• Australian Labor Party pushing for a Marriage Equality vote to kill the issue
    16 replies, posted
[IMG]http://smartrecoveryaustralia.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/the-sydney-morning-herald-logo.jpg[/IMG] Read more: [url]http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/labor-push-on-gay-vote-to-kill-issue-20120910-25oij.html#ixzz26EAQZUQj[/url] [QUOTE]SENIOR Labor figures are pushing for a vote on gay marriage, possibly as early as next week, to clear the issue off the agenda. But as five ministers argued in favour of legalising gay unions in yesterday's parliamentary debate, the Greens' Adam Bandt said an early vote would look like ''a cynical move on Labor's part''. Chief government whip Joel Fitzgibbon - who earlier told Parliament gay marriage was an ''11th-order issue'' - said last night that the speakers' list for the debate on Labor MP Stephen Jones' bill in the House of Representatives ''was almost exhausted''. ''I'd expect the bill would be voted on sooner rather than later,'' he told The Age. ''I don't see any impediment to it being voted on next week.'' But leader of the House Anthony Albanese, a supporter of gay marriage who is yet to speak, would not put a time on the vote. ''We want to give everyone the opportunity to speak,'' he said. The vote would be some time between now and the end of the year. The Jones bill will be defeated: Labor is divided and Coalition MPs are bound to vote against it. Meanwhile, a bill co-sponsored by Labor senators Trish Crossin, Gavin Marshall, Louise Pratt and Carol Brown is expected to be debated and voted on in the Senate next week. There are now two private members' bills - one Labor and one from the Greens - in each house. Senator Crossin said the Labor senators had introduced their bill because they wanted to see the issue debated in the Senate, and were pessimistic about the chances of the Jones bill passing the lower house. Gay marriage campaigners would like to see the issue voted on first in the Senate, where there is more support for change. While campaigners say they are hopeful a majority of senators could be gathered from Green senators, and sympathetic Labor senators, crossbenchers and coalition backbenchers, Senator Crossin admitted change was unlikely because the Coalition was bound to vote against it. Mr Bandt, who also has a private member's bill, said: ''Labor needs to decide whether its priority is to get this off the political agenda or whether we'll actually get reform. ''I'm very worried that Labor's plan is just to get this to a vote as quickly as possible so that it's no longer an issue come the next federal election. And the problem with that is that it takes the pressure off Tony Abbott.'' Mr Bandt doesn't want an early vote in either house. Acting Prime Minister Wayne Swan today refused to say whether the federal government plans to overturn a gay marriage law that could pass through the Tasmanian parliament. Tasmania's lower house last month became the first chamber of an Australian parliament to pass a bill to legalise same-sex marriage. The bill must now pass the upper house before the island state becomes Australia's first gay wedding destination. Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare told Parliament he had switched his view on gay marriage. He had always believed that marriage was between a man and a woman. ''But society's views are not set in stone. They change, and so have mine.'' Schools minister Peter Garrett said that a desire by same-sex couples for the same recognition as others would not weaken the institution of marriage - if anything, it would strengthen it. Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said the critics of legalising gay marriage were concerned about the fabric of our society and our values. ''In fact, to me the values that this bill promotes are conservative values. It is saying that if you love someone, you should form a bond with that person for life.'' She believed change inevitable, but not this year. Minister for Mental Health and Ageing Mark Butler said he supported change because ''this is the right thing to do''. Employment Participation Minister Kate Ellis said: ''In a question of inclusion or exclusion, I choose inclusion.'' Mr Fitzgibbon said he was not convinced that the current wording of the Marriage Act was discriminatory. ''From my perspective, the Marriage Act is an instrument for procreation between opposite-sex couples,'' he said. ''I do not think it matters much to our society, quite frankly, whether same-sex couples marry or not. I do not think it benefits them greatly and I do not think it disadvantages the rest of our society greatly either. I will probably be attacked for saying this, but I think this is a sort of 11th-order issue.'' Liberal frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull said that were there a Coalition free vote he would support the legislation. ''This whole issue drips with hypocrisy, and the pools are deepest at the feet of the sanctimonious. The reality is this: the threat to marriage, and to marriages, is not what gay people may do; it is lack of commitment, it is cruelty, it is indifference, it is adultery.'' He said the numbers were not there for change now - even if there were a free Coalition vote - and advocated Parliament legislate for civil unions. with AAP[/QUOTE]
It's been a well known fact that a majority of Australians support marriage equality. It's about damn time we do something about it.
It's retarded. Both of the major Australian parties don't represent the people who voted for them. A majority of Australian support gay marriage, a majority support euthanasia, etc etc. It's so fucking retarded we can;t get out of this perpetual loop of stupid politicians because everyone's like "but I don't want to waste my vote!"
You know what's wierd? I remember watching 4 Corners late at night sometime earlier this year and there was a Labor representative who was both Athiest (or Agnostic can't remember) and [I]against[/I] marriage equality. What's even stranger is the Liberal rep was fully in support of gay marriage. Who was the rep? [I]Malcolm Turnbull[/I]. How does this happen? I'm not being snarky, I genuinely want to know how an atheist could possibly be against gay marriage.
[QUOTE=Lucien1337;37640035]You know what's wierd? I remember watching 4 Corners late at night sometime earlier this year and there was a Labor representative who was both Athiest (or Agnostic can't remember) and [I]against[/I] marriage equality. What's even stranger is the Liberal rep was fully in support of gay marriage. Who was the rep? [I]Malcolm Turnbull[/I]. How does this happen? I'm not being snarky, I genuinely want to know how an atheist could possibly be against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] You don't have to be religious to be against gay marriage, you just have to be an asshole.
[QUOTE=Lucien1337;37640035]You know what's wierd? I remember watching 4 Corners late at night sometime earlier this year and there was a Labor representative who was both Athiest (or Agnostic can't remember) and [I]against[/I] marriage equality. What's even stranger is the Liberal rep was fully in support of gay marriage. Who was the rep? [I]Malcolm Turnbull[/I]. How does this happen? I'm not being snarky, I genuinely want to know how an atheist could possibly be against gay marriage.[/QUOTE] Malcom Turnbull's a fucking winner though. Totally understandable. Swapping Turnbull for Abbott was just the worst thing they could have done.
[QUOTE=darcy010;37638467]It's been a well known fact that a majority of Australians support marriage equality. It's about damn time we do something about it.[/QUOTE] Not saying you're wrong but I wouldn't mind a source on that. [editline]12th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Zet;37640175]You don't have to be religious to be against gay marriage, you just have to be an asshole.[/QUOTE] You don't have to be religious to value traditional marriage.
I think I heard about someone from the Greens or one of these groups talking about how they're trying to push it through now so it doesn't get a proper debate and will be turned down through some parliamentary bullshit. Not sure if that's true or not but it's good to see something being done. [QUOTE=MuTAnT;37640413]Malcom Turnbull's a fucking winner though. Totally understandable. Swapping Turnbull for Abbott was just the worst thing they could have done.[/QUOTE] Weird thing is I'm far left enough that I don't even consider voting Liberal but Turnbull is decent enough that I wouldn't panic if he was PM. Still a bit of a shit and would suck business cock but at least he's a proper Liberal rather than a socially conservative fuckup. [editline]12th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=D.W;37640422]Not saying you're wrong but I wouldn't mind a source on that.[/QUOTE] The main source that comes back is a [url=http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/GalaxyAug2012.pdf]Galaxy poll commissioned by the AME[/url]. Telephone poll, reasonable distribution, only 865 samples but it's not a terrible poll relatively speaking. I'd still say it's a good estimate, particularly about almost 80% of young people having no problem with it.
I actually really wished they hadn't replaced Malcolm Turnbull for Abbott. I can't say whether it's actually true or not but I always had the impression that Turnbull actually debated bills on their merit rather than Abbott's approach, "Everything from the Labor party is pure evil!"
Abbott's copying the Republican party in saying no to everything and spinning it so there was nothing but doom and gloom during the Labor years. While it's easy to talk about actual debate and sensibility while you're second in the party vying for leadership, Turnbull did actually seem reasonable in that he didn't make an ass of himself. If I had to choose, I'd put Turnbull. Honestly though, most people think Abbott is an absolute joke and probably won't vote Liberal if he keeps this up so it works for me.
Malcolm Turnbull is a bloody legend!
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTqBmX2xPew[/media] Watch this, very good video.
[QUOTE=MuTAnT;37640605]I actually really wished they hadn't replaced Malcolm Turnbull for Abbott. I can't say whether it's actually true or not but I always had the impression that Turnbull actually debated bills on their merit rather than Abbott's approach, "Everything from the Labor party is pure evil!"[/QUOTE] Abbott is a terrible politician. The shit that comes out of his mouth my god.
[QUOTE=D.W;37640422]Not saying you're wrong but I wouldn't mind a source on that. [editline]12th September 2012[/editline] You don't have to be religious to value traditional marriage.[/QUOTE] The idea that marriage can only happen between a man and a woman is one that points to a rather religious mind set or upbringing. The only other reason anyone wouldn't want this to happen is that they plain and simply dislike gay people. There is no proper counter argument that exists to justify a ban on the marriage of 2 people who love each other, other than the union would not produce children, or the union would not be financially advantageous for either families involved. If these are the traditions you refer to, then that says a lot about the kind of person that you are.
[QUOTE=darcy010;37638467]It's been a well known fact that a majority of Australians support marriage equality. It's about damn time we do something about it.[/QUOTE] I really don't think people read the article. The idea of pushing the vote early is to table the bill in Parliament before there has been agreement between parties, have the vote, see the bill fail, and forget about it for another year. This isn't a good thing at all. Labor are going to introduce a bill, which all members of Parliament know is going to fail, in order to stop The Greens / Adam Bandt's private members bill from having any chance of passing.
now can we get obama and romney to shake hands and put together the best of their policies? no because fuck good things in america
Turnbull was the only Liberal leader I've liked. His views make me wonder why he's a Liberal Member...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.