1

Chapter 000X

Page 1

1Homosexuals and marriages, some basic issues.

2For example an offspring in a marriage ordinary automatically is deemed to be the child of the
3husband unless otherwise proven. This also relates to inheritance, in particularly if there is no last
4testament (will) of the parent. Also, people do argue at times and being in a marriage it means it
5would take more effort to split up then if one can simply walk out.
6As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I consider what the Framers of the Constitution stated marriage was
7about:
8
9HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
10Australasian Convention)
11QUOTE
The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.33]:
12
Since the law only recognises marriages as civil contracts or partnerships, it would seem intolerable that
13
when the partners can prove the impossibility of their maintaining friendly relations, they should be
14
compelled by law to make a semblance of doing so, and both lives be in effect wasted.
15END QUOTE

16
17At the end of this post I will quote a longer passage of the Hansard.
18
19It is utter and sheer nonsense to claim that homosexuals want to get married because of love.
20Reports I read from the USA indicate that pedophiles want to get married to under age children
21because love ought not to be restricted by the age of a person.
22Then we have that in some countries a person can get married to an animal and well why should a
23human who loves an animal not be allowed to get married? (Not that I support this either!)
24
25AS marriage contract is that there are automatic provisions which includes the children natural born
26to the couple. Homosexuals have no ability to have natural born children between them. Nor those
27who engage in bestiality and so to give for example abortion rights to a bestiality married couple
28surely is utter and sheer nonsense. But from the person engaged in bestiality why should they be
29denied adoption rights when homosexual neither can create a child between them, and can adopt a
30child?
31One then has to look at the Framers of the constitution what was applicable in their time, and
32obviously homosexual marriages or bestiality marriage or for that communal marriage (Where more
33than 2 people are living in a family kind of relationship) cannot be accepted as a form of marriage.
34Their debates was about wife taking a child inter-colonial (inter0-state) and the father then having
35obtained court orders in one colony having to litigate all over again in another colony, to access
36their child(ren). This they wanted to avoid to continue.
37
38
..However, the judiciary has no power to amend or modernize the Constitution to give
39
effect to what Judges think is in the best public interest. The function of the judiciary,
40
including the function of this Court, is to give effect to the intention of the makers of the
41
Constitution as evinced by the terms in which they expressed that intention. That
42
necessarily means that decisions, taken almost a century ago by people long dead, bind the
43
people of Australia today even in cases where most people agree that those decisions are
44
out of touch with the present needs of Australian society.
45
46
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the
47
intention of its makers"
Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)
48
49
50
51
52

"... But in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its
words should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any
meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing
facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. "

3
Chapter 000X Page 1
4
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
5
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
6PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011761-3-8692 2727 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

1
2

Chapter 000X

Page 2

1
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)
2
3As such I view that a referendum would be required to amend the constitution to it implied meaning
4of marriage.
5.
6Homosexuality is not natural as it is unnatural as no child could be born from such relationship.
7While in some marriages between a man and a woman still no child could be conceived due to
8medical problems or the age of the woman, etc, that are exceptions to the rule as in principle a man
9and a woman can create a child.
10
11Lets try to compare marriage between a man and a woman and that between homosexuals in a
12simple format.
13.
14A heterosexual couple full fill the requirements of a contract as much as an employer may require
15a full time employee to full fill the work requirements of the employer. For this the employer
16provides certain wages and conditions. Homosexuals not being able to conceive a child between
17them so to say are like a part timer looking for work. The employer needing a full time employee
18then will not accept a part time employee who is not willing or otherwise cannot s the working
19conditions the employer requires, If the employer were to accept the part timer then it would be on a
20part time basis and on a different scale of wages and conditions. Meaning that the part timer can be
21denied special benefits a permanent employee is provided with. Now it would be nonsense for a
22part timer then to demand the same rights as a full time employee while not willing or able to
23provide the same working services to employer as a full time staff member would.
24Hence, to argue that homosexuals somehow should have the right to a marriage but not being able
25to full fill the same conditions to me is unacceptable. It undermines the contractual rights and if
26applied to marriage then soon you may find that it will be applied to other areas.
27For example you contact a company and ask for an electrician to do some repairs on the electrical
28system. They then send out a worker who you discover is not an electrician at all and yet you are to
29pay for this person as if he is an electrician. Dont think this doesnt happen as I had precisely this
30situation where I alerted to what was supposed to be an electrician that the mercury switch he was
31about to install was not the same as the one he claimed was faulty. It turns out the company had
32send out a person not being qualified as an electrician. Afterwards it turns out the mercury switch
33was not even faulty in the first place. The same could be argued if you ask for a painter and you get
34someone painting your house and well when you complain it was not done properly the person tells
35you he is not a qualified painter, just is a painter because he does painting.
36Now we have homosexuals demanding the kind of contract of marriage to which they fail to
37qualify. That is the problem.
38Decades ago they argued that what they do in their bedrooms as adults is their business. Now we
39have they are dictating the world that books needs to be re-written, etc. Homosexual teachers are
40openly admitting to start on children in kindergartens, etc, as to accept homosexuality is normal.
41They are now stealing the parental rights how to bring up their children.
42Children are denied to be the primary concern as homosexuals put their own priority above that of a
43child to have a father and a mother.
44If you accept this to be OK then next time someone makes a bogus claim and dupe you then do not
45make an issue out of it because you so to say cannot have the cake and eat it. If you accept bogus
46relationships as a marriage between homosexuals then if someone married your underage child
47because that person claims to love your (say 8 year old) child then well you will accept that as
48obviously the moral standards that are enshrined in the constitution you accepted are no more.
49Many elderly persons love their animal as companion. Many blind persons love their guide dog
50but surely you are not going to claim that love is the sole issue upon which marriage rest?
3
Chapter 000X Page 2
4
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
5
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
6PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011761-3-8692 2727 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

1
Chapter 000X

Page 3

1People who marry may fall out of love but stay together because well they just like to remain
2married and over time a different love comes to exist far deeper than the initial love. It might be
3because of the off springs between them.
4Be careful what you support because it may haunt you at a later time.
5Like if you are the landlord of a property then why should the tenant not become the landlord as
6after all the ten ant spend more time in the property then you may do. You may argue that you paid
7for the property but surely that is merely an issue of your concern but not that of the tenant. After all
8when it comes to homosexual marriages you are not concerned about it not being a natural relation
9ship that can produce off springs, needed for humanity to thrive. After all, what nation/race could
10survive if only homosexual relationships existed? Get the message?
11
12HANSARD 22-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates (Official Record of the Debates of the National
13Australasian Convention)
14QUOTE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48

The Hon. J.H. HOWE: I will bow to the suggestion of the Chairman.
The Hon. J.H, CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[3.46]: 1 hope the Committee will strike out this sub clause.
It is proposed by the legislative assemblies of New South Wales and South Australia, and by the Council and
Assembly of Tasmania, that the sub-clause should be omitted. I can apply no better arguments than those which
the hon. and learned member, Mr. O'Connor, used just now with reference to lunacy. The hon. and learned
member said that where a permissive power was given there was pressure brought to bear for the exercise of that
power, and that when it was exercised in one direction pressure was brought to bear that it might be exercised to
the fullest extent. Applying that argument to lunacy, if we had this power exercised at all, we should find strong
arguments used for the taking over of our lunatic asylums. If the power in this sub-clause were exercised at all, a
strong argument would be offered for the state taking over the whole of the benevolent institutions of the various
colonies which have to deal with children, and they would become federal institutions. If you do that you must
do what the hon. member, Mr. Howe, proposes. If you interfere with the children in these institutions you will
have to take over the institutions for the infirm and the old. Now, there is a decided objection in this colony to
any federal interference with what the people conceive to be matters most sacred in the family. We have in this
colony a law modelled upon the English law dealing with the custody of children and with parental rights.
That question of parental rights is one which opens up a very large range of questions. We may have all sorts of
interference between parents and their children under a proposal of this character. The state laws, up to the
present, have been perfectly effective to deal with this question, and I think the argument of hon. members
against applying federal action to lunacy apply equally well against federal action in this matter. I shall apply
those arguments now in my vote.
[start page 1083]
The Hon. E. BARTON (New South Wales)[3.48]: This may not be a matter of as great importance as are some
of the other matters in the clause, but I think it is worth consideration. I will put it to my hon. friend that if the
commonwealth are empowered to legislate on the subject of marriage and divorce without having the power to
legislate as to the children, the issue of the marriage, this complication may arise-that the judge, having to
pronounce a decree of divorce or of judicial separation, and having also to deal with the question of the custody
of infants, if the commonwealth cannot legislate in regard to both subjects, will administer one law with respect
to the issue relating to divorce, whilst the consequent portion of the decree dealing with the custody of the
children will have to be under a totally different and varying law.
The Hon. I.A. ISAACS: Why not add the words "in relation to divorce"?
The Hon. E. BARTON: If the subclause can be amended in the direction which the hon. and learned member
suggests, my objection will have disappeared, and there will be a reasonable consistency in the law. I think the
difficulty might be overcome by inserting before the words "parental rights" the word "also," and at the end of
the sub-clause the words "in relation thereto."

49
Mr. SYMON (South Australia)[3.51]: Is it worth while to deal with the matter in that way? If you give the
50
federal parliament power in relation to marriage generally and divorce generally, then anything that concerns
51
parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants is connected with either one or the other. It seems to
52
me that if you intrust the federal authority with the power of dealing with marriage and divorce, which involves
53
everything relating to the highest earthly ties-that of marriage-it ought, consequent on that, also to regulate the
54
custody of infants. It does not involve what the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seems to think is in the
3
Chapter 000X Page 3
4
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
5
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
6PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011761-3-8692 2727 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

1
2

Chapter 000X

Page 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

minds of many who see some objection to this-that it might empower the federal authority to interfere
with domestic relations in some mysterious manner so as to reduce children to a position of slavery. This is
a control that seems to me to be consequent upon marriage, and which might come into operation, perhaps, in
relation to all matters of divorce; but it is not confined to matters of divorce, and might depend simply on
marriage when the question of divorce does not arise. It will, perhaps, be better to leave the sub-clause as it is
and consider the matter further later on.

7
8
9

The Hon. E. BARTON: Before the hon. and learned gentleman sits down he will, perhaps, deal with what I
forgot, namely, a suggestion from the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, that if this power were granted it would
involve the probability of the commonwealth having to take over the control of the institutions?

10

Mr. SYMON: I did not think that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, seriously meant that.

11

The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: That argument was successfully used against me in regard to lunatics!

12
13
14
15
16
17

Mr. SYMON: I am sure that the hon. member will be able to successfully dispose of it when it is next used
against him. It would be just as reasonable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member, Mr. Howe, and say that
the federal authority are to take control of all institutions for the care of the aged and infirm. I think that hon.
members will, on consideration, see that there is no parallel between the cases, and, that as this affects one part
of the relationship of the citizens to the commonwealth, it ought fairly to be under a uniform law and under
federal control.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

The Hon. C.H. GRANT (Tasmania)[3.53]: I think that the words as they [start page 1084] stand, "custody
and guardianship of infants," are rather too wide. It seems to me that these words, without any
qualification, would apply to destitute children. It would be better for the state authorities to control the
custody and guardianship of infants, because they are immediately on the spot. They have opportunities of
inquiring into the relationship of the children and their parents, and into their condition if they are destitute and
neglected. Therefore, I think it is advisable to omit those words, and allow the sub-clause to remain as proposed
to be amended by the leader of the Convention.

25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER (South Australia)[3.54]: I think it would be better to leave the sub-clause as it
is. I can understand that it will be a very good thing for each state to make its own laws with respect to
parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children; but supposing that the children went into
another state, and were thus taken away from the law of which the previous state approved, and came
under the law of another state which had altogether a different method of dealing with such matters, and
under which the parent was not able to again get the custody of his child, or the guardian was not able to
again get the custody of an infant, what could he do? He could not proceed under his own law. His own
law might be good enough, but the person that he wanted to proceed against would be out of the
jurisdiction of his state.

34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

Mr. SYMON: And the order would not have any force!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: The order would not have any force. The result would be that, however
good his own law was, he would be unable to enforce it because the law of the other state was of a varying
character.
The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Sub-clause 26 provides for that!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That is only an evidence clause, and will not have the slightest effect in this
matter.
Mr. SYMON: The hon. and learned gentleman's point is a point of jurisdiction!

42
43
44
45

The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: Yes; and it has nothing whatever to do with that. The order would be good
enough as a record of the action of the court in the first-named state, but it would not be a record of the court in
the other state; nor would it make the law of the other state subsidiary to the law of the state which contained that
record.

46
47

The Right Hon. C.C. KINGSTON: Does the hon. and learned member read the word "recognition" as
meaning proof?

48
49

The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It is no more than recognition; it means what it says. The word is plain
enough.

3
Chapter 000X Page 4
4
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
5
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
6PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011761-3-8692 2727 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

1
Chapter 000X

2
1
2
3

Page 5

The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: Look at sub-clause 25, which says:

The service and execution throughout the commonwealth of the civil and criminal process, and
judgments of the courts of the states.

The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: But it must be in respect of a matter over which the court has jurisdiction.

Mr. SYMON: Suppose you change the domicile!

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: That will not operate to give jurisdiction. I think that when we have given the
most sacred of all relations-the, relation of marriage-over to the commonwealth, and very properly, it follows, as
a matter of course, that we must do this. Parental rights-that is all we propose to give to the commonwealth.
The commonwealth parliament can make a definition and pass a uniform law.
Mr. SYMON: That is incident to the marriage law!
The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: It comes from the marriage law, and ought to flow as a corollary. It is a
corollary as far as marriage is concerned.

13

[start page 1085]

14

The Hon. R.E. O'CONNOR: It would not necessarily follow the law of husband and wife!

15
16

The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: We are only talking about parental rights; that is the right of the parent
over the child!

17
18

The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS: If the hon. and learned member is willing to hand over the rights, why
not the obligations?

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The Hon. Sir J.W. DOWNER: If the hon. member would like them added I have no objection; but if the hon.
gentleman wants to exclude them, I cannot see that any difficulty need arise. So far as I know, the laws of all the
colonies are exactly the same in respect to the matters mentioned here, and there is very little probability of their
being any different, so far as parental rights and the custody and guardianship of infants are concerned. We want
to prevent the possibility of any difference, that is all, and to give the federal parliament power to legislate
on the subject if they please. I can see difficulties that might arise in the enforcement of state laws through
the child or infant being taken away from the custody of its parent or guardian, and being out of the
jurisdiction of the court of the state in which the parent or guardian resides, and I think it is necessary to
have one uniform law on this matter as well as in regard to marriage and divorce.

28
29
30
31
32

The Hon. J.H. GORDON (South Australia)[3.59]: I think we are quarrelling about terms and not about
substance. I believe that the hon. member, Mr. Carruthers, agrees with almost everyone of us that as
regards parental rights and the custody and, guardianship of children so far as divorce is concerned,
power should be given to the commonwealth; but this clause goes much further and includes the whole
region of, parental rights and the custody and guardianship of children.

33
34
35
36
37
38

The Hon. E. BARTON: Put in the words "and in relation thereto" before "parental rights "!
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That will cover the whole ground. All our acts relating to the custody and
guardianship of children have relation to parental rights.
Mr. SYMON: Suppose a child is deserted?
The Hon. J.H. GORDON: That suspends the parental custody; but the parental liability remains. I think
that the amendment suggested by the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, covers the whole ground.

39

The Hon. E. BARTON: I move:

40

That the figures "24" be omitted with a view to the insertion of the words "and in relation thereto."

41
42

This will confine the operation of the subclause to the rights and obligations arising out of divorce suits.
The other matters to which attention has been directed will be considered by the Drafting Committee.

43
44

The Hon. J.H. CARRUTHERS (New South Wales)[4.3]: I would point out that if we are going to deal with
the service and process of writs in regard to this matter in one state when the parent resides in another, it

3
Chapter 000X Page 5
4
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
5
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
6PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011761-3-8692 2727 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com

1
Chapter 000X

2
1
2
3
4

Page 6

will be just as well for the Drafting Committee to consider the aspect of the case in relation to deserted
wives. If the amendment of the hon. and learned member, Mr. Barton, is carried, I think we might leave
the matter to the Drafting Committee.
Amendment agreed to.

5
Sub-clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
6END QUOTE

7
8
9

3
Chapter 000X Page 6
4
INSPECTOR-RIKATI about the BLACK HOLE in the CONSTITUTION-DVD
5
A 1st edition limited special numbered book on Data DVD ISBN 978-0-9803712-6-0
6PLEASE NOTE: You may order books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI series by making a reservation, by fax 0011761-3-8692 2727 or E-mail INSPECTOR-RIKATI@schorel-hlavka.com See also www.schorel-hlavka.com