Not only that, but Shorten was talking about a referendum, not a fkn glorified opinion poll :rolleyes:

Final cost of the survey has apparently come in at around $80 million.

Abbott was one of up to 15 MP's who abstained from the vote. Not unreasonable given that they did not personally support the Bill but a majority in their electorates were in favour and their votes weren't needed one way or another.

It could be said they were true to their principles. I'm not sure the same could be said of Turnbull or any member of the ALP that rejected SSM in the Rudd Gillard Rudd years.

Hempy
So why did the Shorten ALP reject a referendum this time around? Principle or Politics?

Abbott “Principled”??? Oh stop, my sides are aching!

He was one of the most outspoken critics, yet when the time came he turned out to be just as gutless as he has always been. ‘Principled’ would have been either voting with his conscious, or voting to represent the 75% of his electorate that voted Yes. In the end he did neither, which is typical of the spineless has-been. :yuk:

I'm somewhat curious as to the percentage of eligible voters in the plebiscite who did not return their voting slips, versus those who did.:hmm:

Anyone know?:confused:

Referendum? It wasn't a constitutional matter so no referendum. Plebiscite is the thing you're wanting to discuss for a compulsory method.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/same-sex...lectorate-vote

It was a non-compulsory postal survey, not a plebiscite,

"Of the eligible Australians who expressed a view on this question, the majority indicated that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, with 7,817,247 (61.6%) responding Yes and 4,873,987 (38.4%) responding No. Nearly 8 out of 10 eligible Australians (79.5%) expressed their view."


https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/results/

Or to put it another way, 48.8% of those entitled to express an opinion through the survey, were sufficiently interested to express support.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the concept. But I'm watching with interest to see how social justice warriors might use the new law.

Or to put it another way, 30.44% of those entitled to express an opinion through the survey, were sufficiently interested to oppose legalising same-sex marriage.

Chuboy and Hempy - two utterly stupid and pointless responses. Bottom line, it wasn't just a coalition idea to seek the opinion of the people rather than leave it to inherently dishonest politicians.

The opinion poll was a non-binding method by which both parties could avoid standing up and making the decisions they are paid (handsomely) to make.
By pushing it through the opinion poll they were able to neatly side-step the scenario where a parliamentary vote got it wrong, and then having the matter hung as a millstone around their chicken-like necks for the rest of a potentially foreshortened political life.

Similarly, the opinion poll avoided the consequences of a compulsory, binding vote (plebiscite / referendum) that might enshrine the NO position and leave them with the prospect of ongoing and debilitating protest from the LGBTQI minority.

That is, neither side (party) really new which way it was going to go or what the real level of support or opposition was, and neither wanted to be seen as being responsible for (potentially) unpopular legislation.

Now, having gained a mandate to act, they have done so while having the gall to claim that the end result was as a result of something they did.
That would only be true if they had voted, in parliament, for the amendment back in January or whenever.

Very few balls in the Australian parliament.

CoodaShooda, what, pray tell, will the new law enable anyone to do other than get married?

That is the question la P.

We all thought Human Rights was a worthy cause until certain groups started applying the unanticipated consequences to those they disagreed with. Now we are divided over the role of the HRC and section 18C etc.

Ditto Anti Discrimination legislation.

Ditto Equal Rights legislation.

As I said, I'm waiting with interest to see how this pans out for those whose beliefs do not allow them to agree with SSM. The Americans seem to be still dealing with such an issue at present.

The new law is available here should anyone want to read it:
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017A00129
The key point is
So not the most radical of changes. There is a fairly solid paragraph laying out the protections for religious beliefs etc too
So priests of those religions that object to same sex marriage do not have to conduct same sex marriages, and these beliefs are protected by law. The bill isn't overly long or complex, and much of it is taken up with references to other bills making amendments to them, replacing "husband and wife" with "parties to the marriage" or "spouses", and similar minor clerical amendments. Everything is clearly defined and not too hard to understand; if the aviation regulations were rewritten this simply life would be much easier. Ultimately, if you don't agree with same sex marriage, this bill doesn't make it mandatory, you still don't have to have one. If your religious beliefs prevent you from acting as a celebrant or priest to a same-sex couple, you are protected.

Reading through the law, it's fairly clear that it doesn't do anything more than allow two people of the same sex to marry, remove a bunch of gender-specific references across some related legislation, and ensure protection for those who have religious objections to acting as a celebrant or carrying out same sex marriages. If you are in some other role, such as taxi-driver objecting to taking two people to a same-sex marriage, you are not protected, any more than you would be protected in objecting to taking two people of different racial backgrounds to a mixed-race marriage.

Does the fact same sex couples can now marry confer any benefits that were not available to them otherwise? Just I'm not up on how defacto and same sex unions fair in the eyes of the law - inheritance, superannuation on death etc etc.

megan, if nothing else it means they can now have a piece of paper instead of having to jump through all manner of hoops to prove the relationship. This says it all:

https://theconversation.com/explaine...s-do-not-83896

CS, exactly what unanticipated consequences of the Acts you mention? Like certain scumbag columnists having to cease their racist trolling in certain Australian tabloids?

You clearly have no grasp of the changes to the Marriage Act and are relying on FUD from right wing nut jobs. Anti-discrimination legislation is what people will run foul of not the Marriage Act.

They're going to have to accept living in a more pluralistic society. Religious freedoms relate to the practice of religion, not the baking of cakes for commercial gain.

Le P
Believe what you want. It's your choice.

I'm just a sceptical cynic with little remaining confidence in our systems of governance at all levels.

Are you suggesting I am not allowed to hold my beliefs?

Saw a programme this morning where the presenter read from an article in a news sheet called, (something like), 'convention' which quoted a statement from an LGBTIQ+source that said, "This is the beginning, now we have to introduce into all schools, staff rooms etc. the teaching of same sex at all levels" - that isn't word perfect but hopefully you get the gist, this is what many were worried about, LeP, obviously with good reason, that isn't teaching, that is indoctrination. :sad:

parabellum, hang on a minute. You worry about rumours of over the top claims from a small group of fanatics as if they're some sort of official policy? This has nothing to do with SSM and is the sort of FUD spread by those who opposed it.

CS, you can believe what you want as well, but the rights and freedoms of any individual have limits, particularly when they start to impinge on other people, who also have rights and freedoms.

So who's rights and freedoms take precedence?

Both, under the new laws. You have the right to not partake in same sex marriage and disapprove of it, should that be your inclination, and other people now have the right to partake in same sex marriage and approve of it, should that be their inclination. The changes to the laws have increased the level of freedom in the country, which is a rare positive thing to come out of parliamentary action and I think on that level alone it is a good thing. It's not a situation where your freedoms are taken away in order to give them to someone else.

Equally, you cannot discriminate as a (non-religious, commercial) service provider to someone on the basis of their sexuality, and they cannot discriminate against you based on yours, but this hasn't changed since the passage of the same-sex marriage legalisation bill.

CS, a pretty good sign is when you stop someone doing something or deny them something as the result of your beliefs then you need a strong justification.

Then why does the Marriage Act only allow existing celebrants the right to refuse to conduct SSM but not allow celebrants appointed in the future to similarly act on their beliefs?

Sadly, here in Victoria, seven year old children, nor their parents have the right to disapprove of anything 'same sex'. The Safe Schools programme, the product of a Marxist cell within the LGBTQI+ community and based in Sydney University has been made mandatory in Victorian state schools and children as young as seven are expected to act out 'same sex' charades and the parents are in breach of State law if they try to protect their children from this by removing them from that class. These children haven't even reached puberty yet, let alone the age of consent.


Sorry, nothing small about the groups fostering the 'Safe Schools' programme, these are the ones who claim the marriage equality bill now gives them the right to push the rest of their agenda, an agenda widely poo pooed and denied by the same sex activists, possibly yourself too L pe? but which is already very much out there in Victorian schools and some other states as well.

CS, you'd have to ask the politicians who negotiated the Bill what their thinking was - presumably a compromise so as not to disadvantage anyone who is currently a civil celebrant. New civil celebrants will be signing up knowing the new Marriage Act applies.

parabellum, what has Safe Schools got to do with marriage equality?!? About as much as opposite-sex marriage had to do with the deplorable school chaplaincy program. Both of those were touted by the same people.... One doesn't lead to the other.

So when do you think kids discover they aren't straight? Heaven help any kids associated with you who aren't straight. Who are you really "protecting"? Your kids or yourself from having to explain that LGBTQI+ exist and should be treated the same as everyone else?

To most people nothing at all but the hard left cell within the LGBTQI+ community have always had an agenda that didn't stop at SSM and now they are preparing to continue with it, SSM was only ever stage one to them.
I think we can leave the personal stuff out and stick to the facts.



So how about we wait until they are at least old enough to understand what homosexuality is, puberty at least, age of consent even better?

SSM is not an enabler for anything other than SSM. It's not a necessary step in a progression on a secret list so how can it be "feared" as a "thin end of the wedge"? Only in the minds of some such as yourself apparently.

My 6 year old is old enough to understand that two people can love each other in age appropriate detail. He has as much idea of what his Mum & Dad might get up to as to what his uncle & his partner might.

Age of consent? Really?!? You really are for protecting your own sensibilities and not protecting the mental health of children.

So those with conflicted beliefs need not (or will not) apply? So much for diversity.

I don't have a problem with people of the same sex getting married, if that is what they want to do.

I do have a problem with people being told they have to acquiesce to this regardless of their own thoughts on the subject or face action under our discrimination laws.

Human rights should include the right to say NO without fear of sanction or bullying.

Causing personal or physical harm to someone who has a different mindset is another issue completely and should be proscribed. (Upsetting a snowflake's feelings does not constitute personal or physical harm in this context.)

parabellum’s argument is basically the same as used by the NO campaign in the postal survey. Instead of debating the real issue (allowing consenting adults tthe freedom to marry a partner of their choosing) they obfuscate the issue by linking in unrelated things like safe schools, which has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

Safe schools is an anti gay bullying program. If you were in touch with students of high school age you’d know times really haven’t changed since the youthful days of this forum. Children who are perceived as gay are bullied and beaten up, and yeah it’s quite alright for for a government to try and prevent this.

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/abou...irect=1#link56

parabellum’s argument is basically the same as used by the NO campaign in the postal survey. Instead of debating the real issue (allowing consenting adults tthe freedom to marry a partner of their choosing) they obfuscate the issue by linking in unrelated things like safe schools, which has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

Safe schools is an anti gay bullying program. If you were in touch with students of high school age you’d know times really haven’t changed since the youthful days of most of the posters of this forum. Children who are perceived as gay are bullied and beaten up, and yeah it’s quite alright for for a government to try and prevent this.

http://www.education.vic.gov.au/abou...irect=1#link56


What are your feelings then on celebrants who refuse to marry Christians or mixed race couples?

CS, a civil celebrant is effectively a public servant - you don't get to pick and choose which laws apply. Existing civil celebrants are allowed to discriminate, personally I don't think they should be able to, but that's the law we now have. New civil celebrants will know what the law is and know they have to act accordingly if they want to be a celebrant, otherwise they'll have to seek alternative employment.

They should have that right. There are plenty of other celebrants out there to choose from.

What are your views about the Catholic Church refusing to marry non-Catholics?

Isn't that a bit totalitarian?

Laws are artificial constructs to provide a framework for a society to operate. They can be changed at the whim of the legislature. They aren't holy and immutable writ.

Surely, in this enlightened, so-called educated age, we should be allowing greater freedom of thought rather than introducing greater restrictions?

Le P - not sure if you are smoking or drinking, what is for certain is that you are in denial, as most of the militant 'Vote Yes' camp are and you have dr Dre for company.

It's pretty straightforward - civil celebrants are expected to uphold the laws of the land. The laws have changed, so in future, those applying to become civil celebrants are expected to comply with the new laws. Religious celebrants have exceptions to those laws. Existing celebrants have exceptions to those laws. Those who wish to apply to become a civil celebrant but simultaneously not comply with the laws that apply at the time they apply are free to either operate within the framework of religious exemptions, or find other employment. A pilot who 70 years ago could turn up to work after a big night reeking of booze and explain that he flew it better after a few drinks might have been acceptable then, but the rules and society have changed and that same pilot would fail his Drug and Alcohol Screening Test nowadays, and he would be out of a job regardless of his personal beliefs. If you want the duties and protections of a government-recognised role, whether celebrant, policeman or pilot, you have to comply with the government rules.

Those with conflicted beliefs need not apply? Well if the role involves carrying out related tasks, and the laws specify how they can or cannot be carried out, then those who act on those conflicted beliefs cannot. A new civil celebrant is perfectly able to think that same sex marriage is wrong, and continue in his role, but when he refuses to carry out same sex marriages that is in violation of the laws relating to his government-sanctioned position. A hypothetical policeman can think that heroin should be legalised, without a problem, but when he is taking it or selling it, that is a violation of the laws that relate to his role. Someone cannot apply to the Police Force, sit in their interview and explain that they believe heroin is a benefit to society and they will continue to sell it, and still expect to get the job.

That's exactly what the new laws do. They remove a previous restriction that treated same-sex couples as second-class citizens, allowing them to marry if that is their desire. They don't make any mention of school education or any of a host of other unrelated red herrings - education is a State responsibility, not Federal, and the implementation of whatever programs may or may not be put in are State issues, and vary greatly between states. There are a lot of red herrings used to distract from the key issue, but those around the Safe Schools program seem to have been largely discredited - for example here: Safe Schools and same-sex marriage: All the myths debunked.

Watchout boys, the homovirus is coming to infect you :rolleyes:

CS, totalitarian? Hardly. Public servants don't get to illegally discriminate.

parabellum, given the result of the recent SSM survey I don't think I'm in a minority in not accepting the paranoid delusions of the "no" campaign - the attempted linking of SSM with Safe Schools, etc. Who is in denial?

Hempy, too late, my family are carriers. It's the homophobia one that's a concern - it's extremely dangerous.

Is it just me or does anyone else raise a smile when the likes of high and flighty and parabellum get all worked up and paranoid about the SSM decision. makes it even more sweeter