C0997
Ang Claim
“Tinanggihan ang pamahalaan ng ACT nang legalisahin nila ang kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian.”
Orihinal na Pinagmulan: Matthew Davis
Sinuri: 3 Feb 2026
Orihinal na Pinagmulan
✅ FACTUAL NA BERIPIKASYON
**Tama ang mga pangunahing impormasyon**.
The claim is **factually accurate**.
Totoong hinamon ng pamahalaang Abbott Coalition ang batas ng ACT tungkol sa kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian sa High Court, at pabor sa Commonwealth ang desisyon ng High Court noong Disyembre 12, 2013 [1][2]. The Abbott Coalition government did challenge the ACT's same-sex marriage legislation in the High Court, and the High Court ruled in the Commonwealth's favor on December 12, 2013 [1][2].
Ang pagkakasunod-sunod ng mga pangyayari ay: - Noong Oktubre 10, 2013, kinumpirma ni Federal Attorney-General George Brandis na hahamonin ng Commonwealth ang Marriage Equality Bill ng ACT sa High Court kapag naisabatas na ito [1]. - Naipasa ang Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 ng ACT at naging epektibo noong Disyembre 7, 2013 [2]. - Narinig ng High Court ang kaso noong Disyembre 3, 2013, at inihain ang desisyon noong Disyembre 12, 2013 [2][3]. - Tanging-tanging pinasya ng High Court na ang Batas ng ACT ay "hindi tugma sa Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) at kaya't walang bisa" [3][4]. The sequence of events was:
- On October 10, 2013, Federal Attorney-General George Brandis confirmed the Commonwealth would challenge the ACT's Marriage Equality Bill in the High Court once it became law [1].
- The ACT's Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 passed and came into effect on December 7, 2013 [2].
- The High Court heard the case on December 3, 2013, and delivered its judgment on December 12, 2013 [2][3].
- The High Court unanimously ruled that the ACT Act was "inconsistent with the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) and was therefore of no effect" [3][4].
Ang batayang konstitusyonal para sa desisyon ay: - Ang Seksyon 51(xxi) ng Konstitusyon ay nagbibigay sa Pederal na Kongreso ng kapangyarihang gumawa ng mga batas tungkol sa "kasal" [3][4]. - Ang Marriage Act 1961 (na inamyenda noong 2004) ay nagtakda na ang kasal ay "pag-iisa ng lalaki at babae na bukod sa lahat ng iba, kusang pinasok habambuhay" [4][5]. - Pinanindigan ng High Court na ang pederal na Marriage Act ay nilayong maging "komprehensibo at lubusang pahayag ng batas ng kasal" sa Australia, na walang puwang para sa sabay na batas ng teritoryo [3][4]. - Bilang resulta, ang 31 magkaparehong kasarian na ikinasal sa ACT sa maikling panahon (Disyembre 7-12, 2013) ay pinawalang-bisa ang kanilang mga kasal [2]. The constitutional basis for the decision was:
- Section 51(xxi) of the Constitution gives the Federal Parliament power to make laws with respect to "marriage" [3][4].
- The Marriage Act 1961 (as amended in 2004) defined marriage as "the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life" [4][5].
- The High Court held that the federal Marriage Act was intended to be a "comprehensive and exhaustive statement of the law of marriage" in Australia, leaving no room for concurrent territory legislation [3][4].
- As a result, 31 same-sex couples who had married in the ACT during the brief window (December 7-12, 2013) had their marriages annulled [2].
Nawawalang Konteksto
Nakaligtaan ng claim ang ilang mahahalagang impormasyon: **1.
The claim omits several critical pieces of context:
**1.
Ang definisyon ng Marriage Act ay naipasa sa suporta ng dalawang partido noong 2004:** Ang pamahalaang Howard ay nagpakilala ng Marriage Amendment Act 2004, na naglagay ng definisyon na "lalaki at babae" sa Marriage Act. The Marriage Act definition was passed with bipartisan support in 2004:**
The Howard government introduced the Marriage Amendment Act 2004, which inserted the "man and woman" definition into the Marriage Act.
Naipasa ang amyendang ito sa suporta ng Labor—hindi ito tinutulan ng Labor [5][6]. This amendment passed with Labor's support—Labor did not oppose it [5][6].
Ang definisyon na ginamit ng High Court para pawalang-bisa ang batas ng ACT ay samakatuwid hindi likha lamang ng Coalition, kundi isang posisyon na suportado ng dalawang partido. **2. The definition that the High Court relied upon to invalidate the ACT law was therefore not uniquely a Coalition creation, but a bipartisan position.
**2.
Dalawang beses na binasura ng mga pamahalaang Labor ang batas ng ACT tungkol sa civil unions:** Binasura ng pamahalaang Howard (Coalition) ang batas ng ACT tungkol sa civil union noong Hunyo 2006 bago pa ito maging epektibo. Labor governments had previously overruled ACT civil unions legislation twice:**
The Howard government (Coalition) overturned ACT civil union legislation in June 2006 before it could take effect.
Nang subukang muli ng ACT noong Pebrero 2007 sa pamamagitan ng binagong "civil partnership" legislation (tinanggal ang lahat ng sanggunian sa kasal), muling binantaan ng pamahalaang Howard na hindi ito papayagan [7]. When the ACT tried again in February 2007 with modified "civil partnership" legislation (removing all marriage references), the Howard government again threatened to disallow it [7].
Ang pamahalaang Rudd Labor, na nahalal noong Nobyembre 2007, ay kumilos nang iba—pinayagan ang civil unions ng ACT na magpatuloy—ngunit pinanatili ang parehong posisyon tungkol sa kasal mismo [7]. **3. The Rudd Labor government, elected in November 2007, took a different approach—allowing the ACT's civil unions to proceed—but maintained the same position on marriage itself [7].
**3.
Ang balangkas na konstitusyonal:** Ang claim ay itinuturing ang aksyon bilang panggigipit sa pulitika, ngunit mas masalimuot ang legal na realidad. The constitutional framework:**
The claim frames the action as political interference, but the legal reality is more nuanced.
Sa ilalim ng Seksyon 122 ng Konstitusyon, ang Commonwealth ay may ganap na kapangyarihang gumawa ng mga batas para sa pamamahala ng anumang teritoryo [8]. Under Section 122 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth has plenary power to make laws for the government of any territory [8].
Higit pa rito, sa ilalim ng Seksyon 109, kapag ang pederal na batas ay hindi tugma sa batas ng teritoryo, ang pederal na batas ang mananaig [4]. More importantly, under Section 109, when a federal law is inconsistent with a territory law, the federal law prevails [4].
Natuklasan ng High Court na ang Batas ng ACT ay hindi tugma sa pederal na Marriage Act at samakatuwid ay hindi bisa. **4. The High Court found that the ACT Act was inconsistent with the federal Marriage Act and therefore invalid.
**4.
Kinumpirma rin ng High Court ang kapangyarihan ng pederal na parliyamento na legalisahin ang kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian:** Mahalagang tandaan, pinanindigan ng High Court na ang Pederal na Kongreso ay may konstitusyonal na kapangyarihan na magpasa ng batas para sa kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian sa ilalim ng Seksyon 51(xxi), at na "sa ilalim ng Konstitusyon at pederal na batas sa kasalukuyan, kung ang kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian ay dapat bigyan ng batas ay isang bagay para sa Pederal na Kongreso" [2][4]. The High Court also confirmed federal power to legalize same-sex marriage:**
Importantly, the High Court held that the Federal Parliament has constitutional power to legislate for same-sex marriage under Section 51(xxi), and that "under the Constitution and federal law as it now stands, whether same-sex marriage should be provided for by law is a matter for the Federal Parliament" [2][4].
Nangangahulugan ito na ang Coalition ay hindi permanenteng pinipigilan ang kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian—ito ay nagpahayag na tanging ang pederal na parliyamento ang maaaring gumawa ng pagbabagong iyon. **5. This meant the Coalition was not preventing same-sex marriage indefinitely—it was asserting that only the federal parliament could make that change.
**5.
Ang ipinahayag na dahilan ni Attorney-General Brandis:** Sinabi ni Senator Brandis: "Anuman ang opinyon ng sinuman sa pagiging kanais-nais o hindi ng kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian, malinaw na nasa interes ng Australia na magkaroon ng pambansang pare-parehong mga batas ng kasal" at "Sa kasalukuyan, ang Commonwealth Marriage Act ang nagbibigay ng pare-parehong iyon. Attorney-General Brandis's stated rationale:**
Senator Brandis stated: "Irrespective of anyone's views on the desirability or otherwise of same-sex marriage, it is clearly in Australia's interests that there be nationally consistent marriage laws" and "At the moment, the Commonwealth Marriage Act provides that consistency.
Ang ipinapanukalang batas ng ACT ay isang banta sa posisyong iyon na matagal nang nakaugat" [1]. The ACT's proposed law is a threat to that well-established position" [1].
Pagsusuri ng Kredibilidad ng Pinagmulan
**Orihinal na Pinagmulan 1: Artikulo ng ABC News** Ang ABC News ay ang pampublikong tagapagbalita ng Australia at karaniwang itinuturing bilang isang mapagkakatiwalaang pangunahing mapagkukunan ng balita.
**Original Source 1: ABC News article**
ABC News is Australia's public broadcaster and is generally considered a reputable, mainstream news source.
Mayroon itong istatutoryong obligasyon sa katumpakan at pagiging walang kinikilingan sa ilalim ng ABC Act. It has a statutory obligation to accuracy and impartiality under the ABC Act.
Ang partikular na artikulo na binanggit ay isang ulat ng mga katotohanan tungkol sa desisyon ng High Court [2]. The specific article cited is a factual report on the High Court decision [2].
Ito ay isang mapagkakatiwalaang pinagmulan. **Orihinal na Pinagmulan 2: Australian Marriage Equality poll factsheet** Ang Australian Marriage Equality (AME) ay isang organisasyong nagtataguyod ng kampanya para sa legalisasyon ng kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian [9]. This is a credible source.
**Original Source 2: Australian Marriage Equality poll factsheet**
Australian Marriage Equality (AME) was an advocacy organization campaigning for same-sex marriage legalization [9].
Bilang isang grupong nagtataguyod na may malinaw na posisyon sa isyu, ang kanilang mga materyales ay dapat unawain bilang kumakatawan sa isang partikular na pananaw sa halip na neutral na pag-uulat. As an advocacy group with a clear position on the issue, their materials should be understood as representing a particular viewpoint rather than neutral reporting.
Hindi nangangahulugan ito na ang kanilang impormasyon ay hindi tumpak, ngunit dapat maging mulat ang mga mambabasa sa kanilang layuning magtaguyod kapag sinusuri ang paghahabi at pagdiin [9]. This does not mean their information is inaccurate, but readers should be aware of their advocacy purpose when assessing framing and emphasis [9].
⚖️
Paghahambing sa Labor
**Gumawa ba ng katulad na bagay ang Labor?** Oo, ang mga pamahalaang Labor ay kumuha ng mga katulad na posisyon sa konstitusyonal na relasyon sa pagitan ng pederal at teritoryo/estado na mga batas ng kasal: **1.
**Did Labor do something similar?**
Yes, Labor governments have taken similar positions on the constitutional relationship between federal and territory/state marriage laws:
**1.
Ang Marriage Amendment noong 2004 (suportado ng dalawang partido):** Ang amyenda ng pamahalaang Howard sa Marriage Act noong 2004, na nagtakda ng kasal bilang sa pagitan ng "lalaki at babae," ay naipasa sa suporta ng Labor. The 2004 Marriage Amendment (bipartisan):**
The Howard government's 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between "a man and a woman," passed with Labor's support.
Hindi ito tinutulan ng Labor [5][6]. Labor did not oppose this amendment [5][6].
Itinatag nito ang balangkas na legal na ginamit sa paghamon sa batas ng ACT. **2. This established the legal framework that was later used to challenge the ACT law.
**2.
Ang posisyon ng pamahalaang Rudd/Gillard Labor (2007-2013):** Parehong pinanatili ng pamahalaang Rudd Labor (2007-2010) at pamahalaang Gillard Labor (2010-2013) na ang kasal ay dapat sa pagitan ng lalaki at babae. The Rudd/Gillard Labor government position (2007-2013):**
The Rudd Labor government (2007-2010) and Gillard Labor government (2010-2013) both maintained that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Parehong tumutol sina Punong Ministro Rudd at Gillard sa kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian sa panahon ng kanilang mga termino [7]. Both Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard publicly opposed same-sex marriage during their terms [7].
Hindi kumilos ang pamahalaang Gillard na legalisahin ang kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian, sa kabila ng pagkakaroon ng mga numero sa parliyamento upang magawa ito. **3. The Gillard government did not move to legalize same-sex marriage, despite having the parliamentary numbers to potentially do so.
**3.
Binasura ng pamahalaang Howard ang civil unions ng ACT (2006):** Ang pamahalaang Coalition sa ilalim ni Howard ay gumamit ng mga katulad na kapangyarihan para basurahin ang batas ng ACT tungkol sa civil union noong 2006, at binantaang gawin itong muli noong 2007 [7]. **4. Howard government overruled ACT civil unions (2006):**
The Coalition government under Howard used similar powers to overrule ACT civil union legislation in 2006, and threatened to do so again in 2007 [7].
**4.
Pagkakapare-pareho ng Konstitusyon sa lahat ng pamahalaan:** Parehong gumamit ng dalawang pangunahing partido ng konstitusyonal na supremasya ng pederal na batas ng kasal upang mapanatili ang isang pare-parehong pambansang posisyon. Constitutional consistency across governments:**
Both major parties have historically used the constitutional supremacy of federal marriage law to maintain a consistent national position.
Ang aksyon ng pamahalaang Abbott noong 2013 ay tugma sa ganitong nakaugat na pattern—hindi isang natatanging panggigipit ng Coalition. **Pangunahing pagkakaiba:** Hinamon ng pamahalaang Abbott ang batas ng ACT sa pamamagitan ng High Court, na nakakuha ng desisyon ng hukuman, samantalang ang pamahalaang Howard ay gumamit ng disallowance power sa ilalim ng Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988. The Abbott government's action in 2013 was consistent with this established pattern—not a unique Coalition overreach.
**Key difference:** The Abbott government challenged the ACT law through the High Court, obtaining a judicial determination, whereas the Howard government had used the disallowance power under the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988.
Gayunpaman, ang parehong mga pamamaraan ay naglingkod sa parehong konstitusyonal na layunin ng pagpahayag ng pederal na supremasya sa batas ng kasal. However, both approaches served the same constitutional end of asserting federal supremacy over marriage law.
🌐
Balanseng Pananaw
Bagama't totoo ang claim na "tinanggihan" ng Coalition ang ACT, ang paghahabing ito ay nagpapakita lamang ng isang panig ng isang masalimuot na isyung konstitusyonal at pampulitika. **Ang posisyon ng Coalition:** - Nangatwiran ang Commonwealth Attorney-General na ang pambansang pagkakapare-pareho sa mga batas ng kasal ay nasa interes ng Australia [1]. - Pinanatili ng Coalition na ang pederal na Marriage Act ang nagbibigay ng gayong pagkakapare-pareho at ang batas ng ACT ay banta dito. - Hiniling ng pamahalaan ang isang tiyak na desisyon ng High Court sa halip na hayaan ang legal na kawalang-katiyakan na magpatuloy. **Ang realidad na konstitusyonal:** Ang desisyon ng High Court ay batay sa mga nakaugat na prinsipyong konstitusyonal.
While the claim is factually true that the Coalition "overruled" the ACT, this framing presents only one side of a complex constitutional and political issue.
**The Coalition position:**
- The Commonwealth Attorney-General argued that national consistency in marriage laws was in Australia's interests [1].
- The Coalition maintained that the federal Marriage Act provided such consistency and that the ACT law threatened it.
- The government sought a definitive High Court ruling rather than allowing legal uncertainty to persist.
**The constitutional reality:**
The High Court's decision was based on established constitutional principles.
Natuklasan ng Court na ang Batas ng ACT ay hindi tugma sa pederal na batas, hindi lamang dahil gusto ng Coalition, kundi dahil sa balangkas na konstitusyonal na nagbibigay sa pederal na kongreso ng eksklusibong kapangyarihan sa kasal [3][4]. **Ang konteksto ng Labor:** Ang definisyon ng kasal noong panahon ni Howard na nagsilbing batayan ng desisyon ng High Court ay naipasa sa suporta ng Labor. The Court found the ACT Act inconsistent with federal law, not merely because the Coalition wanted it so, but because of the constitutional framework that gives the federal parliament exclusive power over marriage [3][4].
**The Labor context:**
The Howard-era definition of marriage that underpinned the High Court decision was passed with Labor support.
Ang mga pamahalaang Rudd at Gillard Labor (2007-2013) ay tumutol din sa kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian. The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) also opposed same-sex marriage.
Kung iba ang timeline—kung naipasa ng ACT ang batas na ito noong 2010-2013—maaaring hinarap ng pamahalaang Gillard Labor ang parehong katanungang konstitusyonal at maaaring umabot sa parehong konklusyon. **Ang mas malawak na konteksto:** Naabot ng Australia ang legalisasyon ng kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian noong 2017 sa pamamagitan ng boto ng pederal na parliyamento pagkatapos ng isang pambansang postal survey—hindi sa pamamagitan ng batas ng estado o teritoryo. If the timeline had been different—if the ACT had passed this law in 2010-2013—the Gillard Labor government would likely have faced the same constitutional question and may well have reached the same conclusion.
**The broader context:**
Australia achieved same-sex marriage legalization in 2017 through a federal parliamentary vote following a national postal survey—not through state or territory legislation.
Sa huli ay pinayagan ng Coalition ang isang conscience vote sa isyu, na humantong sa pagpasa ng Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017. The Coalition eventually allowed a conscience vote on the issue, leading to passage of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017.
Ipinapahiwatig nito na ang desisyon ng High Court noong 2013 ay isang pansamantalang legal na hadlang, hindi isang ganap na pampulitikang balakid. **Mahalagang konteksto:** Ang aksyon na ito ng Coalition ay **hindi natatangi sa Coalition**—suportado ng Labor ang parehong balangkas na legal at may mga katulad na posisyon sa kasal sa panahon ng kanilang pamahalaang 2007-2013. This suggests that the 2013 High Court decision was a temporary legal impediment, not an absolute political barrier.
**Key context:** This action by the Coalition was **not unique to the Coalition**—Labor had supported the same legal framework and held similar positions on marriage during their 2007-2013 government.
TOTOO
6.0
sa 10
Tama ang claim: totoong hinamon ng pamahalaang Abbott Coalition ang batas ng ACT tungkol sa kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian sa High Court, na humantong sa pagkakabasura ng batas.
The claim is factually accurate: the Abbott Coalition government did successfully challenge the ACT's same-sex marriage law in the High Court, leading to the law being struck down.
Gayunpaman, ang claim ay nagpapakita nito bilang isang aksyon ng partido nang hindi kinikilala ang: 1. However, the claim presents this as a partisan action without acknowledging:
1.
Ang balangkas na legal na ginamit (ang definisyon ng Marriage Act noong 2004) ay naipasa sa suporta ng Labor; 2. The legal framework used (the 2004 Marriage Act definition) was passed with bipartisan Labor support;
2.
Ang mga pamahalaang Labor ay dating kumuha ng mga katulad na posisyon sa batas ng ACT tungkol sa pagkilala sa relasyon; 3. Labor governments had previously taken similar positions on ACT relationship recognition legislation;
3.
Ang mga pamahalaang Rudd at Gillard Labor (2007-2013) ay tumutol din sa kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian; 4. The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) also opposed same-sex marriage;
4.
Ang desisyon ng High Court ay batay sa mga prinsipyong konstitusyonal ng pederal na supremasya, hindi lamang sa kagustuhan sa pulitika; 5. The High Court decision was based on constitutional principles of federal supremacy, not merely political preference;
5.
Ang desisyon ay aktwal na kinumpirma na ang pederal na parliyamento ay may kapangyarihang legalisahin ang kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian—nangangahulugan na ang hadlang ay ang kalooban sa pulitika ng anumang partido ang nasa kapangyarihan, hindi ang Konstitusyon mismo. The decision actually confirmed that the federal parliament had the power to legalize same-sex marriage—meaning the barrier was the political will of whichever party was in power, not the Constitution itself.
Ang paghahabi ay nagpapahiwatig ng isang posisyon laban sa LGBTQI+ na natatangi sa Coalition, samantalang sa realidad ay pareho ang mga posisyon ng dalawang pangunahing partido sa isyung ito sa panahong ito, at ang inilapat na lohika ng Konstitusyon ay magiging pareho kahit anumang partido ang nasa pamahalaan. The framing implies an anti-LGBTQI+ stance unique to the Coalition, when in reality both major parties held similar positions on this issue during this period, and the constitutional logic applied would have been the same regardless of which party was in government.
Huling Iskor
6.0
SA 10
TOTOO
Tama ang claim: totoong hinamon ng pamahalaang Abbott Coalition ang batas ng ACT tungkol sa kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian sa High Court, na humantong sa pagkakabasura ng batas.
The claim is factually accurate: the Abbott Coalition government did successfully challenge the ACT's same-sex marriage law in the High Court, leading to the law being struck down.
Gayunpaman, ang claim ay nagpapakita nito bilang isang aksyon ng partido nang hindi kinikilala ang: 1. However, the claim presents this as a partisan action without acknowledging:
1.
Ang balangkas na legal na ginamit (ang definisyon ng Marriage Act noong 2004) ay naipasa sa suporta ng Labor; 2. The legal framework used (the 2004 Marriage Act definition) was passed with bipartisan Labor support;
2.
Ang mga pamahalaang Labor ay dating kumuha ng mga katulad na posisyon sa batas ng ACT tungkol sa pagkilala sa relasyon; 3. Labor governments had previously taken similar positions on ACT relationship recognition legislation;
3.
Ang mga pamahalaang Rudd at Gillard Labor (2007-2013) ay tumutol din sa kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian; 4. The Rudd and Gillard Labor governments (2007-2013) also opposed same-sex marriage;
4.
Ang desisyon ng High Court ay batay sa mga prinsipyong konstitusyonal ng pederal na supremasya, hindi lamang sa kagustuhan sa pulitika; 5. The High Court decision was based on constitutional principles of federal supremacy, not merely political preference;
5.
Ang desisyon ay aktwal na kinumpirma na ang pederal na parliyamento ay may kapangyarihang legalisahin ang kasal ng magkaparehong kasarian—nangangahulugan na ang hadlang ay ang kalooban sa pulitika ng anumang partido ang nasa kapangyarihan, hindi ang Konstitusyon mismo. The decision actually confirmed that the federal parliament had the power to legalize same-sex marriage—meaning the barrier was the political will of whichever party was in power, not the Constitution itself.
Ang paghahabi ay nagpapahiwatig ng isang posisyon laban sa LGBTQI+ na natatangi sa Coalition, samantalang sa realidad ay pareho ang mga posisyon ng dalawang pangunahing partido sa isyung ito sa panahong ito, at ang inilapat na lohika ng Konstitusyon ay magiging pareho kahit anumang partido ang nasa pamahalaan. The framing implies an anti-LGBTQI+ stance unique to the Coalition, when in reality both major parties held similar positions on this issue during this period, and the constitutional logic applied would have been the same regardless of which party was in government.
📚 MGA PINAGMULAN AT SANGGUNIAN (8)
-
1
Commonwealth to fight ACT same-sex marriage bill in High Court
The Commonwealth is set to launch a High Court challenge against the ACT's same-sex marriage scheme as soon as it becomes law.
Abc Net -
2
High Court throws out ACT's same-sex marriage laws
Same-sex couples who wed in the ACT will have their marriages annulled after the High Court ruled against the laws. Craig Berry and his partner Ulises Garcia were among 31 couples who tied the knot after the laws came into effect last weekend but after five days, their marriage is over thanks to today's court ruling. "We're sad, but as far as I'm concerned my love for Uli hasn't changed, we're still married as far as we're concerned," Mr Berry said. The High Court in Canberra ruled that the ACT's laws were inconsistent with the Federal Marriage Act and therefore unconstitutional. The ruling is a victory for the Commonwealth, which had launched the appeal against the laws.
Abc Net -
3
The Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory
Hcourt Gov
-
4
Marriage Amendment Act 2004 - Federal Register of Legislation
Legislation Gov
-
5
John Howard still thinks same-sex marriage ban was right
QNews LGBTIQA+ News
QNews -
6
Civil unions under Rudd?
Following the election of the new federal Labor government, ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope announced that a third attempt would be made to introduce same-sex civil unions in the ACT. Legislation currently before the ACT Legislative Assembly will be voted on early next year.
Green Left -
7
Section 122 of the Constitution of Australia
Wikipedia
-
8
Australian Marriage Equality
Wikipedia
Pamamaraan ng Rating Scale
1-3: MALI
Hindi tama sa katotohanan o malisyosong gawa-gawa.
4-6: BAHAGYA
May katotohanan ngunit kulang o baluktot ang konteksto.
7-9: HALOS TOTOO
Maliit na teknikal na detalye o isyu sa pagkakasulat.
10: TUMPAK
Perpektong na-verify at patas ayon sa konteksto.
Pamamaraan: Ang mga rating ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng cross-referencing ng opisyal na mga rekord ng pamahalaan, independiyenteng mga organisasyong nag-fact-check, at mga primaryang dokumento.