Australian Senate rejects public vote on gay marriage

[webfact]

Australian Senate rejects public vote on gay marriage 

 

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia's Senate on Monday rejected a government plan to hold a public vote on recognizing gay marriage.

 

The Senate voted by a margin of 33 to 29 against holding the non-binding public plebiscite on same-sex marriage which Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's conservative government had planned for Feb. 11.

 

Marriage equality opponents had supported the plan while most gay marriage advocates had opposed it, warning it would spark a divisive public debate.

 

A lesbian opposition senator Penny Wong had argued against holding the plebiscite, telling parliament it would denigrate her family.

 

Most marriage equality advocates want Parliament to decide the issue without a public vote. The government has yet to say whether it will allow lawmakers to decide whether same-sex marriages will be recognized.

 

The public vote would have carried no legal weight and lawmakers would still have had to change the law in Parliament. Some government lawmakers had said they would vote down gay marriage in Parliament even if a majority of Australians voted for marriage equality.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-11-08

[nottocus]

Great news.

[Bob9]

Yet again the unelected swill of Aust's Senate have decided what will be done, or in that case what will not be done.  A plebiscite was promised leading into the last election, to gain the true public opinion on the matter - rather than force upon the Aust people what 'progessive' politicians want to do. IMO the Aust public are skeptical of the reasons for need for LGBT 'marriage rights', when a Civil Union would be good enough to cover all the legal issues involved (inheritence etc etc). IMO the Aust people are thinking that the LGBT activists are using this not for equality reasons, but they really just want adoption rights and are using the issue to marriage rights issue gain that right. IMO most Aust people do not agree that a LGBT couple should be given the legal right to adopt a baby. The PM is aware of those 'reservations' and committed to a plebsicite (cheap and easy) rather than a referendum (costly and complex). I hear the argument that the debate leading into the vote could become too angry and divisive - but on that basis there should never be a referendum/plebiscite held. That is what a referendum and plebiscite are for - so the people can state their option on a specific issue. Denying the people to right to debate and vote on an issue because they are too immature and divisive, is elitist and an insult to the people - and to the LGBT community. The issue needs to be 'opened up' and the debate needs to take place. Forcing the views of those in favour LGBT marriage rights on those who are opposed, will fester divisiveness and anger as they will never accept that decision as it was not made byt ythe public - they will forever be angry and argumentative and will campaign against it forever.  Having an open debate and making the issue a public decision will force the losing side to accept the decison - or at least live with it. If the vote is in favour of LGBT marriages (or not), then the wounds of an argument will heal over time, and the LGBT community will have the strength of public opinion behind them if they win.

[simple1]

29 minutes ago, Bob9 said:

 

 

You have no knowledge of Australian adoption rights for same sex / LGBT people. Try educating yourself...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_and_parenting_in_Australia

 

 

[Bob9]

21 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

You have no knowledge of Australian adoption rights for same sex / LGBT people. Try educating yourself...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption_and_parenting_in_Australia

 

 

 

You are an uneduated #### - my point is that IMO most people disagree with this. DUH !!!

[simple1]

57 minutes ago, Bob9 said:

 

You are an uneduated #### - my point is that IMO most people disagree with this. DUH !!!

 

OK. As adoption for gay couples etc is already legal in most areas of Oz your argument makes no sense. It's been estimated approx 70% of the Oz population is pro gay marriage legislation. The right wing Christian politicians are against, makes a mockery of separation of State from religion. Others believe it's a waste of money to have a public, non binding vote, just get Parliamentarians to enact the legislation.

[Bob9]

OMG - give me strength ...................

 

Quote:   IMO most Aust people do not agree that a LGBT couple should be given the legal right to adopt a baby.

 

Sure - most States have passed rules to allow it - but the People were not asked whether they agreed or disagreed with that.  It was done under the 'progressive' drive by Greens Labor to make 'things better' and to enforce social beliefs that they hold.  My point is that the people should be asked because many people disagree.  There have been many times when the people have said yes to something, and they ahve also said no. This is a serious issue (to many) and the PM said a plebiscite would take place - so the people can say yes (or no) and therefore the argument is over - but that 'right' has been denied.  That is the issue/argument.

 

[mikebike]

Unfortunately Bob9, the people often aren't the best judges of right and wrong. Left to a plebiscite it is hard to imagine Australian women and Aboriginals getting voting rights when they did.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

3 hours ago, Bob9 said:

Yet again the unelected swill of Aust's Senate have decided what will be done, or in that case what will not be done.  A plebiscite was promised leading into the last election, to gain the true public opinion on the matter - rather than force upon the Aust people what 'progessive' politicians want to do. IMO the Aust public are skeptical of the reasons for need for LGBT 'marriage rights', when a Civil Union would be good enough to cover all the legal issues involved (inheritence etc etc). IMO the Aust people are thinking that the LGBT activists are using this not for equality reasons, but they really just want adoption rights and are using the issue to marriage rights issue gain that right. IMO most Aust people do not agree that a LGBT couple should be given the legal right to adopt a baby. The PM is aware of those 'reservations' and committed to a plebsicite (cheap and easy) rather than a referendum (costly and complex). I hear the argument that the debate leading into the vote could become too angry and divisive - but on that basis there should never be a referendum/plebiscite held. That is what a referendum and plebiscite are for - so the people can state their option on a specific issue. Denying the people to right to debate and vote on an issue because they are too immature and divisive, is elitist and an insult to the people - and to the LGBT community. The issue needs to be 'opened up' and the debate needs to take place. Forcing the views of those in favour LGBT marriage rights on those who are opposed, will fester divisiveness and anger as they will never accept that decision as it was not made byt ythe public - they will forever be angry and argumentative and will campaign against it forever.  Having an open debate and making the issue a public decision will force the losing side to accept the decison - or at least live with it. If the vote is in favour of LGBT marriages (or not), then the wounds of an argument will heal over time, and the LGBT community will have the strength of public opinion behind them if they win.

 

You believe that you are entitled to vote or comment on a decision to deny me equality of rights under the law.

 

Why am I not surprised at hearing this homophobic crap from a Brit Alt Right UKIP'er. True to form to the end.

 

If you are going to favor Australians with your marginal and unpopular views, then it may be wise for you to read the Australian Constitution and various laws such as the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 which began the reform of public policy in Australia and is followed by various state laws such as the Equal Opportunity Employment Act passed by South Australia in 1984.

 

These Acts are a generation old now. They are part of the fabric of Australian society. The majority of Australians support LGBT rights and marriage equality. You give your opinion about what the Australian 'people' want in the absence of any evidence to support your claim or any evidence to demonstrate that you have the most basic knowledge and understanding of Australia, its people and its laws.

 

This is just homophobic trash and is typical of the mean spirited, divisive and selfish dogma of the reactionary old straight whites who vote Trump or Farage or Le pen or the rest of them.

 

It bears mentioning again. Most Australians support LGBT rights and marriage equality. http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/who-supports-equality/a-majority-of-australians-support-marriage-equality/ The numbers are clear to those who wish to review them instead of substituting their own biased and bigoted opinions for facts.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[Jingthing]

Australia will get there to marriage equality. It's only a question of the specific way that happens and exactly when. Seems within 5 years is probable. 

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, Bob9 said:

Yet again the unelected swill of Aust's Senate have decided what will be done, or in that case what will not be done.  A plebiscite was promised leading into the last election, to gain the true public opinion on the matter - rather than force upon the Aust people what 'progessive' politicians want to do. IMO the Aust public are skeptical of the reasons for need for LGBT 'marriage rights', when a Civil Union would be good enough to cover all the legal issues involved (inheritence etc etc). IMO the Aust people are thinking that the LGBT activists are using this not for equality reasons, but they really just want adoption rights and are using the issue to marriage rights issue gain that right. IMO most Aust people do not agree that a LGBT couple should be given the legal right to adopt a baby. The PM is aware of those 'reservations' and committed to a plebsicite (cheap and easy) rather than a referendum (costly and complex). I hear the argument that the debate leading into the vote could become too angry and divisive - but on that basis there should never be a referendum/plebiscite held. That is what a referendum and plebiscite are for - so the people can state their option on a specific issue. Denying the people to right to debate and vote on an issue because they are too immature and divisive, is elitist and an insult to the people - and to the LGBT community. The issue needs to be 'opened up' and the debate needs to take place. Forcing the views of those in favour LGBT marriage rights on those who are opposed, will fester divisiveness and anger as they will never accept that decision as it was not made byt ythe public - they will forever be angry and argumentative and will campaign against it forever.  Having an open debate and making the issue a public decision will force the losing side to accept the decison - or at least live with it. If the vote is in favour of LGBT marriages (or not), then the wounds of an argument will heal over time, and the LGBT community will have the strength of public opinion behind them if they win.

Instead of just pulling opinions out of your....hat, you could actually look things up via something called the internet.  

 

"The final Fairfax-Ipsos poll of the campaign - which found the major parties locked 50-50 in the two-party preferred vote, found seven in 10 Australian voters backed a change to the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to wed.

This figure represents a rise from 69 per cent in August 2015, and 57 per cent in November 2010. Just 22 per cent of voters now same-sex marriage, down from 25 per cent in August 2015 and 37 per cent in November 2010."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-australian-voters-overwhelmingly-back-malcolm-turnbulls-plebiscite-policy-20160701-gpw6es.html

Edited November 8, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Thakkar]

As a matter of principle, minority rights should not be denied no matter how many people want to deny it.

 

T

[markt7081]

Like , really, who cares?  

Why have a multi million dollar plebiscite? 

Just let them do it.

its going to happen in the finish anyway.

Far more important things to worry about in life.

 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, markt7081 said:

Like , really, who cares?  

Why have a multi million dollar plebiscite? 

Just let them do it.

its going to happen in the finish anyway.

Far more important things to worry about in life.

 

Of course. It's going to pass eventually anyway. A plebiscite would have been a waste of money and non-binding anyway, so why bother? Smart choice not to. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Jingthing

[TPI]

1 hour ago, mikebike said:

Unfortunately Bob9, the people often aren't the best judges of right and wrong. Left to a plebiscite it is hard to imagine Australian women and Aboriginals getting voting rights when they did.

Sorry Mike I don't agree, the act of giving Aboriginals the vote came after a referendum that by an over whelming vote gave acknowledgement of their right to be counted in the Census as citizens and therefore the right to vote. The right of women to vote followed not long after NZ and recognized the part they have played in creating Australia!

 

Marriage equality only makes common sense, the medical profession already acknowledges the existence of the various differences in our general sexual preferences. Therefore to say that LGBT people are somehow "wrong" flies in the face of scientific fact!!

 

Of course, if your standards are set by some book that says that your invisible friend is better than my invisible friend......well, lets not allow facts get in the way of prejudice!

[ilostmypassword]

19 hours ago, OMGImInPattaya said:

It seems not all blacks are on the Democratic plantation.

 

2 hours ago, Bob9 said:

OMG - give me strength ...................

 

Quote:   IMO most Aust people do not agree that a LGBT couple should be given the legal right to adopt a baby.

 

Sure - most States have passed rules to allow it - but the People were not asked whether they agreed or disagreed with that.  It was done under the 'progressive' drive by Greens Labor to make 'things better' and to enforce social beliefs that they hold.  My point is that the people should be asked because many people disagree.  There have been many times when the people have said yes to something, and they ahve also said no. This is a serious issue (to many) and the PM said a plebiscite would take place - so the people can say yes (or no) and therefore the argument is over - but that 'right' has been denied.  That is the issue/argument.

 

There was a time in the USA that most whites opposed interracial marriage.  Should their opinions have had any weight in deciding the question?

[coma]

Good news. They can now wait another 3 years before they get another bite at the cherry. Then let the voting public vote on it.Labour Yes. Liberal No. Hope that the liberals get re elected so I can watch the pro movement whinge and bit£% a little more. 

[Jimbo2014]

Two consenting adults cannot confirm their relationship.  Crazy and shameful Australia.

[Chicog]

4 hours ago, Bob9 said:

 

You are an uneduated #### - my point is that IMO most people disagree with this. DUH !!!

 

I doubt they do. But the god bothers will no doubt feel they have a right to twitch the curtains and poke their noses into other peoples' business as usual.

[louse1953]

5 hours ago, Bob9 said:

Yet again the unelected swill of Aust's Senate have decided what will be done, or in that case what will not be done.  A plebiscite was promised leading into the last election, to gain the true public opinion on the matter - rather than force upon the Aust people what 'progessive' politicians want to do. IMO the Aust public are skeptical of the reasons for need for LGBT 'marriage rights', when a Civil Union would be good enough to cover all the legal issues involved (inheritence etc etc). IMO the Aust people are thinking that the LGBT activists are using this not for equality reasons, but they really just want adoption rights and are using the issue to marriage rights issue gain that right. IMO most Aust people do not agree that a LGBT couple should be given the legal right to adopt a baby. The PM is aware of those 'reservations' and committed to a plebsicite (cheap and easy) rather than a referendum (costly and complex). I hear the argument that the debate leading into the vote could become too angry and divisive - but on that basis there should never be a referendum/plebiscite held. That is what a referendum and plebiscite are for - so the people can state their option on a specific issue. Denying the people to right to debate and vote on an issue because they are too immature and divisive, is elitist and an insult to the people - and to the LGBT community. The issue needs to be 'opened up' and the debate needs to take place. Forcing the views of those in favour LGBT marriage rights on those who are opposed, will fester divisiveness and anger as they will never accept that decision as it was not made byt ythe public - they will forever be angry and argumentative and will campaign against it forever.  Having an open debate and making the issue a public decision will force the losing side to accept the decison - or at least live with it. If the vote is in favour of LGBT marriages (or not), then the wounds of an argument will heal over time, and the LGBT community will have the strength of public opinion behind them if they win.

For a start,they are elected,though some may think they were born to rule.A majority of Australians should not be able to vote on the rights of other Australians.This is why we vote for spineless pollies.This was a stall and a wedge created by Abbott.

[Andaman Al]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Some government lawmakers had said they would vote down gay marriage in Parliament even if a majority of Australians voted for marriage equality.

 

That is not the way Government is supposed to work. They have forgotten who their paymasters are. Whether you like the idea or not, if the majority of people in a nation vote for something or somebody, that is it, the people have spoken, end of Government fights.  They are there to Govern for the people!

[Prbkk]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Australia will get there to marriage equality. It's only a question of the specific way that happens and exactly when. Seems within 5 years is probable. 

 

It  would be within 5 minutes rather than years if only Turnbull would stand up to the loony fringe religious nutters: 70 % public support, about the same in his own party, 95% labour support, all the greens. 

Yes, he promised a plebiscite ( unwisely). But it's only the ferals who demand it happen.

This issue should be dealt with in parliament and be resolved once and for all, quickly.

[louse1953]

4 hours ago, Bob9 said:

 

You are an uneduated #### - my point is that IMO most people disagree with this. DUH !!!

You wrote"but they really just want adoption rights and are using the issue to marriage rights issue gain that right. IMO most Aust people do not agree that a LGBT couple should be given the legal right to adopt a baby."

They already have adoption rights and i have never heard this as an excuse to allow people of the same sex to marry.

[louse1953]

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

Unfortunately Bob9, the people often aren't the best judges of right and wrong. Left to a plebiscite it is hard to imagine Australian women and Aboriginals getting voting rights when they did.

Don't know about women but recognising the First Australians as humans was done by plebiscite.

[aslimversgwm]

This reminds me if the Brexit referendum in the UK, which should never have happened. In any properly functioning parliamentary democracy it is our elected parliamentarians who have the powers and authority to decide such things. Australia and the UK aren't Switzerland - that is both of our nations have given parliament this authority as endorsed by the recent decision in the UK's High Court. 

[louse1953]

2 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Australia will get there to marriage equality. It's only a question of the specific way that happens and exactly when. Seems within 5 years is probable. 

Not good enough JT.Australia once a trendsetter is still trying to live in the 50's.We have been captive to the religious mad right for a few years now,and it does us no good.There are some that still deny climate change is happening and one who rekons it's a NASA plot.

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, louse1953 said:

Not good enough JT.Australia once a trendsetter is still trying to live in the 50's.We have been captive to the religious mad right for a few years now,and it does us no good.There are some that still deny climate change is happening and one who rekons it's a NASA plot.

I understand it's frustrating. But sometimes you have to be patient or even very patient. Marriage equality is obviously coming to Australia. You can't force it sooner than it's going to happen. Speaking from experience in the U.S. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Jingthing

[louse1953]

17 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

 

That is not the way Government is supposed to work. They have forgotten who their paymasters are. Whether you like the idea or not, if the majority of people in a nation vote for something or somebody, that is it, the people have spoken, end of Government fights.  They are there to Govern for the people!

The people elect the Senate as well you know and they speak last.

[UnkleMoooose]

5 hours ago, Bob9 said:

 

You are an uneduated #### - my point is that IMO most people disagree with this. DUH !!!

Uneduated??!! Muphry's Law. Hilarious!!

[Bob9]

1 hour ago, Jimbo2014 said:

Two consenting adults cannot confirm their relationship.  Crazy and shameful Australia.

 

A brother and sister cannot get married.     Biased and predjudiced.

A mother and son cannot get married.    What sort of backward coiuntry is it.

A married person cannot marry an unmarried person.    That is a travesty of justice.

You cannot marry your grandparents, or your own grandchild.     Unbelievable.
Crazy and Shameful indeed - imagine that - a country where all consenting adults cannot get married.