|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: SSM by postal vote
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
If it wasn't legally necessary, why weren't same sex couples marrying back in 1997?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've answered it yourself, you just can't see it. The amendment to exclude SSM occurred at the time it first looked like a possibility that SSM would happen.
I write these things, why? It's not like they're read.
Because, it had not occurred to anyone back in 1997 (i.e. your randomly chosen date that isn't based on any evidence beyond your fondness for round numbers) that the Marriage Act did not specify the gender of the couple and that the assumption everyone made about marriage was not actually part of the text.
Because nobody, but nobody, every actually reads the fucking law.
[ 09. December 2017, 21:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Do you think Peter Hanks read the law before he advised that couple to make that application to the Family Court? There's someone who knows the law. I remember him as a clever and modest bloke.
Orfeo, how do you think lawyers who want to do good in the world go about their business? Do they just think about how many billable units can fit on the head of a pin and only do the work when the client comes through the door? Or do they see the possibilities and ache for the client with the right set of facts to walk through the door?
I'm not talking about those Parliamentary do-gooders like Bookshelf Brandis, who teared up on TV the other day. I'm talking about activist lawyers who seek to bring about social change in the cut and thrust of private practice. Drafting has its place, certainly in the commercial world, but the real practice of law is in having and managing clients, in fearlessly pursuing their interests within your ethical limits, in manipulating the grey areas better than your colleagues so that your client gets the best possible outcome.
But I know that people all have different skill sets and some are just more comfortable doing clerical work.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Do you think Peter Hanks read the law before he advised that couple to make that application to the Family Court? There's someone who knows the law. I remember him as a clever and modest bloke.
Orfeo, how do you think lawyers who want to do good in the world go about their business? Do they just think about how many billable units can fit on the head of a pin and only do the work when the client comes through the door? Or do they see the possibilities and ache for the client with the right set of facts to walk through the door?
I'm not talking about those Parliamentary do-gooders like Bookshelf Brandis, who teared up on TV the other day. I'm talking about activist lawyers who seek to bring about social change in the cut and thrust of private practice. Drafting has its place, certainly in the commercial world, but the real practice of law is in having and managing clients, in fearlessly pursuing their interests within your ethical limits, in manipulating the grey areas better than your colleagues so that your client gets the best possible outcome.
But I know that people all have different skill sets and some are just more comfortable doing clerical work.
Do you think Peter Hanks did that in 1997?
No.
Does Peter Hanks give any support for your notion that everyone was ready for this reform in 1997?
No.
My entire source of irritation is your declaration that everyone was ready for this 20 years ago without one skerrick of evidence for this assertion. You are now busily pulling up evidence of what happened around 2003/4, when the law was changed, and yet somehow you are utterly oblivious to the fact that this doesn't provide the slightest bit of proof for YOUR claim.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If it's not a breach of any duty of silence, can you say if Turnbull was in attendance at the ExCo?
It was on TV. Which is the only reason I know the answer is yes.
Thanks - we rarely watch the TV news as either we're not at home at the time it's on, or if we are, we're busy preparing dinner.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Ah yes. I thought you had very little idea about the process of social change.
Incidentally, do you know a bloke called Darren Olney? It literally took me this long to remember his surname after you mentioned that you were a clerk in the Parliament.
The last time I saw him he had just accepted a position doing legislative drafting in Canberra. That was back in the '90's, so it will totally freak me out if you do know him. I met him when he was President of Students for Christ at Monash waaaaaay back in 1985 or 1986.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Ah yes. I thought you had very little idea about the process of social change.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
