Public support for same-sex marriage on the rise

swoop42 · Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:05 pm

Man it's embarrassing.

I see this as no difference to saying someone can't marry because of skin colour or religion.

stui magpie · Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:09 pm

Tannin · Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:39 am

It's a discrimination issue. There is no room for religious votes when human rights are at stake.

^ Or that is how the proponents see it. Myself, I still hold the view that the state shouldn't make any legislation about marriage. It's entirely a private matter and the state has no business meddling with it. But if you aren't going to recognise all marriages, then you shouldn't recognise any of them. No discriminating between sexes, sexual preferences, races, religions: same law for everyone.

Tannin · Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 12:47 am

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

swoop42 · Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 3:02 am

Dangles · Balmey Army Joined: 14 May 2015

I hear the the ALP are going to leave this issue to a conscience vote until 2019. What does that actually mean?

Tannin · Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:18 pm

^ It means that they have a large majority in favour, easily enough to make it official policy, but there are a few die-hard troglodytes with quite a lot of power in the party still (notably the hard-line right-wing Catholic head of the shop assistants' union, who really should be in Family First or the DLP rather than Labor), and the Labor majority obviously feel that it is wiser not to antagonise them where there is no need. Labor can't pass the legislation without support from some non-Labor MHRs and senators anyway, so it really makes no practical difference whether they make it official policy or not.

By delaying the implementation until 2019 they avoid a messy fight with the troglodytes. By 2019, they no doubt assume, the legislation will long since have been passed so it won't be an issue, and by then - who knows? - perhaps some of the troglodytes will have departed. As for the troglodytes themselves, they know they are heavily outnumbered and no doubt feel that this result was the best they could have hoped for.

HAL · Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2015 2:21 pm

I like to learn new words.

nomadjack · Joined: 27 Apr 2006 Location: Essendon

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

I'm not too worried about that - Abbott was already unlikely to grant a conscience vote (the majority of the party room are staunchly anti-gay marriage), and his unenthusiastic response to the Entsch bill suggests that he was going to do everything he could to block a cross-party move.

But either way, why on earth would Labor let a government like this dictate their policy on an issue of social progress? If nothing else, it's a tremendous and unjustified leap of faith.

The clear choice for Labor was to bind their members, make it an election issue and win. Unfortunately, as you say, they squibbed it again, and now there's a chance that they could win the election and still not be able to pass it.

Dangles · Balmey Army Joined: 14 May 2015

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

What will happen is that, if Labor win the next election - presuming Abbott doesn't surprise us all and allow his MPs a free vote - they'll put a same-sex marriage bill on the table within a few months of gaining office. Most government MPs and Senators will vote in favour, but a small number won't. If the election is close, this will mean that the Shorten government may have to rely on crossbenchers and/or opposition backbenchers to get the bill passed. If they can't get the numbers, they'll have to keep trying or wait for a new election in 2019, at which point the party's position on same-sex marriage will become binding on all members. By which stage, they might have lost government again!

To be honest, I think it will pass soon after the next election, so long as Labor win. But they certainly did the cause no favours yesterday.

Wokko · Come and take it. Joined: 04 Oct 2005

Don't forget that Libs can cross the floor but Labor cant, so if Labor brings a vote then the few Nat/Lib floor crossers could bring it over the edge (if any of them hold strong enough views, not sure they do).

David · I dare you to try Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda

Yes, I suspect that's right. You'd think the Lib backbenchers who have already spoken out in favour would cross the floor, so, given the current numbers, it's hard to see a Lower House vote failing.

Where it might run into trouble is the Senate. There's already a mix of views amongst the crossbenchers, and it's hard to say for sure that it'd have the numbers after the half-election if a few Labor Senators vote against. Again, I expect it'll pass, but it's not quite set in stone.