Building marriage case on legalities
Those contemplating the forever vows outside our constitutional laws on marriage would do well to explore (in depth) the legality of such a move.
A high court (after the fact of doing the deed) could well rule it null and void as it could be seen as a blatant defiance of the marriage laws in our constitution that has overruled Crown laws of authority.
There is no wording that allows marriage to be conducted under any other name (or way) as an alternative or considered an equal interpretation of it but rather as is set down as being the sanctity of such as has always been.
A case of yesterday, today and forever as is.
The celebrant (although meaning well) by her very actions could well be seen as being in contempt of our constitutional authority by overruling its law and introducing her own for the purpose to appease.
What is wanted doesn't mean it can just be taken for our laws on the subject run differently to laws elsewhere Crown Laws unable to be meddled with to suit when it suits.
It becomes a habit to try and skirt around things, the only option legally allowed (by our constitution) is via a referendum by the people (not a plebiscite) for such (like this is not legally binding) and therefore you are back to square one.
The reason the people are the ones with the authority is because the power of the government belongs to the people for the benefit of the commonwealth good of the whole. This is why no other way on this issue (because it is a constitutional law) can anyone else make this decision except the people.
This could well be as to why the gay community only want members of parliament to be the ones to make this decision in parliament (bypassing the people) the only ones who can do it. Parliaments are only there to serve the people and their collective will (not just as members of parliament to serve themselves).
We seem to always have a dilemma as to who is really the boss. This could explain as to why so very few people know anything about their constitution and the power it affords them because governments of all persuasions don't want them to know.
Change our flag, our Australia day, our Anzac Day (to be abolished) so as to destroy our traditional predominately Christian society based on constitutional laws. We like our constitutional laws as they are the envy of the world and have kept us in good stead.
Yvonne Rance, Griffith.
Still got the moves
I am 75 years old but when I hear Peter Smith and Roy Calabria, I can still dance up a storm.
I have enjoyed their music for 40 years back when they were the Glentones at the Police Boys Club. What a talent.
Gordon the Barber, Griffith.
More on Council costs
A report ‘ in confidence’ has been circulated among our Councillors even before my letter was published in the Area News (12th July, 2017).
The report’s highly confidential nature means that you and me, the residence and rate payers of this
City are not to be let in on the secret spendings of our money by Councillors.
The ‘Code of Silence’ that is the hallmark of this Council continues. I’m not sure why it has to be a secret. Sure they spend much more than our neighbours and Councils of similar population but publishing details may help explain why that is so.
We have become used to the disclosure of expenses incurred by our State and Federal Politicians.
Such figures only receive publicity when individuals can be seen to overstep the mark and spend on personal expenses in the guise of ‘representing the people’.
Bill Lancaster, Griffith.