Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Australian Prime Minister: Gay couples who married in the ACT knew their marriages could be annulled

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Hesham Mashhour 13 Dec 2013, 11:37am

    So, misogynist and homophobic too? A law does not need to be consistent with federal law to be valid – take the United States or Canada for an example; Australia is not the only country on the planet to have a federal and state system. Instead of recognising the marriages of gay couples the PM chooses to annul their marriages; I can’t even begin to describe how traumatic this would be for the couples involved – maybe equally traumatic if Abbott’s marriage had been the one invalidated. Instead of following in the British PM’s example the Australian PM seems to be encouraging inequality.

    Well done Tony, you seem to have found the perfect way to piss me off and to lose your party the entire gay vote. (Y)

    1. Joseph Carmel Chetcuti 13 Dec 2013, 8:39pm

      You obviously have not read the Australian federal constitution. There is not one but several types of federal systems. Why the hell should we have a Constitution that mirrors that of Canada or the US? And you must not forget that one of the judges who voted down the ACT law is, like me, a 78er. What that means is that she was part of the first Sydney gay Mardi Gras. This was a unanimous decision (which must tell you something) and I predicted the outcome long ago. What Abbott said was the bleeding obvious. That he may disagree with some (not all) of my political views does not render him misogynist and homophobic. Be rest assured that there are also many gay men and lesbians who do not subscribe to same-sex marriage. Your arrogance in suggesting that he has lost the gay vote is simply that. Shame on those professionals, lawyers like me, who led many up the wrong garden path. The trouble with some of the activists is that they are or appear to be ignorant of the law.

      1. You must be the only gay person that doesn’t know that Tony Abbott is a homophobe.

      2. Joseph Carmel Chetcuti 14 Dec 2013, 10:37pm

        BTW, Virginia Bell, one of the High Court judges who ruled against the ACT law, is an out and proud lesbian. In 1978, she was a solicitor with the Redfern Legal Centre. Some are saying she is not the only gay on the bench. So much for claims of homophobia. The ACT Bill was doomed from the start and it is a pity that the Australian Capital Territory took us all for what was at the end of the day a political ride. Common sense should now prevail and those supporting ssm must understand that they will only bring about what they want with cross-party support. I think those in favour of ssm must at the very least understand that they are not necessarily representative of all gay men and lesbians.

  2. “On Friday, Mr Abbott said his position on the issue had not changed and that he remains opposed to equal marriage.”
    I want to know what that position is, and why it is what it is. And if it’s anything like “Because god (or the bible) said, …..” Then I’m sorry, the reason’s simply not good enough. It must be based on a REAL LIFE where such a union would be detrimental to society, ie, the economy, security, etc. It’s no good invoking god into it, when there’s no evidence of their ever being one, let alone which one. There are thousands. And still further, no one has yet come up with a good reason, why we would follow this being’s commandments even if it did exist. Out of fear? Would they say the same about Hitler and those who acted out his commands through fear? Or would they call them cowards?
    If you’re in the position of power and you try to impose your particular religious doctrine on the rest of society, then your beliefs should be subject to scrutiny.

  3. “On Friday, Mr Abbott said his position on the issue had not changed and that he remains opposed to equal marriage.”
    I want to know what that position is, and why it is what it is. And if it’s anything like “Because god (or the bible) said, …..” Then I’m sorry, the reason’s simply not good enough. It must be based on a REAL LIFE where such a union would be detrimental to society, ie, the economy, security, etc. It’s no good invoking god into it, when there’s no evidence of their ever being one, let alone which one. There are thousands. And still further, no one has yet come up with a good reason, why we would follow this being’s commandments even if it did exist. Out of fear? Would they say the same about Hitler and those who acted out his commands through fear? Or would they call them cowards?
    If you’re in the position of power and you try to impose your particular religious doctrine on the rest of society, then your beliefs should be subject to scrutiny

    1. Joseph Carmel Chetcuti 13 Dec 2013, 8:44pm

      I support same-sex marriage not out of respect for what is an institution that should remain in an institution or because of its heteronormativity but because I believe in a person’s right to make up his or her mind and I also see some not many legal benefits. Abbott has a right to his views. After all, it is a basic human right enshrined in numerous Human Rights Declarations and Conventions. If he is against same-sex marriage because of his beliefs, he has a right to that also as I, an agnostic, have a right to a different political point of view.

      1. You said above you are a lawyer, I hope you are not a human rights lawyer!
        You remind me of the religious advocate in the Scottish Marriage debate remarking that the EHCR would appear to, when their is a conflict between gayrights and religion, always come out on the side of gay rights, well duh!

  4. It’s the same issue, here, in the US. It is being very slowly implemented state-by-state, but the federal Congress refuses to do anything more than agonizing baby steps.

    Within the states and the other allied countries that recognize gay marriages, not one heterosexual brain has exploded, not one heterosexual marriage was somehow lessened, and not one dictionary publisher has gone out of business by correcting the definition of “marriage”.

    In one of the most sensitive areas of heterosexual machismo on display, the US military, there have been no additional displays of open homosexual orgies in the dorms and tents that weren’t already there.

    It’s very similar to the insane debates in the US about national health care coverage or adopting the metric system. Billions of people on the planet already have it and it works fine, people love it. In fact, no need to design anything from scratch, just steal the idea from the country that’s doing it the best. Why the debate?

    1. BTW: Were you aware the US is not metric? Ok, 2L Pepsi bottles and 2kg of marijuana are usually bought as metric quantities. But, it is still 17°F (not -8°C) in Chicago and not one freezing person in the city knows what their measurement system is called.

      Are these funny or sad…?
      http://youtu.be/7_pw8duzGUg

    2. “just steal the idea from the country that’s doing it the best. Why the debate?”

      This is something that always fascinates me in every area of government. There are several nations out there that have pretty much everything right. When you look at the rankings for democracy, healthcare, education, economic equality… there are a few nations in Europe that have done almost everything perfectly, so why the hell are other nations not just looking at their systems and implementing them?

      Look at Norway, Sweden, Holland, Belgium… these are a few of the countries that consistently have high rankings for almost everything, beating the UK, US, Australia, and so many others.

      How hard would it be to look at what they do, how they do it, and emulate that to become more effective?

      This tells me that our governments want to remain a confused mess of religious and political ideology, to maintain their jobs and their income, to break things regularly and therefore ensure their constant power.

      1. And yet if Alex Salmond mentions that Scotland tends more to a Scandanavian and Northern European way of doing things, he gets ridiculed by Johan Lamont (the labour leader).

  5. That doesn’t make it ok, you moron!

  6. Jock S. Trap 13 Dec 2013, 12:42pm

    Tony Abbott is just another nasty bigoted Bastard who thinks his religious ways are acceptable when they are in fact deplorable! Just like the man himself.

  7. Shameful, backward and bigoted. How embarrassing for Australia.

  8. One of the most callous statements I have heard. I feel so sad for those optimists who believed their country would support their relationships. This brutal situation is a very hard slap in the face to them. Depressing.

    1. Joseph Carmel Chetcuti 13 Dec 2013, 8:46pm

      The country already supports our relationships. Most state and federal laws have been amended to support our relationships. Ignorance is bliss, to some!

      1. And all those extensive religious exemptions to “equality” laws in Australia makes a joke of the whole non-discrimination equality thing. “I’m sorry YOU cant get Married because its against MY religion.” It would appear you do not understand the irony.

  9. If christians don’t want to marry someone of the same sex, they shouldn’t. But why can’t they get it into their delusional thick heads that not everyone believes in their silly childish nonsense? Why do they insist on trying to make everyone obey THEIR nonsense? Not very democratic, is it?

  10. Rosa Parks knew the possibility she could be arrested, but she still would not move to the back of the bus.

    The PM is acting like George Wallace, the then ambassador to the state of Alabama, who did not support Rosa Parks, to say the least.

  11. Christopher in Canada 13 Dec 2013, 2:39pm

    Were their registration fees refunded?

  12. Anyone with imaginary friends shouldn’t be making important decisions !

  13. If you are in the United States, start asking politicians to sever all military cooperation with Australia, and withdaw all the troops serving in Alice Springs. The ban was put in place to appease then U.S. President George W. Bush – a corrupt politician who based his career violating human rights of Americans. Since the majority of Americans support marriage equality, it makes sense.

  14. Come on you nice Aussie gay couples, leave behind the red hot homophobic desert of Oz and live in the UK instead, or NZ if you don’t fancy the long flight.

    1. Errr….pass – just because NZ and the UK have legislated gay marriage doesn’t mean I want to live in them – your knowledge of Australian geography and climatic conditions is also worryingly scant,as is your assertion of homophobia – equal marriage is wholeheartedly endorsed by most Aussies. It is the current conservative politicians who oppose – a weird anomaly in an otherwise great place, wet cold gay-lovin’ forests and all. heh heh

      1. The solution would then appear to be that Aussies need to stop electing religious infected bigots who do not understand the fundamentals of religious freedom (it does not only apply to them) and human rights or equal application of laws.
        You have alternate vote in Australia do you not, vote the bigots out irrespective of party.

  15. Frank Boulton 15 Dec 2013, 4:33pm

    The fact that this is so convenient for New Zealand makes me seriously wonder if John Key, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, has given Tony Abbott a bribe in exchange for the latter refusing to allow a conscience vote on same-sex marriage. Last year, John Key managed to get into President Obama’s good books by doing a U-turn and supporting same-sex marriage. Now it gets even better for John Key, because many LGBTI Australian couples are flying across the Tasman and pouring their cash into the Kiwi wedding industry.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all
Tag Code: