Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Aust Parliament Votes Against Same-sex Marriage  
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 15 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

In what same-sex marriage campaigners describe as "a slap in the face", the House of Representatives voted against a bill that would have amended the Marriage Act and allowed same-sex couples to marry.

While the Labor party allowed a conscience vote, the Liberals were expected to toe the party line and vote against. Malcolm Turnbull, a Liberal frontbencher spoke in favour of same-sex marriage but was forced to vote against because of Tony Abbott's refusal to allow a free vote.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Deputy Wayne Swan voted against while some of Cabinet voted in favour. Gillard, who is not married to her male partner, had previously said that she did not see the need for marriage. In other words, she is allowed to choose but she will not allow others the same freedom of choice.

The debate was not been free of quite ridiculous and hateful claims by some. Leader of the Australian Christian Lobby likened the health effects of smoking with homosexuality, while Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi suggested that if gay marriage were allowed the next thing would be demands to recognise relationships between humans and animals.

The defeat of the bill comes despite repeated polls showing that 62% of the public support for laws providing marriage equality. The final vote was 42 for and 98 against.

There are three similar bills before Parliament but it is not known when or if they will be brought forward to be voted on.

Edited to add link. Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-1...x-marriage-bill-voted-down/4270016

[Edited 2012-09-18 22:13:54]

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (2 years 14 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

It's an interesting example of democracy not quite functioning exactly how it was intentioned. Even a consciense vote would not be the 100% correct way to go. Aren't they supposed to represent the view of their constituents?? In any case, a 98-42 result against the bill is quite distant from the community view.

I think it will pass at some point, within the next 10 years or so.

There actually has been some healthy debate on the topic, from both sides. Even the guy that made the comparison with smoking provoked some interesting discussion, (although his rather flimsy grasp of the statistics and causal relationships allowed the crux of his argument to be undermined and ridiculed).

Bestiality.....that was just a comedy sideshow. He paid for it though. Was forced to resign this morning


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (2 years 13 hours ago) and read 2692 times:

I'd like to say something here:

I really hate that a government now has to actually define what marriage is.

Marriage is something that should be defined by someone's individual beliefs, not by what a government says.

I wish THAT was on a nation's capital hill.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
I really hate that a government now has to actually define what marriage is.

Marriage is something that should be defined by someone's individual beliefs, not by what a government says.

Great. So I and 100 of my closest friends want to file joint taxes because we're married. And we want joint COBRA benefits and healthcare from just one of our employers...

See why it's necessary? What ISN'T necessary is denying it to same-sex couples.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 hours ago) and read 2547 times:

Pity. Though, I'm heartened (no, saddened, in actuality) to see that there are other purportedly democratic governments that ignore the will of the people.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
I really hate that a government now has to actually define what marriage is.

So long as government provides benefits and/or penalties based on marriage, government must define marriage.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years ago) and read 2508 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
Pity. Though, I'm heartened (no, saddened, in actuality) to see that there are other purportedly democratic governments that ignore the will of the people.

Gotta say I agree with your sentiment. When the will of the people is 62% in favour of a motion, then the elected officials vote 71% the other way, there's an alarming disconnect.

Is it at all possible for a referendum to be called? It would seem that is the only other option given how blind the House of Representatives appears to be in this case.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 5):
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
Pity. Though, I'm heartened (no, saddened, in actuality) to see that there are other purportedly democratic governments that ignore the will of the people.

Gotta say I agree with your sentiment. When the will of the people is 62% in favour of a motion, then the elected officials vote 71% the other way, there's an alarming disconnect.

While I am in favor of same-sex marriage, is that a good reason for same-sex marriage? I think it should be on equality. What if 55% of Australians were against same-sex marriage. Would this ruling be right then?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2487 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 6):
While I am in favor of same-sex marriage, is that a good reason for same-sex marriage? I think it should be on equality. What if 55% of Australians were against same-sex marriage. Would this ruling be right then?

I'm in favour of same-sex marriage as well, but this isn't so much a same-sex marriage issue for me. The majority has made the determination that they are for the passing of a bill, and the officials representing that same majority have gone against their will in astonishing numbers. It doesn't matter if this is gay marriage or a tax on apples, the government has defied the sentiment of the majority they represent, which I find rather unacceptable.

Frankly it's just bad business on behalf of these politicians. I voted for the Progressive Conservatives in the last Canadian federal election. The PC ultimately won. If the PM went and did something contradictory to the desires of a majority of the country that put him in office with a majority, there are going to be a whole lot of people changing their mind on who they vote for in the next election.

Quoting Quokkas (Thread starter):
Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Deputy Wayne Swan voted against while some of Cabinet voted in favour. Gillard, who is not married to her male partner, had previously said that she did not see the need for marriage. In other words, she is allowed to choose but she will not allow others the same freedom of choice.

For some reason I missed this line in my first reading. How hypocritical of Gillard!



Flying refined.
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3376 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2485 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
See why it's necessary? What ISN'T necessary is denying it to same-sex couples.

To add to that if you are gay and your partner is seriously injured you cannot make decisions on their behalf even if you have been together for say over 10 years.

That really isn't fair one bit.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2476 times:

This is why I like binding referendums, thought it does seem wrong to vote on what are generally considered to be rights.


Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2475 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 7):
I'm in favour of same-sex marriage as well, but this isn't so much a same-sex marriage issue for me. The majority has made the determination that they are for the passing of a bill, and the officials representing that same majority have gone against their will in astonishing numbers. It doesn't matter if this is gay marriage or a tax on apples, the government has defied the sentiment of the majority they represent, which I find rather unacceptable.

Well I still don't think it's black and right. Back in 1900 it was the majority opinion to segregate blacks... even when segregation did start to end I believe most were against it (not quite sure but you get my point.) I'm sure the majority of Americans were all for the force removal of the Indians, etc

It is pretty egregious though, when the majority is in favor of something morally right* but the leaders still kill the deal. The "I don't think marriages are necessary" woman had probably the dumbest opinion (IMO)

*but then again, what is morally right?  



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2473 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):

As a rule of thumb, the governments should decide based on what the majority of their constituents want, unless it would infringe on the rights of a minority (as in the cases of segregation of blacks that you mentioned) or if it goes against national interests (like people voting for no taxes whatsoever). If it is ever allowed for gays to get married, nobody else's rights and freedoms are infringed and there is nothing that goes against national interests.

[Edited 2012-09-19 14:53:32]

User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1834 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 9):
This is why I like binding referendums, thought it does seem wrong to vote on what are generally considered to be rights.

Agreed, but sometimes when the other side pushes back as hard as this, you gotta start somewhere.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 10):
The "I don't think marriages are necessary" woman had probably the dumbest opinion (IMO)

Dumber than the "It Will Lead To Beastiality" guy?

Quoting lewis (Reply 11):

   X 1,000



Flying refined.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2459 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 12):
Dumber than the "It Will Lead To Beastiality" guy?

I thought that was a comedian (see quotation under me, that's why I thought that)... yeah that's the worst lol

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 1):
Bestiality.....that was just a comedy sideshow.
Quoting lewis (Reply 11):

That sounds pretty sound actually. Then again (and I'm NOT agreeing with them,) I'm sure the other side says it's in the "nation's interest" to keep families together or whatever. But yeah, I see what you're saying, and society's morals seem to change. As of now, I can confidently say allowing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3636 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
I'm sure the other side says it's in the "nation's interest" to keep families together or whatever

It sure is, but gay marriage has nothing to do with keeping families together or not, unless the dad decides to marry his secret gay lover!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 13):
and society's morals seem to change. As of now, I can confidently say allowing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do

Coming from a pretty conservative society (pseudo-christian as I like to call it), I had a very weird experience when my mother visited me here in CA. We have a lot of relatives in SoCal and, during a family dinner, she was shocked when she found out that one of her nephews is actually gay, married and has adopted a little girl with his partner. She did give me the talk about how it doesn't seem right to her. It only took 5' and some very logical arguments for her to realize that it was only because of her ingrained prejudice and her "morals" that she found the whole situation weird. She had nothing else to base it on and I think this is true with most people that oppose same sex marriage.


User currently offlinesquared From Canada, joined May 2005, 387 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2442 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 11):
As a rule of thumb, the governments should decide based on what the majority of their constituents want, unless it would infringe on the rights of a minority (as in the cases of segregation of blacks that you mentioned) or if it goes against national interests (like people voting for no taxes whatsoever). If it is ever allowed for gays to get married, nobody else's rights and freedoms are infringed and there is nothing that goes against national interests.

Exactly. This is how liberal democracies (as opposed to illiberal) should function. Minority rights should not be subject to the will of the majority. But what is particularly baffling in this case, is that the majority is in favour of extending rights to a minority group. How can the Australian House of Representatives could be so out-of-touch with the average Australian?

In some other countries, this legislation would be subject to a court challenge. But since I am not too conversant on the Australian Constitution, I'm unsure what the next steps will be.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
So long as government provides benefits and/or penalties based on marriage, government must define marriage.

Yup. If marriage was solely a religious institution, then the state would have no business providing a definition.


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5696 posts, RR: 44
Reply 16, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2425 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Quokkas (Thread starter):
despite repeated polls showing that 62% of the public support for laws providing marriage equality.

I see this brought up time and again yet I don't get to see the polls, who commissioned them, where they were taken and how scientifically they were conducted.
Not saying they are wrong, but we often get told there is only one real poll, the one held every 3 yrears or so.

In a democracy we elect our representatives for just that purpose, represent, if we don't like the way they do that then we tell them, if they don't listen we get our chance to change them!

Not saying the decision was right or just but it is the one we got!

Saw a poll the other day that claimed over "over 60% of xxx felt yyy", drilling down the sample was 3... yes THREE



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2072 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2388 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 12):
Dumber than the "It Will Lead To Beastiality" guy?

Nowhere has he said that gay marriage will lead to bestiality, he's pointing to the ludicrousness of using the 'but they love each other' argument and how if you define marriage as between anyone who loves someone then polygamy and bestiality, as laws that repress individuals in society, would and should be considered immoral according to that logic.

Why don't you read the whole speech which frankly is a pretty good one and outlines major reasons why pure liberalism is so extreme when taken to its logical conclusions.

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/...e-4367-ad53-c5359a072920%2F0198%22

Quoting squared (Reply 15):
But since I am not too conversant on the Australian Constitution, I'm unsure what the next steps will be.

Our Constitution is unfortunately slim on rights, there are only 3. It mostly only points to the running of government.
As for next steps, there were multiple bills that will all be voted down, we'll hear some hard rhetoric from the left. The only hope of getting it passed is if the Liberals switch to Malcolm Turnbull who may allow a conscience vote which could get them the numbers.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6658 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2374 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Thread starter):
Liberals were expected to toe the party line and vote against

How liberal ! Wait a minute... what ?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
I really hate that a government now has to actually define what marriage is.

Now ? Didn't the US have laws disallowing some people to marry (you know, blacks with whites) even before it was the US ?

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 17):
if you define marriage as between anyone who loves someone then polygamy and bestiality, as laws that repress individuals in society, would and should be considered immoral according to that logic.

Polygamy : personally I'm not against it in theory, in practice it's never a marriage of equals and I have a problem with that. On the other hand people having a spouse and a lover are extremely common and few would imagine a marriage happening there.

Bestiality : an animal is not "someone" so your argument fail. Here incest has been mentioned (by a Catholic Cardinal), a more sound argument I guess, although of course incest is currently illegal even if it's a man and a woman, so allowing two (wo)men to marry should not change that other part. Well, incest recognized by the state that is. Sex between ascendents or brothers/sisters is not illegal if between adults.

France is currently debating the issue, as it was a strong element of François Hollande's platform and of the platforms of the Socialist Party, the Greens and the Left Front. There is little doubt it will pass however, since opponents are mostly religious leaders and have so poor arguments it isn't even funny, in fact most opponents even refuse TV debates because they know they won't fare well (including opposition members who will mostly vote against it).

There was a show I watched with some of the same debaters we had in 1999 when a law was passed allowing civil unions for all, a feminist reminded a crazy Catholic that all the doom and gloom she prophesied would happen at the time hadn't happened, civilization hadn't ended. Unsurprisingly she again affirmed civil unrest will ensue and our civilization will end, albeit this time she can't bring her bible to the national assembly's floor (something very unusual in secular France) since she has been defeated in last election.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2340 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 18):
How liberal ! Wait a minute... what ?

Quick primer:

In Australia Liberal=Conservative and Labor=Liberal

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 17):
Nowhere has he said that gay marriage will lead to bestiality, he's pointing to the ludicrousness of using the 'but they love each other' argument and how if you define marriage as between anyone who loves someone then polygamy and bestiality, as laws that repress individuals in society, would and should be considered immoral according to that logic.

Except it's not logic at all, is it? Because nobody who favors gay marriage seems to favor marriage between anyone BUT consenting adults. So that entire argument flies out the window.


User currently offlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2744 posts, RR: 18
Reply 20, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 1):
Aren't they supposed to represent the view of their constituents?? In any case, a 98-42 result against the bill is quite distant from the community view.
Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
Though, I'm heartened (no, saddened, in actuality) to see that there are other purportedly democratic governments that ignore the will of the people.
Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 5):
When the will of the people is 62% in favour of a motion, then the elected officials vote 71% the other way, there's an alarming disconnect.

There is no disconnect what-so-ever and they are NOT ignoring the will of the people. You have to understand how a Parliamentary Democracy works, and/or the true meaning of an elected Parliament or House of Representatives.

Quoting stealthz (Reply 16):
I see this brought up time and again yet I don't get to see the polls, who commissioned them, where they were taken and how scientifically they were conducted.
Not saying they are wrong, but we often get told there is only one real poll, the one held every 3 yrears or so.

Now THIS is the correct answer. When a Member of Parliament is elected, it is to represent their views.... but it is also NOT a single issue election. One weighs the candidates and votes for the one that best represents the OVERALL number of issues you agree with. It's highly unlikely that an elected representative would match exactly the viewpoints of all the electors on every issue.
So frankly, nobody gives a damn what the polls say, or the numbers being thrown around that 62% favour the gay motion, the reality is that the elected members VOTED 71% against that gay marriage.
Now the gay crowd can try and elect representatives on that SINGLE ISSUE, but then they might get a Parliament that completely screws up everything else such as the economy, jobs, taxes, etc. So the voters made a choice and those who only vote on a single issue will have to learn to Live with it. At least until the next election.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 21, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 16):
Saw a poll the other day that claimed over "over 60% of xxx felt yyy", drilling down the sample was 3... yes THREE

Well it can still be statistically sound, they just need to state that the margin of error is um, about 59%  
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Except it's not logic at all, is it? Because nobody who favors gay marriage seems to favor marriage between anyone BUT consenting adults. So that entire argument flies out the window.

It's just a lazy argument meant to incite and distract. I think it's a lot like interjecting race into every argument (the ones not deserving it.) It's so absurd and dumb that you just argue something completely off topic and not the actual topic (if you try, they think they "got you" into some corner)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6658 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2301 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Quick primer:

In Australia Liberal=Conservative and Labor=Liberal

Actually liberals here are right wing too (and a rare bunch), but still really liberal, meaning they want less regulation of everything. What I wanted to put in perspective was that a party called liberal didn't allow its members the liberty of their opinion.

Quoting photopilot (Reply 20):
Now THIS is the correct answer. When a Member of Parliament is elected, it is to represent their views.... but it is also NOT a single issue election.

Well, first, who said that system was the best ? Furthermore, the way the parliament is formed can be very remote from being representative (if it's anything other than 100% proportional). And then if you add the fact that most votes are not free, then its quite questionable that this is how democracy is supposed to work.

In fact I had never heard of this conscience/free vote. I find the very free way the votes happen in the US to be pretty dysfunctional (not helped by the existence of only two parties), but I didn't think the opposite system existed. Here votes are free, and party discipline is necessary on important votes like the budget, meaning voting against it could get you in trouble with the party, but aside from that it's very common to have congresspeople vote against their party line, as long as they don't end up voting mostly opposite of their camp it's fine. In practice with 6 groups and a group of "free members" if you don't fit in your current one anymore you can go to one on the left or on the right without jumping over a big divide like between US democrats and GOPs.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7560 posts, RR: 18
Reply 23, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
So long as government provides benefits and/or penalties based on marriage, government must define marriage.

then let them legally marry. Or at least decide what rights go where. or define it better without calling it marriage, just to satiate the religious dicks.



次は、渋谷、渋谷。出口は、右側です。電車とホームの間は広く開いておりますので、足元に注意下さい。
User currently offlinekiwiinoz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2292 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Except it's not logic at all, is it? Because nobody who favors gay marriage seems to favor marriage between anyone BUT consenting adults. So that entire argument flies out the window.

Agreed. Anyone who can extrapolate a line from gay marriage rights to bestiality is missing this understanding. And in my opinion, if this is not obvious to them, then I worry about their underlying prejudice about the gay community, and access to even more basic human rights.

And besides, marriage is about love, as opposed to sex, (granted they are related.....the amount of times I have sex is inversely proportionate to how long my wife and I have been married). In my experience, a straight couple does not have a greater capacity to be in a loving relationship than a gay couple. In


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5648 posts, RR: 6
Reply 25, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 17):
Nowhere has he said that gay marriage will lead to bestiality, he's pointing to the ludicrousness of using the 'but they love each other' argument and how if you define marriage as between anyone who loves someone then polygamy and bestiality,

LOL.

Nobody is saying "as long as one party is in love, both parties should be allowed to be married". A non-human is incapable of legally consenting to anything, much less be capable of anything resembling a domestic partnership.

So, even bringing up bestiality as a talking point is a sign of incredible hatred, ignorance, and incivility.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5452 posts, RR: 14
Reply 26, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2314 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 23):
then let them legally marry

I'm game. Get the politicians to act. Problem is, that every time it has come up for vote here in the States, homosexual marriage has been voted down. We will have to wait on the Supreme Court. Who knows how they'll go.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 23):
or define it better without calling it marriage

You mean like Civil Unions. Problem is, here in the States, they are not recognized by the Federal Government and every state has its own interpretation. It's not enough.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 23):
just to satiate the religious dicks.

I like the way you call the vast majority of Americans who hold some religious beliefs: "dicks". It weakens any argument you may have, one way or the other.

Bottom line: here in the US, the federal government has decided to bestow benefits based on whether someone is married or not. So long as those benefits are in place, the federal government will have to define what marriage is. It looks like it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether that definition is sufficient.

As for the Australians, I have no idea as to the veracity of their polls, but my guess is that most of those folks are decent folks that would be vehemently against preventing a black and white from marrying....I fail to see the difference.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 27, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2312 times:

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 24):
And besides, marriage is about love,

Sadly, this is not necessarily the view of those who oppose same-sex marriage. In declaring his opposition to changing marriage laws, Labor senator John Hogg, the President of the Senate, said, "I have a deep-seated belief that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively." To them, it would appear that a necessary component of marriage is the desire to have children.

Democratic Labor Party senator John Madigan went further saying, "Love is not and should not be a basis for any legislation."

A bill introduced by Labor senators was today defeated 41 votes to 26. In the wake of this defeat, Liberal MP Warren Entsch is considering introducing a private members bill legislating on civil unions. Liberal Party leader Tony Abbott thinks that "the dust should settle" before proceeding with anything else. He also suggested that while the Constitution provides that marriage is a matter for the Commonwealth, "civil unions really ought to be the prerogative of the state parliaments." In other words, leave things as they are.

Greens MP Adam Bandt says that he would oppose the introduction of civil unions, arguing that it would simply entrench discrimination and be a step backwards.

More on this story @ http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-2...own-same-sex-marriage-bill/4272366


User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2072 posts, RR: 1
Reply 28, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2257 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 25):
So, even bringing up bestiality as a talking point is a sign of incredible hatred, ignorance, and incivility.

I don't agree with what he said however I can see his point and believe he has over generously used hyperbole to his own detriment but this is a man who from my semi-insider perspective is one of the most right wing individuals in the Australian Parliament so hardly surprising.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 27):
To them, it would appear that a necessary component of marriage is the desire to have children.

That is not what appears at all. They're saying that marriage exists to provide a framework upon which a family with children can be built.

Quoting kiwiinoz (Reply 24):
And besides, marriage is about love,

Clearly it would seem this is the major point of differentiation between those pro and anti gay marriage. Is marriage only about love or is there more to it? Is it purely about an individual's feeling towards another individual or is it something that society has a keen -and justified- interest in?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 19):
Except it's not logic at all, is it? Because nobody who favors gay marriage seems to favor marriage between anyone BUT consenting adults. So that entire argument flies out the window.

Yes people who are advocating gay marriage have drawn the line of their demands at the morally palatable consenting adults only. However if you look purely at what will allow an individual an ever higher level of autonomy, which is the overriding goal of strict liberalism, then yes it is logical.

Contrary to the opinions of posters in this thread, most people who are anti gay marriage do not despise gays from the bottom of their hearts and look forward to their eternal damnation.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):
In fact I had never heard of this conscience/free vote. I find the very free way the votes happen in the US to be pretty dysfunctional (not helped by the existence of only two parties),

Crash course on Australian politics for those interested
:
In my opinion the system does not quite work as first envisaged. The original idea was to have Representatives fairly free with Senators forced to toe the party line (they're only there with the blessing of their party) but with much more politically diverse Senators. Having only two parties mean you cannot adequately canvas the political spectrum to ensure the party will vote the way you want it to on issues, so each party must come up with some specifics and some ideology driven decisions and the party must stick to it, having different factions of the party vote differently on big issues, irrespective of how they want to vote, leads to internal and external turmoil. Better to have the representatives fight for the party's official platform than to fight for votes on the house floor.

The problem with free voting is how candidacies are doled out, you need both the connections in the state branch of your party along with connections in the local branch otherwise either can veto your candidacy, going significantly against the party grain will often cost you pre-selection at the next election and you'll be on your own, all because you decided to vote against the party.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5648 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2220 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
We will have to wait on the Supreme Court. Who knows how they'll go.

Assuming the Court stays the same, it's not hard to predict which way they'll go, especially given that Section 3 of DOMA has been struck down by every single judge to rule on it thus far (and it's the same court that struck down DADT).

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
You mean like Civil Unions.

Marriage in the US, by definition, is a civil union. To extend the benefit of a separate "civil union" to gay couples would fly in the face of Brown v. Board, which held that separation is inherently unequal.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 28):

Contrary to the opinions of posters in this thread, most people who are anti gay marriage do not despise gays from the bottom of their hearts and look forward to their eternal damnation.

Correct on the latter, not so much on the former. There is simply no other reason today to deny gay couples the same rights and privileges, other than hatred. That doesn't mean one looks forward to their eternal damnation, though.

Trust me on this one: I have dealt with it on a very personal level. It does not mean those people are "bad", but they're just wrong about it. My mother very nearly kicked my sister out when she was 15 (6 years ago) after she had come out. It was tough times, but thankfully we have a wonderful support system of family and friends to help all of us (especially my mom) through it. Today, she is a vocal supporter of gay rights.

See, unlike being gay, being hateful is a behavior that CAN be changed.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19708 posts, RR: 58
Reply 30, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2207 times:

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 28):
Yes people who are advocating gay marriage have drawn the line of their demands at the morally palatable consenting adults only. However if you look purely at what will allow an individual an ever higher level of autonomy, which is the overriding goal of strict liberalism, then yes it is logical.

No it is not because liberalism is not about allowing perfect autonomy without respect for the rights of others. So you are making a statement based on a false premise.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25262 posts, RR: 85
Reply 31, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2178 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The AFL - Australian Football League - is to play an ad saying "No to Homophobia" at various football games:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/ga...ls-big-screens-20120920-269l3.html

"THE AFL will broadcast ''No to homophobia'' advertisements on the big screen at tonight's Sydney-Collingwood preliminary final as part of a major push to stamp out discrimination."

Perhaps it should be shown in the Parliament - and those politicians who wanted to vote in favour but didn't in the name of the abstract "party unity" (Malcolm Turnbull, e.g.) should hang their heads in shame.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 32, posted (1 year 12 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 26):
I like the way you call the vast majority of Americans who hold some religious beliefs: "dicks". It weakens any argument you may have, one way or the other.

They're only dicks if they seek to legally impose the beliefs of their religion on others. Those aren't a vast majority.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 33, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2051 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 23):

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 4):
So long as government provides benefits and/or penalties based on marriage, government must define marriage.

then let them legally marry. Or at least decide what rights go where. or define it better without calling it marriage, just to satiate the religious dicks.

Well ignoring your hateful comment against religious people (just as bad as homophobia) why would we create a separate but equal system to oppose those who are wrong (in our opinions) ? I often came to the conclusion of just saying "hey let's just call it civil unions, and not marriage" but then I thought why???

PS: coming from a religious person for gay marriage, against hate, etc



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25262 posts, RR: 85
Reply 34, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1953 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Now Tony Abbot won't even consider a civil unions bill:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...il-unions-push-20120920-269id.html

"Abbott rejects civil unions push

TONY Abbott has slapped down suggestions from opposition whip Warren Entsch and Liberal frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull for Parliament to legislate for civil partnerships or unions now that bills for gay marriage have been defeated.:


And in Victoria, Ted Baillieu won't allow members of his controlling government a conscience vote in a state push for marriage equality:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/no...riage-baillieu-20120922-26dvn.html

"No conscience vote on gay marriage: Baillieu"

The old Australian sport of poofter-bashing is alive and well.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 35, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1948 times:

What is the main reason for opposition? The US gets a very bad rap on gay rights but umm, isn't the same thing happening here? Is it religious? For the "family?"


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinebookishaviator From Australia, joined Jun 2009, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1939 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 35):
Is it religious? For the "family?

A bit of both. Tony Abbott is well known as a devout Catholic - I believe he very nearly became a priest before entering into politics. So no doubt his personal politics draw 'inspiration' from his religion.

But more often than not, it's the usual conservative chestnuts of 'protecting the sanctity of marriage', 'if we allow this, where will it end', 'we need to protect our children', etc.



When I die, when I die, I'll rot. But when I live, when I live, I'll give it all I've got.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 37, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

Quoting bookishaviator (Reply 36):
usual conservative chestnuts

And yet it was far from a few conservative politicians... an overwhelming majority struck it down! Just interesting IMO. The way many on this board talk of America makes us sound like anti-gay fanatics when in reality, we are probably only 10% or so away from Australia and Europe (I think it's hovering around 50-50% over here.) Then again, we do have some pretty vocal loudmouths...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinebookishaviator From Australia, joined Jun 2009, 246 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1932 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):

I actually agree with you. The only point I was really making was that those are the sorts of voices that invariably end up in mainstream news - the catchy and sometimes inflammatory one-liners that contribute very little to the debate. There's lots of nonsensical stuff that comes from both sides in this issue. For example, it infuriates me when I hear gay marriage advocates say stuff like "we can't let politicians legislate against love". Histrionic garbage that in my opinion stalls the debate from being able to progress anywhere.



When I die, when I die, I'll rot. But when I live, when I live, I'll give it all I've got.
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25262 posts, RR: 85
Reply 39, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1916 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bookishaviator (Reply 36):
A bit of both. Tony Abbott is well known as a devout Catholic - I believe he very nearly became a priest before entering into politics. So no doubt his personal politics draw 'inspiration' from his religion.

I can almost understand Tony Abbott - although he has a lesbian sister - being against it. He's called the Mad Monk.

What fries my brain is that the Prime Minister - an atheist spinster cohabiting with a man - is against it.

She is the leader of the Labor Party and if the Labor Party doesn't stand for equality, I have no idea what it does stand for.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2072 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1890 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 39):
She is the leader of the Labor Party and if the Labor Party doesn't stand for equality, I have no idea what it does stand for.

The Labor party stands for mostly blue collar, working class and lower middle class people not some overriding ideology of 'equality'. Many of those people are also against gay marriage. I think you'll find generally all of the noes from the ALP were from people heavily involved in the unions, particularly the ACTU, AWU, CFMEU, MUA, SDA, while the ayes were mostly from left wing unions, former political staffers.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 35):
What is the main reason for opposition? The US gets a very bad rap on gay rights but umm, isn't the same thing happening here? Is it religious? For the "family?"

Mostly from slightly right of centre (and further right) people who have some issues with it, be they practical, societal or personal. Straight marriage hasn't quite been as trashed here as it has in the US, gays have practically identical rights to heteros here anyway and thus it is more of a pride issue than a bread and butter this will drastically change my life issue. Many far right people view this as a win at all costs issue after decades of social change (some of which they championed).

Quoting mariner (Reply 34):
Now Tony Abbot won't even consider a civil unions bill:

The thing to consider is that this really won't acheive anything for gays and there could be a constitutional challenge as s51xxi gives the Commonwealth power over marriage unless the states grant the Commonwealth jurisdiction which is incredibly unlikely with wall to wall Liberal governments. Just as there will likely be a Constitutional challenge if(when) Tasmania legalises gay marriage.

Gay and trans couples can join a relationship registry (or not, doesn't matter), this provides formal proof akin to a marriage certificate that can be used for anything a marriage certificate could be. Recently the laws changed so that all new de facto couples will automatically fall under Commonwealth jurisdiction and relationships before then can opt to be dealt with in either state courts or Commonwealth courts.

Gays have had equal rights to war pensions, tax consideration, superannuation, banking, IVF and other benefits of marriage for sometime. Adoption rights are being rolled out around the country currently.


The only difference in reality for Australian gay and lesbian couples, is the label at the top of a piece of paper.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25262 posts, RR: 85
Reply 41, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1848 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 40):
The Labor party stands for mostly blue collar, working class and lower middle class people not some overriding ideology of 'equality'.

This Australian Labor Party may be that now, but as an old Labor man, it is quite shocking to me to see it so debased.

And I don't buy Albanese's argument - "one day". Why not now?

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 40):
The thing to consider is that this really won't acheive anything for gays and there could be a constitutional challenge as s51xxi gives the Commonwealth power over marriage unless the states grant the Commonwealth jurisdiction which is incredibly unlikely with wall to wall Liberal governments.

Here in New Zealand, civil unions have worked well. They may be second best and thus discriminatory - which is why we have the present push to full marriage - but they're a darn sight better than nothing.

As an Australian living in NZ with my American partner, civil union gives us most of the the legal certainties of marriage - which is why we to NZ, rather then Australia, when we left the US.

It is Abbot's idea that homosexual Australians cannot even have civil unions that is offensive to me - it is simply old-style poofter-bashing.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineQFA380 From Australia, joined Jul 2005, 2072 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 41):
And I don't buy Albanese's argument - "one day"

Don't think it was an argument, rather a soft promise that the issue isn't settled. He voted in the affirmative.

Quoting mariner (Reply 41):
Here in New Zealand, civil unions have worked well.

I'm not saying they wouldn't (or don't) work well, I'm saying that there exists something identical to civil unions already in registered relationships, you would have all of those same legal certainties.

I don't understand why you are (seemingly) in favour of civil unions when you castigate Abbott for being against them. A future marriage proposal will be more successful if the opponents cannot say 'look we gave you civil unions', no surprise that the suggestion has come from one of the dodgiest most tactile folks in Canberra, in Warren Entsch. Abbott is however correct in saying any non-marriage relationship recognition should legally originate from the states, not at all poofter bashing.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6658 posts, RR: 11
Reply 43, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1801 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):
And yet it was far from a few conservative politicians... an overwhelming majority struck it down!

As we discussed earlier in the thread most of the liberals aka the "centre right" that would have voted in favor were prevented to do so by their party, something that is unlike the US system.

Also the US is castigated not really because of the overall situation but because of the way things are done, with some states in advance of the world, others doing referendums banning it, pushes to change the constitution to redefine marriage, partners being prevented to see the other in hospitals, a real mess.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25262 posts, RR: 85
Reply 44, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 42):
Don't think it was an argument, rather a soft promise that the issue isn't settled. He voted in the affirmative.

"Argument" in the sense of theme of the debate.

However contentiously, marriage equality is policy of the Labor Party. I might have expected some party unity - as happened on the other side - no matter how much individual members might not like it.

This is as much about the party as the issue but it crystallizes in the issue.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 42):
I'm not saying they wouldn't (or don't) work well, I'm saying that there exists something identical to civil unions already in registered relationships, you would have all of those same legal certainties.

Before settling on NZ rather than Oz, I spoke with lawyers, who advised me that they are not identical, if only in national recognition. Queensland, I see, is threatening changes to the recently introduced civil unions there. However minor those changes may be, I find them unsettling.

Politicians want to play games with peoples lives, hey, I'm used to that - they've been doing it all my life. I was in the battle for decriminalization in Victoria. But after what happened in the parliament this week, I believe Mr. Abbott was simply putting the boot in, a less than gracious winner.

mariner

[Edited 2012-09-23 13:05:58]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 45, posted (1 year 12 months 14 hours ago) and read 1703 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):
makes us sound like anti-gay fanatics when in reality

Don't worry, we have our own fair share of those with less accepting views. An independent candidate in next month's Australian Capital Territory election says gay sex should be treated as a criminal offence. He also believes that people should be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians, likening them to drug users.

Quote:

"People who are engaging in aberrational behaviour, is similar to say a heroin addict - people have the right to discriminate against employing a heroin addict, renting accommodation to a heroin addict," he said.
Quoting mariner (Reply 44):
marriage equality is policy of the Labor Party. I might have expected some party unity

Having said that she was opposed to marriage equality, Gillard wasn't going to let a minor matter of party policy get in the way. By allowing a conscience vote she guaranteed that the bill would be defeated because she new that the idea was distasteful to some of her colleagues.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7908 posts, RR: 51
Reply 46, posted (1 year 12 months 4 hours ago) and read 1633 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 45):
Don't worry, we have our own fair share of those with less accepting views. An independent candidate in next month's Australian Capital Territory election says gay sex should be treated as a criminal offence. He also believes that people should be allowed to discriminate against gays and lesbians, likening them to drug users.

Yikes. Well it sounds like your guys' media doesn't give them attention, unlike our media (but of instigators)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
In Support Of Same-Sex Marriage - What To Do Next? posted Wed May 27 2009 10:07:35 by Tugger
Support For CA Ban On Same Sex Marriage Drops posted Thu Sep 18 2008 16:06:59 by Travelin man
Gay Designer Gabbana Against Same-sex Parenting posted Thu Dec 21 2006 23:24:26 by Jimyvr
Same-sex Marriage Demonstrations In Italy posted Sat Jan 14 2006 18:23:22 by ManuCH
Canada Passes Same Sex Marriage Bill! posted Wed Jul 20 2005 22:40:16 by KLMA330
Same-Sex Marriage OK'd In Spain posted Thu Jun 30 2005 18:28:23 by Johnboy
Canada: Same-sex Marriage Bill Is Passed. posted Wed Jun 29 2005 03:36:40 by Jean Leloup
NY Judge Strikes Down Ban On Same-Sex Marriage posted Fri Feb 4 2005 21:13:57 by RJpieces
Same-Sex Marriage In Canada Come Thursday posted Tue Dec 7 2004 23:43:53 by SKYSERVICE_330
Majority Of Canadians Support Same Sex Marriage! posted Thu May 10 2001 19:16:04 by Chrisa330