Monday, August 7, 2017

Gay marriage in Australia is unconstitutional

Australian politicians have just woken up to the fact that they must abide by a law that has been put in place for approx 117 years that being the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

The mainstream media too has jumped on it making the herd population aware that Section 44 of the 'Constitution' can claim a few scalps, with regards to dual citizenship or allegiance to a 'foreign power' (freemasons not excluded from this section either) leaving MP's to do what they do best, that being deceiving the good people of Australia, and going into an overdrive deception mode that it may not apply to them or some other lame excuse, or even a false interpretation of the law.

What the mainstream media has not caught on is that not one MP is sitting in office lawfully, but let's not let that pesky Constitution leave our parliaments empty, or law enforcement left to charging them otherwise Allah forbid, the country just might be run by the serfs, and the 'authorities'* will never let that happen.

When you refer to this bugbear (to the unlawfully sitting MP's)  called the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, you should also make reference to a book that should be side by side with the Constitution commonly referred to as the 'Quick and Garran' (for short) i.e. by the authors Sirs John Quick and Robert Garran called the Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

So what is actually meant by this creature called 'marriage' in the 'Constitution' according to the learned authors and according to what the legal framers had in mind.



So for those who require their spoons and bullets in silver, the definition of marriage is found on page 608 of the 'Quick and Garran' under item 200 of the heading "Marriage".

From there on you will read:

"According to the law of England a marriage is a union between a man and a woman.."

Thank you and goodbye on that topic.

* often confused as people in government as opposed to the mass population of Australia.

Illustration: Source Supplied.

7 comments:

Lorris Harmlawf said...

The only reference to marriage in 1901 Constitution is in regard to freedom of religion having priority over legislation, All things omitted from constitution were outside of authority, so would have to have a referendum to require gay marriage for buggery (so no deviantly raped children).

Leilani176 said...

BULLSHIT! Clearly you have NO legal knowledge at all. The legislation covering marriage in Australia (under AUSTRALIAN Law for decades) is the Marriage Act 1961. The Interpretation of marriage is set out at Section 5 of the Act as 'marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. It's that simple. I am not going to spoon feed the law to your ignorant arse. Gay Marriage is NOT unconstitutional and stop LYING to Australian people. To change the AUSTRALIAN Law in this case you need to change that interpretation, that's it. NOT easy but it can be changed. Your stupid memes and your bowing down at the altar of 'Old England" is ridiculous and irrelevant. I don't support Gay Marriage but I don't support idiots pretending they know the law and hoodwinking Australian citizens with ramblings of mad men. Get a law degree, study the AUSTRALIAN law and wake up to the fact that you clearly need to know stuff before making these absurd claims. There is enough material to fight Gay Marriage without you discrediting all legitimate arguments with this BULLSHIT!

Unknown said...

'All love is equal' said several stupid signs at a recent protest gathering.what rubbish! The loving union of a man and woman can produce a child, the Biblical 'become one flesh'! In a man/woman coupling, both partners can climax together, increasing the joy. But two men????

Unknown said...

'All love is equal' said several stupid signs at a recent protest gathering.what rubbish! The loving union of a man and woman can produce a child, the Biblical 'become one flesh'! In a man/woman coupling, both partners can climax together, increasing the joy. But two men????

AuCorp said...

Leilani176: "... Australian 'citizens'... " PMSL !!! !!!! !!!

Says one who know even less about 'law'...

Thank you for your 'opinion'. LOL !!! !!! !!!

Luke Goodin said...

Um what do you think a plebiscite is if you have such legal knowledge? Its a vote by the electorate to change something in the constitution. Gay marriage is currently unconstitutional otherwise they wouldnt need a plebiscite, they could just change the act.

Lorris Harmlawf said...

Sorry i misrecalled Constitution; Marriage is in Constitution under powers of parliament Section 51 to legislate, subject to freedom of religion as religion has priority over legislation, subject to courts as the Constitution define which should have random juries (not Sharia courts).