Gay Marriage Yay or Nay

Reflecting back on the 1967 referendum regarding Indigenous citizenship there is a sense of uneasiness and bewilderment. Probably more so that our government of the time would rather seperate itself from the big decision based on what is basically no brainer in terms of a basic human right. Sure, there are marks for proposing the legislation and getting it to the point in which change had eventually come. But really, why on earth did it require a vote of the people when the sentiment was overwhelmingly for and would have been clearly evident but more so that it was a human thing to do.

Now we have a situation in which the government will hold a plebiscite on same sex marriage equality. My thinking was any action to move forward on the issue is a good one but again it is simply a no brainer. Governments are clearly aware the majority of Australian people want change on the issue, which means this amendment can take place as an act of parliament. I have no doubts that Turnbull is 100% behind marriage equality but is battling the extreme right hard nosed Christians within his party.

Cut to the chase I say and scrap the plebiscite. I certainly don't want to play God over someone's life. I actually feel uneasy and annoyed that I will be subjected to this.

 

I think in 1967 a referendum was necessary because it was a constitutional change. Not sure, I was 17 and too young to vote so I simply remember my parents talking about it and deciding it was, as the Americans say, a no-brainer for yes.

This one is a symbol of how our politics is played out now. The Marriage Act is an act of parliament. It doesn't need a plebiscite or a referendum. It just needs a vote in the parliament. It has shown up our politicians. Most of us are okay with the change. Some are not. Positions have been taken based on social beliefs (which is fair enough), religious beliefs (which is fair enough) and possibly a bit of bigotry but George Brandis said it's okay to be a bigot so that must also be fair enough. The aforementioned cross all party lines. There are those with conservative social beliefs, religious beliefs and bigoted beliefs across the parties. If they got a free vote then we'd see who was who. They don't want that. Hence it's been sent to us so the lawmakers can dodge a bullet. Gutless bastards.

 

Not everything needs to be politicized, while yes it is the most democratic way forward, the main thing is it means that people have less ground to complain about it afterwards. No conspiracy's from whoever loses, just suck it up welcome to democracy. That is what makes a emotional debate resolved in the best way looking forward. The only problem is putting up with any nutterz in both camps in the run-up, but since both sides of politics support it the 'noise' will be easily avoided by those who want to avoid it.

 

I agree, no plebiscite, I'm not interested in a vote, parliament should just legalise Gay marriage already

 

Gay marriage was made legal in my state of Massachusetts years ago and contrary to the religious whack jobs....no....the sky did not fall....the oceans did not boil off and the world did not come to an end.

Now the entire US. allows Gay Marriage.

AA

 

A plebiscite will costs a few hundred million but importantly is non binding. Already talk of tricky games to be played to stall it as long as is possible. It's inevitable so get it done already.

- - - Updated - - -

We are behind the times on this issue AA. I'm waiting for Australia to become leaders rather than followers.

 

The ALP had their chance and did nothing, they kept it up their sleeve as a election tool - they played with peoples lives for their own agenda. The LNP did their best to bring this to the actionable stage despite having the greatest internal friction. Though Union members are the biggest bigots I know, so perhaps even the populist ALP were under pressure also.

Of course if you think its the most important issue in the election then it might define how you go....

But I don't see how this is an argument other then ALP propoganda or laziness. It's the best way to get it done. Don't let our own depth of acceptance of an issue blind us to the rights of those who disagree perhaps equally as deep.

Of course some people will complain, but a party cannot go against something like this. It's bizarre to think they'd seriously consider it simply because its the same mechanism which determines who holds office as government. It would be political suicide. The US route was long and painful, the vote would be fast and less painful but could further divide some parts of the population, so the middle way is to use the tools of democracy to give everyone a chance to have a fair say once and for all, its relatively fast and clearly demonstrable as the will of the nation.

It is how big decisions of change are made, and whether we like it or not it is the established system and parts of the population disagree with it. Look at Brexit, same deal.... except with theirs they didn't really know what the result of change would be LOL, which is the most important thing to discuss in the lead up, but here its simple and obvious and everyone knows exactly what the change will be.

 

Legalize an act against nature?? yeah why not they are making everything that is wrong right and all that is right wrong..... (*)(*)(*)(*) why not just make a law that anything goes. Two people of the same sex cannot create life. Same sex marriage is wrong on all levels....Allowing same sex marriage is saying that gay people are equal to non gay people. This is sickness thinking and acting as though sickness is normal and acceptable. I mean they celebrate their sickness like its the best thing in the world, its disgusting and anti life. There is no argument, Period.

 

Lots of acts are made against nature. Chopping down trees to build houses. Digging massive holes in the ground and polluting our air are all against nature. Besides not everyone is going to turn gay.

There are lots of people in heterosexual relationships who don't want to have children....do we still pick on them? It's a ridiculous argument. If 2 people want to marry with the same anatomy and if doesnt hurt any body personally then go for it I say. Others will pick up the slack if population becomes an issue.

I ain't into religious arguments on issue either.

The only sickness is judgemental people wanting to play God and think they should have the power over someone else's life, which is basically a personal choice that doesn't hurt anybody else but challenge religious beliefs .

 

Not getting what you are saying here at all????

 

I see no reason why gays and lesbians can't be allowed to marry although it doesn't make much difference to me these days. Being married does mean more than just simply being in a relationship. For one thing, it infers a greater commitment to a person than merely saying something along the lines of "he/or she is my partner". For some, it may may mean the difference between saying "I am having a bit of fun with this person" and "this person is my life partner". Making it a plebiscite seems a good compromise, whereas making it the party line would end up being divisive.

 

If a gay couple have all the same legal rights as a married hetrosexual couple under Australian law.

Then I don't see what all the marriage fuss is about within the gay community wanting gay marriage legally accepted.

To me, it just seems gay people want to be acknowledged fussing around like hetrosexual people, by having weddings.

This seems more about the pomp 'n' pageantry of weddings, than the act of marriage equality.

 

Heterosexuals seem to marry for pomp and pageantry based on divorce rates. Of course gays and lesbians want to celebrate their love for each other with extravagance, that's what people do. I wanted to head for the registry office but the wife wanted all the traditions of marriage plus some. I begged her to marry me, so I suppose I had no choice.

If they love each other and they want to express it, we shouldn't stand in the road and make ignorant claims that their love is somehow fake..

 

I really hope all this time and money is not being wasted on gay individuals just wanting to compete with heterosexuals, rather than being accepted equally.

If two people really love each other. Then why do they need to create an elaborate ceremony to demonstrate their love?

Personally, I don't think marriage or weddings are an expression of love. I think they are an expression of pomp 'n' pageantry. If you love someone, you don't need to convince others of that love; just each other.

 

It's just an issue of not allowing all people to have the same rights.

Now I am sure if you or I for whatever reason were part of a percent of the population that was not legally allowed to say....Have an outdoor party....and even if we never had any intention of having one or even if it was something that we didn't even like to do.....well we would be upset that we were not being given the right to do so like everybody else!

AA

 

So you are having a 'non--binding plebiscite' on same sex marriage. I am trying to figure out why. If you want to discover how Australians feel about the issue without the results having any policy impact, wouldn't a couple of scientifically structured national polls by reputable pollsters be a lot cheaper? Its not that hard to measure public opinion any more

Legislators really should be more interested in the thinking process behind the opinion than the yeah or nay numbers themselves, and that is what public testimony in legislative hearings or town hall meetings can provide, let alone the internet, letters to the editor, blogs and letters to government. Seems pretty silly to me.

 

That's the really scary thing. $120 million is going to be spent on a 'non-binding plebiscite'.

 

I agree. Gay marriage should be legal for everyone regardless of sexuality, but a plebiscite is not the answer.

Considering $120 million is going to be spent on a non-binding plebiscite. I just sincerely hope the majority of the gay community understand marriage and weddings are about love and equality; not just all about competition and pomp 'n' ceremony.

 

OK...here is the problem with basing laws upon majority public opinion.

You cannot let a majority oppress the rights of the minority.

That's why in the U.S. we have the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It prevents the majority from suppressing the rights of anyone that they are Constitutionally guaranteed.

AA

 

Not super relevant outside the scope of the US Constitution. That is why I did not discuss 'rights'. I never do outside my country. I have no clue whether our 14h amendment language has a twin Down Under, nor a "Loving vs Virginia precedent, let alone what its scope or relevance might be once you discover it You will have to consult with an Australian legal scholar for a prevailing legal theory.

Absent a similar parallel, you just have statutory remedy to these issues. You might as well prove your side is more popular, if that is all that you have to pressure a parliament to act. Obviously this is an effort to do just that - and kick this very sharp edged can down the road. Personally I smell political cowardice in the wind here. Its along the line of setting up a blue ribbon committee to study the problem. Its just an expensive way stall until there is a stronger wind blowing one way or another..

 

Even if Australians spend $120 million on the plebiscite, and get an 70% in favor of gay marriage. The Australian Parliament still has the power to say NO, and not grant gay marriage.

A lot of money spent, not knowing if Australian politicians are going to honor the outcome of the plebiscite.

 

Absolutely. There is already talk that they will do everything to renege on this promise, even if it means giving Turnbull the boot I believe.

 

Penny Wong makes a very good point a plebiscite would only open the door for conservatives to denigrate gay and lesbian relationships.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/not-one-straight-politician-knows-what-its-like-penny-wongs-deeply-personal-plebiscite-anguish-20160621-gpogvz.html

 

Dear oh dear. It's not uncommon for two married people of the opposite sex to be unable to create life, too: shall we forbid them the right to foster or adopt children because childlessness is their natural state?

 

Plebiscite won't be happening now it would seem, but with likely makeup of the senate and parliament I'd certainly be confident it would push through as an act of parliament.

Turnbull should have stuck his fingers up at the ultra right. He would have drawn much respect over this one issue.