Skip navigation

In a brief respite from election-related blogging, I am reinvigorating my campaign to protect and preserve marriage. Following on from my campaign to give corporate persons the same right to marriage as “natural” persons and to protect marriage from blacks, asians and gays, I am now asking it to be protected from marriage celebrants including priests and bishops.

The Attorney General’s Department has examined many marriages and found that they do not comply with the strict laws protecting marriage. Protecting marriage against specious wedding vows. An informative DVD quite informatively informs us that the proper wedding vow is “‘I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, AB (or CD), take thee, CD (or AB) to be my lawful wedded wife (or husband).”

It would be improper to say “I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, AB (or CD), take thee, CD (or AB) to be my wife (or husband)” however it would be sufficiently appropriate to say “I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, AB (or CD), take thee, CD (or AB) to be my lawful wife (or husband)” or to say ‘I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, AB (or CD), take thee, CD (or AB) to be my wedded wife (or husband).” As you can clearly see, the former completely undermines the sanctity of marriage, whereas the latter preserves it in all its dignity and grace.

Even more importantly, traditional marriage must be protected from the failure to recite s 46 of the Marriage Act, introduced by the Marriage Act Amendment Act 2004 (Cth). This includes the words “‘marriage, according to law in Australia, is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. Because, watching all those old-school wedding vows, that was the part that stuck out to me most of all – the “exclusion of all others”.

Now, as strident and as ardent a defender of marriage as I am, I must disagree with one thing. The article notes:

‘Words to that effect” once gave celebrants leeway but since 2006-07 the Department [ has imposed a narrow legal interpretation….Since Parliament defined marriage narrowly in 2004 to rule out the possibility of gay unions, the department has disallowed the use of substitute words. ”You could reverse the order of ‘man’ and ‘woman’, but that is all,” the DVD says.

And

”The vows used in a marriage ceremony are legally crucial. Not following the requirements of section 45 in the vows can result in a void or invalid marriage. There are no exceptions to this.”

Did anyone else realise that the Department cannot interpret statutes? Has not Attorney General’s Department not read Chapter III of the Constitution? It is not up to the executive branch of the Commonwealth Government to interpret and apply the laws passed by Federal Parliament or to render marriage invalid under the law. That is emphatically the province of the judiciary. Dumbasses.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: