People want a vote in parliament NOT a plebiscite on Marriage Equality

Is it an issue that will impact on you personally? No, I didn't think so. Just let people have their human right to marry whoever it is they love with a special bond.

Like I said, I don't want to play God with such a human and personal issue. It's ridiculous.

 

It's not playing "god", it's living in a democracy.

Howard didn't have a plebiscite when he changed the law originally.

There's more upside in a plebiscite for the anti same sex marriage crowd. Last roll of the dice. If it fails we should probably expect another strong push for civil unions, ie more separate but equal bs.

Pro crowd better be careful not to alienate people.

Really it would be safer just not to have it, and hope the ALP and crossbenchers can get it through both houses or that the Coalition change their policy and allow a free vote, after the next election.

 

Labor has its own right wing Catholic influence (the Shoppies) to screw it up.

 

Of course it's playing God. It's simply control. The democratic process is clear, you don't need to spend 200 million or subject the country to out and out slurring. Besides, I could see the democratic argument becoming some sort of shallow argument for the homophobes.

I think you will find that the anti-mob will alienate themselves. This argument has been around for many years and population has moved significantly on it.

At the end of the day a referendum is probably the only other option. I don't think it would get through lower house through a conscience vote, even if plebiscite was clear cut.

 

Last Poll was News Poll (last week) and there was 62% support for SSM. It will easily get through both Houses. Labour will vote for it and they hold 69 HoR seats. Only need a handfull of Libs and a couple of the cross benches and it will steam roll through. Similar position in the Senate.

 

So labor aren't allowing a conscience vote then? I mean if both parties were to allow a conscience vote it may not get through is my thinking. I thought there were a couple of laborites who opposed SSM, while most of the party do. The coalition are the mirror opposite. To me with this scenario it would seem tight still.

Anyway you could be right, I'm just speculating obviously. If you are right, who knows what could happen with a little pressure to bare.....or Turnbull's balls drop.

 

Personally I'd want a free vote in the parliament, but that's not happening. It's a good issue for the ALP and the Greens, do they even want to resolve it before the next election? Perhaps if they could pull off a coup in parliament, don't really see that happening either.

Control, sure, but that's government in general. Laws are the business of men, not "God". Any arguments about the law that allude to God as a justification are quite frankly moronic.

Plebiscite is an exercise in democracy.

The wedge issue will be civil unions, presumably.

Marriage definitely doesn't need to be in the Constitution.

The Pro same sex marriage crowd risks alienating the civil union crowd if the push a "homophobes" vs "non-homophobes" agenda.

The other option is to simply vote ALP/Green at the next election or hope the Coalition change their policy for the next election. Frankly I'd rather just have the plebiscite.

 

The God statement is aimed at the religious push and a figure of speech for those that want to pretend that they are Lords and Kings. So on an issue such as one that is very personal like this, it is not a display of democracy as far as I'm concerned, but condescending patronisation.

I'm picking up that you'd prefer a vote in parliament but is very unlikely to occur, so the next best thing is a plebiscite. Why not the whole hog and go with a referendum?

 

Democracy is often patronising, inevitable when you have the majority determining rules for a minority.

Church has been "playing God" for two thousand years, don't see why they'd stop now.

Referendums are rarely successful, and I don't see why Marriage should be in the Constitution. Not particularly against it really, but it's not on the table at the moment.

Howard shouldn't have changed it in the first place.

Church needs to just let go of civil marriage.

 

Well, this seems to make it as clear as mud. This was what happened at last year's Labor (*)(*)(*)(*) Up.

Link.

Dunno how much of that remains the case, today. But, I doubt there would be many, if any, Labor MPs who oppose SSM.

 

Tend to follow you on lots of issues but just can't on this one.

The growing secular world has forced changes to what were supposedly strict Christian laws. The secular world has certainly shifted Christian thinking on LGBT.... The far right Christian conservative nutters want to pretend or try and enforce their dogmas and bigotry. Yes the church may have influenced laws up to the 20th century but times are dramatically changing for the betterment of humanity in my mind.

If sentiment is clear then that is democracy speaking, obviously only if changes are made regarding the requests/demands made clearly by the people. The time is right, we have numerous polls that suggests significantly that people want to move on the issue.
Dictators are those extreme right wing nutters who want things their way. The country has had enough of these backward, stagnant people.

Howard didn't change laws that stopped SSM per se did he?

 

Yeah it doesn't clear up too much in terms of numbers. Maybe knowing that virtually all members support SSM they are playing politics with the conscience vote to isolate and embarrass the liberals about their dictatorial, captains call practices?

 

I still don't understand why gay individuals want to participate in a religious ceremony like marriage, when the religion doesn't want to recognise gay marriage as being equal in status to heterosexual marriage?

Why would any gay individual want a religious marriage under those circumstances? Here just shaking my head.

 

Who said that marriage ceremonies derived from Christianity? Who said it has to be a religious undertaking?

 

Maybe, just maybe there are gays and lesbians out there, who believe in God.
And I question whether their God prohibits a gay/lesbian marriage.
The church still does, but who is the church?
A bunch of pedophile priests among others? Or the other way around?
People having a faith should be able to marry whom they love, end of story.
Your mindset is slightly outdated and is more commonly found in other religions....
I believe religions and their institutions have to move on, all of them....
Regards

 

I don't know either culldav, but then I'm not religious. But there's definitely a proxy war going on here between gay Christians and their church.

Again, I am pro gay marriage, I just don't expect a Conservative Government to move even further to the left on this issue than they already are.

It's pretty obvious that the conservative arm of the party has the PM by the balls on this issue. Bernadi defects and it's a hung parliament, game over.

If the world ran on Polls, Brexit would never have happened. Clearly polls aren't all that.

I wouldn't choose to have a plebiscite, but it's what's on the table.

Yes I'm cynical enough to believe that the ALP don't want gay marriage to get up while they're in opposition.

Howard changed the marriage act to definite it as "between a man and a woman", when he controlled both houses.

 

What actually was he good for?
First the Iraq War, and secondly absolute no idea to set our nation right for 2020 or beyond.
So much money earned during the mining boom, and all gone, nothing left.
And that is not because of Labor or Abbott or Mr. nice-guy Turnbull, which followed afterwards, but because the course remained the same.
The Liberals are committed to hold on to the old grid of power, coal, mining in general, serving big enterprises and licking the Yank's arse.
Work choices, your comment, the list goes on.
I think John Howard is almost certain to receive the badge of treason.
Good leaders look beyond....
Cheers

 

The concept of marriage and God is founded and based in religion, a religion that doesn't accept homosexual marriage. If gay individuals believe in God, then that is there prerogative, but why do they want to get married within a religion that will never accept them as equals? You also don't need to believe in any particular religion to have faith in a superior being - GOD.

 

Tatest Poll ~ ReachTEL

Link.

 

$225 miilion squandered on a plebiscite, so a minority group can say they are married - outrageous.

No wonder human society is in the bottom of the toilet.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-...on-same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-study/7243298

 

And despite what this tells us it looks as though there is no chance during this term of government that same sex marriage will be possible with Labor blocking Plebiscite vote.

How far will Turnbull go, which party will want to earn the right. Turnbull can't afford to move on it with so many far right conserves on his team. The Nationals will tear apart the government by the sounds of it. I think there will be an utter Sh!t fight brewing, which will take some major scalps with it and all hell will break loose.......does that sound dramatic enough?

 

You seriously don't think a poll commissioned by Australian Marriage Equality (AME) and Australians for Equality (A4E) isn't going to be slightly biased and skewed?

 

All other major polls suggest the same numbers, so no, I don't think they are skewed or biase by any measure.