Posted on 12/13/2013 6:20:47 PM PST by ReformationFan
In fact, Australian law now recognises polygamous unions contracted in other jurisdictions for many purposes.
“The social institution of marriage differs from country to country. It is not now possible (if it ever was) to confine attention to jurisdictions whose law of marriage provides only for unions between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Marriage law is and must be recognised now to be more complex. Some jurisdictions outside Australia permit polygamy. Some jurisdictions outside Australia, in a variety of constitutional settings, now permit marriage between same sex couples.
“These facts cannot be ignored or hidden. It is not now possible (if it ever was) to decide what the juristic concept of marriage includes by confining attention to the marriage law of only those countries which provide for forms of marriage which accord with a preconceived notion of what marriage "should" be.
The scare quotes around the word “should” say it all: marriage is not a natural institution, according to the High Court of Australia. It never was and it never will be. Marriage is simply what Parliament says it is.
Ever since the same-sex marriage debate began, opponents have insisted that if it were legalised, it would be impossible to bar polygamous marriages. The High Court confirmed this in yesterday’s judgement. In doing so, it has raised the stakes in the debate over marriage equality. If Federal Parliament approves it, there is no doubt whatsoever that legal polygamy will be next. It's simply a matter of whether Muslims and the growing numbers of polyamorists have enough political clout. That's all.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
The same holds true here. Once we accept the argument that marriage is a “right” any consenting adults should possess, we won’t be able to parcel that “right” out to only certain configurations of people. The usual liberal judicial activism will be enough to widen the definition to just about everything.
What about kangaroos, mate? It’s way past time I tie me kangaroo down.
AMKLA
The Australian Man Kangaroo Love Association....
"THIS is a marriage..."
“The scare quotes around the word “should” say it all: marriage is not a natural institution, according to the High Court of Australia. It never was and it never will be. Marriage is simply what Parliament says it is.”
To the state in the modern era, marriage is simply whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority thinks its is at any one time. It’s been that way for a long time, Pope Leo XIII warned about it 130 years ago.
Once you condition a majority of folks to believe marriage comes from the state, a majority will then buy anything the state decides to approve as marriage.
Freegards
Now, about me saltwater croc...
Its almost as popular as NAMDLA ...the North American Man Dog Love Association at this point.
Dogs!?! Now that’s just sick.
A few years back I sent a letter to Parliament - it’s recorded in Hansard. I was arguing against same sex marriage and my main point was the marriage preceded government - it is first and foremost a religious construct for the benefit and peace of society and the raising of children. Governments around the world took it upon themselves, for whatever reasons good or bad, to record and regulate marriage. That does not give government the right to define what marriage is.
The problem with that now though is: who does decide if not the government? The churches? Most would jump at the chance to seem all tolerant and New Age. If left to the individual then each can decide their own and that would be a dog’s breakfast.
You remind me of a story that was going around during the later part of WWII.
This Brit finally got home from the war.
He made a deal with this girl, but she decided she had to make a trip to the grocery story before they “played”.
When she got back to her apartment, she was somewhat surprised to see all of her furniture out in the hallway.
So she entered her apartment and demanded of the soldier why he moved all of the furniture out in the hallway.
His reply:
“It has been a long long time since I have been with a woman, but if they are anything like a kangaroo, that furniture is going to get in the way!”
Never heard that one before but it rings right true. LOL
Now that’s funny!
“The usual liberal judicial activism will be enough to widen the definition to just about everything.”
Which in practice will make it mean nothing. Then again, that was their plan all along:
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
Australia should never legalize this.
Well, there’s certainly a lot more cultural and historic precedence for polygamy then there is for homosexual “marriage”
This could make inheritance taxes problematic. Let’s say as you get older you “ marry” your adult children. Now when you die they are your “spouses” and your property passes to them without being subject to any taxes.
And those same Godless freaks also get to decide on how old someone needs to be for consent. Whoopie Goldberg will be pleased
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.