Australian opposition decides to sink gay marriage vote

[webfact]

Australian opposition decides to sink gay marriage vote 
ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press

 

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — The Australian opposition on Tuesday decided to block government plans for a public but non-binding vote on recognizing gay marriage, arguing it would better if the issue was decided in Parliament.

 

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's conservative coalition government needs center-left Labor Party's support to get enabling legislation through the Senate to hold a national vote on gay marriage on Feb. 11.

 

But a meeting of Labor lawmakers on Tuesday unanimously decided against supporting the plebiscite, opposition leader Bill Shorten said.

While Labor supports gay marriage, it argues the plebiscite would trigger a divisive public debate. Labor argues the Parliament should decide the issue without asking the public.

 

"The experts have unequivocally explained to Labor that the plebiscite would cause harm to gay and lesbian people particularly but not exclusively young people," Shorten said.

 

"Marriage equality, let's make it a reality, let's just get on with it," he added.

 

The Australian Christian Lobby, which opposes marriage equality, said it was disappointed "that ordinary Australians are being shut out from having a say about the biggest social policy change in a generation."

 

The government late Monday released draft amendments to the federal marriage law that would be put to Parliament if a majority of Australians endorse gay marriage in the plebiscite. Opinion polls show most Australians support marriage equality.

 

But gay rights advocates fear that an aggressive scare campaign could result in the plebiscite failing, putting same-sex marriage off the national agenda for decades. Some conservative lawmakers have said they will vote against gay marriage in Parliament even if a majority of Australians support it.

 

Religious ministers and officials would be allowed to refuse to officiate at same-sex marriages and churches would be allowed to refuse to provide facilities, goods and services for gay weddings. Some government lawmakers argue the same legal protections should be extended to cake makers and wedding singers who object to same-sex marriage.

 

Attorney-General George Brandis accused Labor of being more interested in scoring a political win over the prime minister than doing the right thing for gay couples.

 

"Today is the opportunity for the Labor Party to show that it really does believe in marriage equality or whether it's just playing a political game here," Brandis told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. before Labor made its decision.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-10-11

[pegman]

Does Australia have a constitution or bill of rights? 

[Rancid]

The Government probably believes the plebiscite would fail which is why they wanted it. The Opposition also believed the plebiscite would fail which is why they opposed it.

 

Reality is that they should just approve it. However I do find it interesting that all sides of politics don't believe the Australian population will agree. Democracy is popular when the vote goes your way, but very inconvenient when it won't apparently.

 

There again progressive media like the Guardian, apart from pushing Gay Marriage also constantly push for open door Muslim immigration, something the population has already resoundingly said no to. I don't particularly like conservatives or progressives, both scream about narrow interest issues, which keeps real issues being discussed, just diversions.

[williamgeorgeallen]

solve this crap once and for all. ban marriage or at least tax the hell out of it. allow anyone to register a civil union or defacto relationship to list assets for future reference. marriage is an out date religious tradition. let them carry out their own temple style weddings if they must. surely there are more important issues to deal with than this.

[Navalator]

Give the members of the The Australian Christian Lobby the choice of entering into the 21st Century or migrating permanently to the outback or the U.S. state of Mississippi where the natives still live in the 18th century.

[tharae]

5 hours ago, Rancid said:

The Government probably believes the plebiscite would fail which is why they wanted it. The Opposition also believed the plebiscite would fail which is why they opposed it.

 

Reality is that they should just approve it. However I do find it interesting that all sides of politics don't believe the Australian population will agree. Democracy is popular when the vote goes your way, but very inconvenient when it won't apparently.

 

There again progressive media like the Guardian, apart from pushing Gay Marriage also constantly push for open door Muslim immigration, something the population has already resoundingly said no to. I don't particularly like conservatives or progressives, both scream about narrow interest issues, which keeps real issues being discussed, just diversions.

 

I've read some funny posts on TV,  but using the words progressive and the Guardian in the same sentence is  an oxymoron. They are mutually exclusive.  

[F4UCorsair]

There's no underestimating the intellect of the left wing peasants of Australian politics.  

The government went to the election with a plebiscite as part of its platform  they won, albeit narrowly.  The left wing peasants lost, and they have the temerity to oppose it!!

One of their pathetic reasons is that gays may commit suicide during the discussion prior to the plebiscite.  Interestingly, last year in Ireland, the year their gay marriage plebiscite was held, the suicide rate was the lowest for 15 years.

Lanor and the greens make it easy for us to find them a joke.

[Jingthing]

My understanding is that it is highly probable marriage equality will become law in about THREE years time without the need for a plebiscite. I don't like the idea of a national vote on human rights/civil rights for MINORITY groups. Every citizen deserves human rights/civil rights and that shouldn't be up to such votes. I think Australian people can wait three years for this, good things are worth waiting for, and in historical terms three years is nothing.

 

So, bottom line, CONGRATULATIONS (in advance) to the people of AUSTRALIA for joining the marriage equality club. Not quite yet, but it's coming, and you can take that to the bank. 

[Pepper1959]

The difference between other plebiscites and that of our wonderful Australian government is that the Oz one  is not binding on the cockroaches in Canberra. Hence, what is the point in spending $120 million when Conservative rednecks have already stated they will vote NO?

Also, what right does a person have to determine the lifestyle of another person? 

There are many examples in Australian history where referendums/plebiscites were not used on major issues. This plebiscite is the product of a beaten leader, Tony Abbot and the present leader has been stonewalled by the Conservative Right of his own party, with the hope the vote of the plebiscite will be defeated. Unfortunately, it will not and in just a matter of years, these poor backward thinking politicians will have to crawl back into their dark little holes.

Hence it is a total waste of money to hold the plebiscite if these Neandertals are not going to listen to the people who elect them. This is the big problem with our elect reps; they forget they are public servants and not the masters of the Australian population.

Edited October 11, 2016 by Pepper1959
grammatical mistake

[maoro2013]

Once elected the clowns seem to think they have a mandate to do anything, including not to do carry out election promises and then actually ignore public opinion on sensitive issues.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

solve this crap once and for all. ban marriage or at least tax the hell out of it. allow anyone to register a civil union or defacto relationship to list assets for future reference. marriage is an out date religious tradition. let them carry out their own temple style weddings if they must. surely there are more important issues to deal with than this.

Agree 100%. I like the Thai system where you can just go to the office and pay a $ to get legal and same in reverse to get divorced.

The western system is totally corrupt and forces people to use lawyers. Anything to deprive lawyers of making money is a good thing IMO.

[F4UCorsair]

12 minutes ago, maoro2013 said:

Once elected the clowns seem to think they have a mandate to do idnything, including not to do carry out election promises and then actually ignore public opinion on sensitive issues.

 

 

Ahreed (agreed) maoro.  If the government didn't push ahead with the election undertaking, the left wing Idiots would be criticizing them for that.

 

Can't edit typos.

[F4UCorsair]

1 hour ago, Pepper1959 said:

The diffnosrence betweefan other plebiscites and that of our wonderful Austrhijackedgovernment is that the Oz one  is not binding on the cockroaches in Canberra. Hence, what is the point in spending $120 million when Conservative rednecks have already stated they will vote NO?

Also, what right does a person have to determine the lifestyle of another person? 

There are many examples in Australian history where referendums/plebiscites were not used on major issues. This plebiscite is the product of a beaten leader, Tony Abbot and the present leader has been stonewalled by the Conservative Right of his own party, with the hope the vote of the plebiscite will be defeated. Unfortunately, it will not and in just a matter of years, these poor backward thinking politicians will have to crawl back into their dark little holes.

Hence it is a total waste of money to hold the plebiscite if these Neandertals are not going to listen to the people who elect them. This is the big problem with our elect reps; they forget they are public servants and not the masters of the Australian population.

 

There are also quite a few of the left who aren't In favor, so a vote of the parliament Is no guarantee It will succeed.

It will change, but how and when remains to be seen.

Does Thailand have same sex marriage?  I mean real marriage, not the unrecognized villaghe thing.

Incidemntally, same sex marriage and marriage equality are not the same thing.  The term 'marriage equality' has been hijacked by 'the movement'.

Edited October 11, 2016 by F4UCorsair
addition

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Pepper1959 said:

The difference between other plebiscites and that of our wonderful Australian government is that the Oz one  is not binding on the cockroaches in Canberra. Hence, what is the point in spending $120 million when Conservative rednecks have already stated they will vote NO?

Also, what right does a person have to determine the lifestyle of another person? 

There are many examples in Australian history where referendums/plebiscites were not used on major issues. This plebiscite is the product of a beaten leader, Tony Abbot and the present leader has been stonewalled by the Conservative Right of his own party, with the hope the vote of the plebiscite will be defeated. Unfortunately, it will not and in just a matter of years, these poor backward thinking politicians will have to crawl back into their dark little holes.

Hence it is a total waste of money to hold the plebiscite if these Neandertals are not going to listen to the people who elect them. This is the big problem with our elect reps; they forget they are public servants and not the masters of the Australian population.

Also, what right does a person have to determine the lifestyle of another person? 

Wrong about that in this context. No one is stopping two homosexuals living as a couple, ergo, no one is determining their lifestyle.

I don't understand why having a piece of paper that makes it more difficult to split up when it fails is so important. I'm sure just as many homosexual couples fail as do hetero couples.

In a perfect world marriage would be banned, and people would just live together till they didn't want to anymore.

[halloween]

7 hours ago, Rancid said:

The Government probably believes the plebiscite would fail which is why they wanted it. The Opposition also believed the plebiscite would fail which is why they opposed it.

 

Reality is that they should just approve it. However I do find it interesting that all sides of politics don't believe the Australian population will agree. Democracy is popular when the vote goes your way, but very inconvenient when it won't apparently.

 

There again progressive media like the Guardian, apart from pushing Gay Marriage also constantly push for open door Muslim immigration, something the population has already resoundingly said no to. I don't particularly like conservatives or progressives, both scream about narrow interest issues, which keeps real issues being discussed, just diversions.

"Reality is that they should just approve it. " Even though the majority of Australians don't want it?

I agree that responsible government should decide what the people need rather than want, but I doubt this proposal falls into that category.

Before we go any further, let's have it clear that same sex civil unions are recognised in Oz, exactly the same as a mixed relationship de-facto marriage.

[louse1953]

9 hours ago, pegman said:

Does Australia have a constitution or bill of rights? 

Yes.No.

[louse1953]

6 minutes ago, halloween said:

"Reality is that they should just approve it. " Even though the majority of Australians don't want it?

I agree that responsible government should decide what the people need rather than want, but I doubt this proposal falls into that category.

Before we go any further, let's have it clear that same sex civil unions are recognised in Oz, exactly the same as a mixed relationship de-facto marriage.

You both have it wrong and it is well known that a huge majority want ssm.What Ozzys don't want is the $160 million spent on a plebisite and the hate stirred up by the usual right wing haters,pre vote.Pollies are voted in to vote,do your job,for once.

[halloween]

4 minutes ago, louse1953 said:

You both have it wrong and it is well known that a huge majority want ssm.What Ozzys don't want is the $160 million spent on a plebisite and the hate stirred up by the usual right wing haters,pre vote.Pollies are voted in to vote,do your job,for once.

 

I spend 6 months each year in Oz driving a cab, so I get to speak to a lot of people. I have seen no evidence of a 'huge majority' either way. To me, it doesn't make much difference, as long as they don't make it compulsory.

[louse1953]

2 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

There's no underestimating the intellect of the left wing peasants of Australian politics.  

The government went to the election with a plebiscite as part of its platform  they won, albeit narrowly.  The left wing peasants lost, and they have the temerity to oppose it!!

One of their pathetic reasons is that gays may commit suicide during the discussion prior to the plebiscite.  Interestingly, last year in Ireland, the year their gay marriage plebiscite was held, the suicide rate was the lowest for 15 years.

Lanor and the greens make it easy for us to find them a joke.

What i find pathetic is your understanding of politics.Just because one side won,doesn't mean the losing side has to change on their moral stand.To win any vote a majority has to be gained,if you can't get that the vote is lost.Winning an ekection is not a rubber stamp on all things.

[Grouse]

 

This explains everything.

[meltingpot2015]

Quote

...the plebiscite would trigger a divisive public debate...

 

Agreed. The Brexit referendum in the UK caused much divisiveness. 

 

Especially where religion is involved (like here), best not to ask the public. I reckon, a 'free vote' in parliament, where each member votes according to his/her conscience.

[Jingthing]

Resistance is futile. Marriage equality is coming and when it happens most everyone will realize that the sky didn't fall. Oppose gay marriage? Cool. Don't get gay married.

[louse1953]

If Lying Nasty Party could get every pollie besides Labor they would be able to pass the bill.Obviosly more against the plebisite than reported.

[louse1953]

47 minutes ago, halloween said:

 

I spend 6 months each year in Oz driving a cab, so I get to speak to a lot of people. I have seen no evidence of a 'huge majority' either way. To me, it doesn't make much difference, as long as they don't make it compulsory.

Polls tell a different story,if you can believe them.

[louse1953]

19 minutes ago, meltingpot2015 said:

 

Agreed. The Brexit referendum in the UK caused much divisiveness. 

 

Especially where religion is involved (like here), best not to ask the public. I reckon, a 'free vote' in parliament, where each member votes according to his/her conscience.

No.Pollies are there to vote what the electorate think,not to bring there personal preduces into it.Eg,Tony Abbott as Health Minister wanted to stop the next morning birth control pill(r u something or other)purely because he is a Catholic.Had to be told eventually to pull his head in.

[F4UCorsair]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Also, what right does a person have to determine the lifestyle of another person? 

Wrong about that in this context. No one is stopping two homosexuals living as a couple, ergo, no one is determining their lifestyle.

I don't understand why having a piece of paper that makes it more difficult to split up when it fails is so important. I'm sure just as many homosexual couples fail as do hetero couples.

In a perfect world marriage would be banned, and people would just live together till they didn't want to anymore.

 

Politicians do it every day, so how is a vote in the parliament different from a plebiscite.  Politicians are people and they vote on everyday issues involving how people conduct their lives.  I presume you're suggesting that by voting a person has a say in how another lives his life?

 

The parliament has just decided that I don't need $50,000 a year of MY superannuation earnings by introducing legislation to tax me even further in my retirement.   That's another person deciding how I should live MY life!!

[F4UCorsair]

8 hours ago, louse1953 said:

What i find pathetic is your understanding of politics.Just because one side won,doesn't mean the losing side has to change on their moral stand.To win any vote a majority has to be gained,if you can't get that the vote is lost.Winning an ekection is not a rubber stamp on all things.

 

 

Thank you for your simplistic explanation of  how a majority vote works, and if if a party can't get a majority, the vote is lost.   So enlightening, and something of which I would never have been aware if not explained with such clarity.

 

No, it's not a pathetic understanding of politics.   You may be so young that you don't recall a time, not so long ago, when there was some honor in politics, and any policy the winning party went to the election with was automatically passed.   Howard's GST is a good example.  Labor campaigned hard against it, because it would hurt their voter base, the losers of western Sydney, etc., but felt/had an obligation to pass it.  There was probably also a sense of how much it would raise, thereby giving a socialist government bulk $$ to squander on the said losers, buying votes, and giving the recipients of social security benefits something to live for??

 

I suppose those were that days when there was more gentlemanly conduct, no name calling, although the fool Keating was an exception.

 

Or just maybe it's that you are so young that you know it all??

Edited October 11, 2016 by F4UCorsair
spellcheck

[starky]

9 hours ago, louse1953 said:

You both have it wrong and it is well known that a huge majority want ssm.What Ozzys don't want is the $160 million spent on a plebisite and the hate stirred up by the usual right wing haters,pre vote.Pollies are voted in to vote,do your job,for once.

Spot on

[Srikcir]

22 hours ago, pegman said:

Does Australia have a constitution or bill of rights? 

Constitution:

http://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text

Bill of Rights:

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/how-are-human-rights-protected-australian-law

 

[kiwiaussie]

4 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

Thank you for your simplistic explanation of  how a majority vote works, and if if a party can't get a majority, the vote is lost.   So enlightening, and something of which I would never have been aware if not explained with such clarity.

 

No, it's not a pathetic understanding of politics.   You may be so young that you don't recall a time, not so long ago, when there was some honor in politics, and any policy the winning party went to the election with was automatically passed.   Howard's GST is a good example.  Labor campaigned hard against it, because it would hurt their voter base, the losers of western Sydney, etc., but felt/had an obligation to pass it.  There was probably also a sense of how much it would raise, thereby giving a socialist government bulk $$ to squander on the said losers, buying votes, and giving the recipients of social security benefits something to live for??

 

I suppose those were that days when there was more gentlemanly conduct, no name calling, although the fool Keating was an exception.

 

Or just maybe it's that you are so young that you know it all??

Similarly, in your old age you are losing your memory, and the plot.

 

The ALP opposed the introduction of the GST and voted against it. It managed to pass the senate as the Democrats (remember them!?) agreed to vote with ththe government if food and certain other essentials were exempted.

 

That the ALP when in governemt didnt dismantle the GST is another issue - but largely comes down to you can't unscramble an egg. 

 

The Democrats are gone and the ALP are still around. Says it all really. Sometimes it is worth sticking to your guns.