Australian parliament gets bill to set up gay marriage vote

[webfact]

Australian parliament gets bill to set up gay marriage vote 
ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press

 

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia's prime minister introduced legislation to Parliament on Wednesday that would allow a public but non-binding vote on gay marriage early next year.

 

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, a marriage equality advocate who is the only serving prime minister to attend the Sydney's Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, introduced the bill on the first anniversary of his ascension to the top government job.

 

He replaced Prime Minister Tony Abbott, a gay marriage opponent who proposed that the public decide the issue with a popular vote and avoid a bitter debate in Parliament.

 

But the Feb. 11 plebiscite — a compulsory vote for all adult Australians — would have no legal weight. Parliament would ultimately decide whether the law would be changed.

 

Although such a vote appears to be a move toward changing the law, most gay rights activists are against a plebiscite, saying it should be decided in Parliament without the potential divisive public debate.

 

They fear that government plans to spend 15 million Australian dollars ($11 million) on publicizing the cases for and against marriage equality would give legitimacy to bigoted and homophobic views.

 

Turnbull said the real reason marriage equality advocates opposed the plebiscite was because they thought enough lawmakers already supported the reform for it to become law.

 

"They don't want to run the risk of the Australian people giving them the wrong answer," Turnbull told Parliament.

 

"For our part, we put our faith in the Australian people and we know that their answer, whether it is 'yes' or 'no,' will be the right answer," he said.

 

The government does not have a majority in the Senate, and two minor parties that support same-sex marriage have said they won't vote for a plebiscite.

 

The government's only chance of a plebiscite is now the opposition Labor Party.

 

Labor leader Bill Shorten has argued that a plebiscite would "give the haters a chance to come out from underneath the rock and make life harder for" lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.

 

But Shorten, who backs marriage equality, has not ruled out supporting the plebiscite to avoid a stalemate in Parliament over gay marriage that could last until the next election in three years.

 

Lyle Shelton, managing director of Australian Christian Lobby, a group that lobbies for Christian principles and opposes gay marriage, urged Labor to back the plebiscite.

 

He said he hoped that millions of Australians could participate in the debate without the fear of being labelled a bigot or a homophobe.

 

"It was great to hear the prime minister respecting the points of view of all Australians," Shelton said in a statement.

 

Turnbull opposed the plebiscite before striking a deal with hard-right party powerbrokers to become prime minister.

 

Shorten has also shifted his position, telling religious leaders in 2013 that he was "completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite" on same-sex marriage.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-09-14

[LONG JOHN SILVER]

What a total waste of time and money when there are so many IMPORTANT issues facing the country like climate change , the national debt and immigration just to name a few !!

[xineohp]

Should one subscribe to the fact that oranges are not apples, then a mariage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is just a partnership. A check with a dictionary should confirm.

[bark]

5 minutes ago, xineohp said:

Should one subscribe to the fact that oranges are not apples, then a mariage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is just a partnership. A check with a dictionary should confirm.

Yes you are correct.  I think they want the same rights and benefits are married people.  Tax purposes ? maybe.

[Trentham]

20 minutes ago, xineohp said:

Should one subscribe to the fact that oranges are not apples, then a mariage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is just a partnership. A check with a dictionary should confirm.

You are only half correct........

 

1.

the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

"a happy marriage"

synonyms:wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union;

archaicespousal

"the marriage took place at St Margaret's Church"

antonyms:divorce, splitting up

the state of being married.

"they were celebrating 50 years of marriage"

synonyms:matrimony, holy matrimony, wedlock, married state, conjugal bond, civil partnership

"a proposal of marriage"

2.

a combination or mixture of elements.

"her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip hop"

synonyms:union, alliance, fusion, amalgamation, combination, affiliation, association, connection, coupling, merger, unification;

informalhook-up

"the piece is a marriage of jazz, pop, and gospel"

antonyms:sundering, separation

Origin

[Rancid]

The gay community is not happy at all about a plebiscite. Presumably they are worried it will fail.

[xineohp]

16 minutes ago, Trentham said:

You are only half correct........

 

1.

the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

"a happy marriage"

synonyms:wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union;

archaicespousal

"the marriage took place at St Margaret's Church"

antonyms:divorce, splitting up

the state of being married.

"they were celebrating 50 years of marriage"

synonyms:matrimony, holy matrimony, wedlock, married state, conjugal bond, civil partnership

"a proposal of marriage"

2.

a combination or mixture of elements.

"her music is a marriage of funk, jazz, and hip hop"

synonyms:union, alliance, fusion, amalgamation, combination, affiliation, association, connection, coupling, merger, unification;

informalhook-up

"the piece is a marriage of jazz, pop, and gospel"

antonyms:sundering, separation

Origin

 

It depends on whether the legal jurisdiction asserts what is law. The Australian Family Court would confirm I am 100% right.

[Trentham]

23 minutes ago, xineohp said:

 

It depends on whether the legal jurisdiction asserts what is law. The Australian Family Court would confirm I am 100% right.

By your own affirmation you are not 100% right. You suggested to confirm by looking at a dictionary and my quote is from a dictionary.

It shows two definitions so you are only 50% right.

 

I am not going to bother answering your probable attempt to refute me.

[williamgeorgeallen]

stop this nonsense. ban all future marriages, gay straight what ever. you want to sort out something productive?  make people register if they want to be in a relationship and make them list their assets for when the relationship ends. marriage is a stupid outdated romantic tradition that is no longer applicable to todays society.

[sirmud63]

3 minutes ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

stop this nonsense. ban all future marriages, gay straight what ever. you want to sort out something productive?  make people register if they want to be in a relationship and make them list their assets for when the relationship ends. marriage is a stupid outdated romantic tradition that is no longer applicable to todays society.

yep . true words mate . backed right up with divorse statistics.  its just another religious failure.

 

[Cats4ever]

This is pandering to the loony right. Parliament is elected to assess and deal with laws. Referenda are for changes to the constitution. The only plebescites have been the two rejected during WW1 seeking conscription.

Basically it will not make gay marriage compulsory. It will simplify estate matters for long term couples. It has no effect on straight couples. Of course we have a cash handout to the NO case. The Aus Christian Lobby which seems to represent a bunch of off Broadway Christian sects will benefit; naturally they don't contribute any wealth by way of taxation.

[xineohp]

53 minutes ago, Trentham said:

By your own affirmation you are not 100% right. You suggested to confirm by looking at a dictionary and my quote is from a dictionary.

It shows two definitions so you are only 50% right.

 

I am not going to bother answering your probable attempt to refute me.

Obviously you know better and the fact I sat in the Family Court for 5 years is of no consequence to you. G'day.

[PTC]

16 minutes ago, xineohp said:

Obviously you know better and the fact I sat in the Family Court for 5 years is of no consequence to you. G'day.

 

Sitting in the family court for 5 years? I understand that being homeless can be difficult but could you not introduce some variety in your daily time-wasting? Perhaps you could have visited the markets to brush up on your fruits and the fact they have absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality.

 

As part of the iniquitous and devious political game playing by Howard in the 2004 denial of equal rights for Australian citizens, he also announced this:

 

"Mr Howard also said the Family Law Act would be changed to prevent, where possible, gay couples adopting children from overseas."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

 

I am wondering at the smug and puffed up condescension of someone associated with denying fellow citizens rights under law in the 'Family' Court system. It would seem to be very much un-family denying the rights of couples to start a family.

 

But what the Hell. I'm alright Jack so bugger the rest of them.

[xineohp]

One's ignorance of legal terminology is forgiven. However, there being no such provision for "marriage equality" or "equal rights" either within the Family Law Act or the Constitution one's quotes are misguided and in error. G'day.

[oxo1947]

Gay marriage legalised . I suppose it's like normal marriage but with  fewer arguments about who left the toilet seat up............................

[PTC]

1 hour ago, xineohp said:

One's ignorance of legal terminology is forgiven. However, there being no such provision for "marriage equality" or "equal rights" either within the Family Law Act or the Constitution one's quotes are misguided and in error. G'day.

 

Lawyers and Judges speak in Latin precisely to maintain the general ignorance of legal terminology. Those of us who have the need to employ and manage lawyers in the development and implementation of policy understand very well that once getting past the price shock, inputs from such specialists have to be managed carefully. If something is not written in a law or regulation, lawyers are congenitally incapable of engaging in issues based discussions, particularly when such issues involve morality.

 

Unlike the US, the issue of marriage equality probably cannot be argued on Constitutional grounds unless the issue is picked up by individual States and S118 of the Constitution relating to Full Faith and Credit is invoked. https://sydney.edu.au/law/slr/slr30_1/Lindell.pdf Page 45. Interesting discussion on the Constitutional Powers of the Federal Government to restrict or enable same sex marriage in that Sydney Law Review article.

 

If the argument in the Australian context is not about 'can', then many people would think that the argument needs to be about 'should'. There are many legal and quasi-legal arguments, generally relating to equality of treatment under the law that can be used here, such as Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.

 

As a socio-cultural issue in Australia rather than a legal issue, the parameters of discussion are changed from purely legal discussion and so does the terminology. Political game-playing has been deployed and is currently being deployed by opponents to Australian values of diversity, tolerance and respect for the dignity of others based on narrow and religiously influenced bigotry. That the current law endorses and supports that is unacceptable and those who work in the system that sustains such discrimination cannot absolve themselves of responsibility.

 

Questions of specific terminology or precise text are not relevant to policy discussions, only to the members of that exclusive club that requires is members to be as obscure and obtuse as they can be so that the highest possible rents can be extracted from the client.

 

Marriage equality is a defining issue in the LGBT community, whether individual LGBT people wish to get married or not. Why should they be treated unequally and enjoy fewer rights than other fellow citizens?

[HerbalEd]

12 hours ago, xineohp said:

Should one subscribe to the fact that oranges are not apples, then a mariage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is just a partnership. A check with a dictionary should confirm.

Words evolve just like the people/cultures that use them. Times change, but many people don't want to change with them.