Some massive issues with this, that I would like you to explain. Not that you will of course, you will just ignore this, like you have with my other questions...
* This case you reference took place in England, over 150 years ago. Explain its relevance as it pertains to AUSTRALIAN law in 2017? From wikipedia - bolded my emphasis:
Facts of the case
John Hyde, an English
Mormon who had been ordained to the
priesthood of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church),
[2] brought an action of divorce against his wife, Lavinia,
[3] for
adultery. He had left the LDS Church and began to write and publish
anti-Mormon material,
[4] a move that caused him to be
excommunicated from the LDS Church.
[5] His wife left him,
[6] and subsequently remarried in
Utah Territory, which was the basis for his suit.
Judgement
Citing
Warrender v. Warrender,
[7] Lord Penzance found that institutions in foreign countries (including marriage) cannot be considered as valid under
English law, unless they resemble the equivalent English institution. With respect to marriage, English law could therefore not recognize either
polygamy or
concubinage as marriage. Similarly, he found that cultural traditions of which the court had no knowledge could not form the basis for a court decision.
[8] The court dismissed John Hyde's claim.
* How does this case, and the subsequent court finding, support your position?
The statement made by Lord Penzance:
The case established the common law definition of marriage. Lord Penzance pronounced, "I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others".
[9]
Again - no mention AT ALL with regards to sexual relations.
There are, of course well cited criticisms with using this case as evidence for your side:
Criticism[edit]
The heavy reliance on Lord Penzance's definition of marriage has been criticised on two distinct grounds. First, the original statement was an
obiter dictum, meaning it did not establish a binding
precedent. Second, this dictum was a defence of marriage and not a definition of it.
[15
Then of course, is the fact that this is in reference to a christian definition of marriage which has NO RELEVANCE in a secular society like Australia's.
You are embarrassing yourself.