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.