such couples from marrying," a statement released on Tuesday said. It said however that the current rules would remain in place until December 31, 2018 unless Austria's parliament changes the law before then.
Previously: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage
Taiwanese Court Invalidates Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Australians Approve of Same-Sex Marriage in Non-Binding Vote
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @07:07PM (10 children)
What they don't want to realize is that marriage is an institution of property transfer and management, visitation rights, etc. It is discriminatory to deny gays those same rights that hetrosexual couples have. But the perverted religious wackos only have sex on their minds.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @07:14PM (9 children)
All of those things should be available to people who are not married, via ordinary contracts. You shouldn't get extra rights just because you participate in a silly ritual. And I support same-sex marriage.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @07:43PM (6 children)
I think we should do away with marriage as a legal construct. Heterosexual people are just as capable of entering into a thousand-page contract with each other as homosexual people are. This will also make the tax code simpler. Let the religious crazies have their ceremonies in temples built of human hands.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @07:49PM (2 children)
Why human hands? Is it against G_d's plan to build a church using robots?
Popeye's > Church's
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:47PM
BURN IN HELL!!!!! Church's > Popeye's
Kidding a little, but you're math is way off
(although Popeye's does have really good sides)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:47AM
I see I wasn't clear. I think robots are ok per Acts 7:48.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @08:55PM (2 children)
Well, really, a marriage isn't really official until a child from the couple is produced. That is the seal that confirms the deed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:04AM (1 child)
You might want to think about that. Are you thus advocating that those who marry are sanctioned to have children? Particularly, the ones marrying animals and plants? For that would make for interesting legal precedence when genetics gets to the point where those sorts of progeny are possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @12:10AM
monster musume
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday December 09 2017, @11:22PM (1 child)
Yes, precisely. Marriage is a bundled contract of legal rights, many (perhaps most) of which aside from the stuff having to do with children/sex are the kinds of things people might want to share with a non-romantic companion or even a close sibling or whatever.
My great-grandfather died in his 40s. My great-grandmother lived to over 100. She never remarried but spent several decades living with another older woman. They weren't lesbians, nor did they have any inclination toward romance... They just were two older women who found a close friendship after their husbands died. They shared property and companionship. If two people like that want to receive legal benefits for long-term couples (their period together was much longer than the average marriage), why shouldn't they?
It's really the next stage of thinking once you divorce (no pun intended) marriage from procreation (which effectively happened distinctly with gay marriage) -- why shouldn't two long-term companions be able to get these rights? Courts in certain circumstances still will question the legitimate "intent" of partners in marriage who seem only to be in it for the legal benefits, rather than romance. How is that less intrusive than laws regulating sexual behavior in the bedroom or whatever? Is "love" or romantic attraction any more the purview of courts and the law than what or whom you're doing in your bedroom?
Of course, this logic then leads down the complex legal road of "what's special about two people" then... And that's an even more difficult discussion for all sorts of reasons.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 10 2017, @01:36PM
you're so in denial.
grammy was harvesting the oyster ditch and eating box lunch FOR 60 YEARS DUDE.