Originally Posted by
psycho joe
You haven't read the last 17 pages have you?
We have marriage equality. We have a clearly defined definition of what that is, and a very small percentage of the population want that changed to suit their lifestyle. That small population have taken to loudly lobbying government as well as threatening businesses and individuals.
What you are calling "marriage equality" I'll assume is meant to mean "same sex marriage." The concept of marriage is a social, cultural construct, which is derived in our society from Judeo/Christian principles. You may have noticed that the Australian constitution contains the words "Almighty God", federal parliament recites the Lord's Prayer before sitting and politicians are sworn in on a bible. As such a massive change to the definition of marriage is for the Australian people to decide. Ahhhh, I hear you say. But didn't Howard change the definition? No. When Gorton wrote the marriage act in 1961 it wasn't made clear that marriage was between a man and a woman because in 1961 the Australian people considered that it was bleedingly obvious. Fast forward to the Howard era and society still regarded marriage as between a man and a woman, hence it is now in writing. Ahhhh, but what if we have a plebiscite and politicians don't accept the will of the people. Well that goes both ways, and either way the politicians would either have to abstain or risk the wrath of the community. Democracy.
Yes, the clear definition of what constitutes a marriage is defined in the Marriage Act. That Act was made in the Federal Parliament under the powers given under s51(xxii) of the Constitution. That does not mean that we have marriage equality. Yes, Parliament has the power to change this Act, as demonstrated by the Howard government. Nothing new here, and consistent with what I stated above.
Your assertion that only a small percentage want to change to SSM is not correct. Granted, the percentage people directly affected by a decision to change the Act is small, however, support for change is either in the majority, or close to it, depending on the polling you look at. As I stated above, one of the tests of a democratic society is not just how it looks after the wishes of the majority, but also how it respects the needs of the minority. I think many people in the Western world 'get' this, and have changed their laws to allow SSM. As I stated above, the ability for people to lobby and express their political views is established as a right under the Constitution. I don't understand your comment about 'threatening' businesses. If the threat is simply to boycott businesses that do not support SSM, or boycott businesses that unlawfully discriminate, I have no problem with that. If the threat is to commit an unlawful act, then that is something that I would not think was appropriate, and ultimately, unhelpful for those seeking change.
I don't agree with your assertion about Howard not changing the definition of marriage, but that is a minor semantic point in the scheme of things. You are correct in that if politicians don't respect the will of the people they are answerable at the election.
While the concept of marriage may have evolved from Judaeo Christian values, Australia is a secular state. As mentioned previously above, s116 of the Constitution points to this secularism.
Regarding MPs and Senators swearing an oath on the Bible, if you read the Constitution you will find s42 states members can take an oath or an affirmation.
Regarding the introduction to the Constitution and prayers to start parliament, this was the result of political lobbying by the churches to the constitutional conventions held in the 1880s - the kind of process you are arguing that Joyce should not be doing now. The issue of the relevance and legality of these prayers in Parliamentary Standing Orders is still an issue that attracts debate. However, given the history of why they are included does not really make much difference to the ability of Parliament to make laws with respect to marriage under s51(xxii), or the prohibition to make laws with respect to religion under s116.