Advertisement

How did Andrew Leigh vote on gay marriage?

By 20 September 2012 77

I can’t find Andrew Leigh in the ABC’s list.

He wouldn’t have absented himself from the chamber, surely?

Please login to post your comments
77 Responses to How did Andrew Leigh vote on gay marriage?
#1
Tronno9:56 am, 20 Sep 12

I believe, from his Twitter feed, his wife was giving birth. Seems a reasonable excuse to me.

#2
Holden Caulfield10:01 am, 20 Sep 12

Tronno said :

I believe, from his Twitter feed, his wife was giving birth. Seems a reasonable excuse to me.

I heard it was human-staffy cross. Turns out Bernadi was right all along.

#3
ToastFliesRED10:19 am, 20 Sep 12

Did he seek/was he given a pair I wonder

#4
LouiseMCrossman10:35 am, 20 Sep 12

Hi guys, I work for Andrew and we have had lots of queries about this over the last day. Andrew’s wife gave birth to their third son Zachary Leigh yesterday afternoon. Pairs aren’t granted for conscience votes but Andrew would have voted yes if he’d been there.

#5
Mysteryman10:41 am, 20 Sep 12

ToastFliesRED said :

Did he seek/was he given a pair I wonder

It would have mattered anyway. Everyone knew the bill was going to be rejected convincingly.

#6
schmeah11:08 am, 20 Sep 12

Andrew has spoken publicly in support of marriage equality. Had his wife not been in labour, I imagine he would have been there voting ‘yes’.

#7
loosebrown11:35 am, 20 Sep 12

Congratulations to Mr and Mrs Leigh on their new arrival!

#8
johnboy12:06 pm, 20 Sep 12

Mr Leigh has now posted this statement:

http://www.andrewleigh.com/blog/?p=3349

#9
Truthiness12:21 pm, 20 Sep 12

Damn heteros, keeping all the babies and marriage to themselves. Why can’t everyone else be unhappy too?!

#10
Masquara12:43 pm, 20 Sep 12

LouiseMCrossman said :

Hi guys, I work for Andrew and we have had lots of queries about this over the last day. Andrew’s wife gave birth to their third son Zachary Leigh yesterday afternoon. Pairs aren’t granted for conscience votes but Andrew would have voted yes if he’d been there.

Thanks Louise – great news on both fronts!

#11
stillflying1:28 pm, 20 Sep 12

This vote thing was an absolute bulls*** joke and a slap in the face.

It’s not a vote if you’re forced to vote one way because of your party, when they’re not representing the views of their regions. It’s absolutely correct that majority of the Australian public either want gay marriage or don’t care if it comes in because they’re truly not effected by it, it’s just getting the policitians to pull their thumbs out of their ass.

Happy both the ACT members would have voted yes had they been available.

#12
SnapperJack3:39 pm, 20 Sep 12

Does anybody seriously believe that Gillard is against gay marriage? It is simply political expediency and a public charade on her part because she is scared stiff the Australian Christian Lobby will campaign against her government in Queensland if she supports gay marriage.

Labor MPs have already said that Gillard – the unmarried athiest student activist and member of the Socialist Forum – was forced into her current position by the ACL. Jim Wallace has said on a number of occasions that Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election on the back of the Christian vote in rural Qld. The ACL endorsed Rudd and Labor in those seats because of Rudd’s record as a morally conservative, church-going Christian.

The problem with the gay marriage vote in parliament is that it leaves the issue festering and unable to be taken off the political agenda because gay issues are like that. They hang around and won’t go away and there is a very powerful lobby ensuring that the issue is unresolved until it finally gets approved by the parliament.

It will be a test of political resolve how this issue will be managed from now on because the backlash over the vote is being led by the Left and The Greens and we all know about how they are ultimately running the government nowadays.

#13
Deref4:04 pm, 20 Sep 12

SnapperJack said :

Does anybody seriously believe that Gillard is against gay marriage? It is simply political expediency and a public charade on her part because she is scared stiff the Australian Christian Lobby will campaign against her government in Queensland if she supports gay marriage.

Labor MPs have already said that Gillard – the unmarried athiest student activist and member of the Socialist Forum – was forced into her current position by the ACL. Jim Wallace has said on a number of occasions that Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election on the back of the Christian vote in rural Qld. The ACL endorsed Rudd and Labor in those seats because of Rudd’s record as a morally conservative, church-going Christian.

You may be right. We’ll see wat the next election whether supporters of marriage equality outnumber the Christian right. Of course there’s no choice between the two major parties, so the only option will be minor parties and independents.

SnapperJack said :

It will be a test of political resolve how this issue will be managed from now on because the backlash over the vote is being led by the Left and The Greens and we all know about how they are ultimately running the government nowadays.

So let me get this right – you say that the Labor Party (and, ostensibly the libs) are controlled by the right-wing Christian lobby (with which I agree); then you say it’s controlled by the left and the Greens. That does sound a little like having your cake and eating it too.

#14
LSWCHP9:58 pm, 20 Sep 12

SnapperJack said :

Jim Wallace has said on a number of occasions that Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election on the back of the Christian vote in rural Qld.

Of course he’d say that. He’s a political lobbyist, and his interest is best served by making as many people as possible think he is as influential as possible.

I would be interested to see the numbers of Christian voters in rural Qld who were influenced by this dude, versus the the numbers of everybody else in the entire country who regard him and his crew as a joke and laugh him to scorn.

The fact is that he’s a fundamentalist nutbag running an outfit composed of fundamentalist nutbags and which represents only a tiny, tiny minority of fundamentalist nutbags.

#15
LSWCHP10:02 pm, 20 Sep 12

I’ve seen Mr Leigh in public a couple of times. He strikes me as a decent, intelligent and witty man.

His brief and forthright comment on this adds to my positive impression of him.

Disclaimer: I’m not a Labor apparatchik. I just like the cut of his jib.

#16
c_c10:57 pm, 20 Sep 12

Can I say that given its the 21st century, I think the archaic requirement that an MP needs to run through the corridors and actually be present for a division is ridiculous.

#17
Spykler11:18 pm, 20 Sep 12

LSWCHP said :

I’ve seen Mr Leigh in public a couple of times. He strikes me as a decent, intelligent and witty man.

His brief and forthright comment on this adds to my positive impression of him.

Disclaimer: I’m not a Labor apparatchik. I just like the cut of his jib.

Agreed, met Andrew at a BBQ two years ago and was immediately impressed by him, a real gentleman and intelligent to boot. Plus, he never hogged out on the dwindling supply of sausages, he had one with onions, whereas others were going back for 4 and 5.

#18
Darkfalz12:52 am, 21 Sep 12

Spykler said :

Plus, he never hogged out on the dwindling supply of sausages, he had one with onions, whereas others were going back for 4 and 5.

Probably because with his generous salary free sausages aren’t as appealing to him as many of his base.

I wrote him a letter expressing my opposition to gay marriage. I got a scripted reply that he supports it, even though he doesn’t say why. So I wrote him another one and haven’t heard back since.

It was pretty disgusting to see people making remarks such as “shame” or “shameful” in regards to this vote, which was defeated easily by more than 2 to 1. John Hogg (Labor) summed up pretty well the tactics of the majority of these SSM advocates “I utterly reject the offensive language of some of those supporting the bill that people who share my views are discriminatory or homophobic. This is absolutely nonsense of the first order and is a desperate resort to try and isolate those who don’t share their views.”

This is what happened to Bernardi essentially. Yes, he was dumb enough to try a line of argument that has been successfully made taboo, but it should not cost him his entire political career because of it. He should have been able to express his opinion freely and then faced the polls at the next election. It is also being frequently misreported, as he in no way compared homosexuality itself to bestiality, only the fallacious argument that “love” need be the only requirement for a marriage. The trap is falling into religious based or “slippery slope” arguments – completely unnecessary, because the intrinsic value of the nuclear family is more than enough to defend the existing definition of marriage.

We need something to stop more of these scurrilous bills being put to the vote every couple of months Once every 3 years should be plenty. It was worth it this time to watch Albanese pontificate on it with the usual “discrimination” talk even while then making exception for Gillard’s own beliefs against it, although it doesn’t seem to apply to anyone in the coalition who is against it because “they don’t get it”. So Gillard gets it, but still doesn’t want them to have the right to marry? Hilarious. And Bandt saying he wouldn’t vote in favour of civil unions, demonstrating that it has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with forced social equivalence.

#19
Deref8:19 am, 21 Sep 12

Darkfalz said :

I wrote him a letter expressing my opposition to gay marriage. I got a scripted reply that he supports it, even though he doesn’t say why. So I wrote him another one and haven’t heard back since.

I expected a reasoned response from our politicians to the fact that most Australians (what was it, 64% IIRC) support marriage equality – IOW their support for it. Are you equally annoyed about that?

#20
stillflying8:52 am, 21 Sep 12

Darkfalz said :

Spykler said :

. It is also being frequently misreported, as he in no way compared homosexuality itself to bestiality, only the fallacious argument that “love” need be the only requirement for a marriage.

He compared love between two consenting adults to something abusive and disgusting. A dog doesn’t give consent. A dog doesn’t understand. There is a very clear difference between love in a relationship and “love” from an abusive controlling standpoint. To compare the two is only encouraging prejudice and misunderstanding about people who are gay.

He’s an idiot for thinking such a thing let alone being stupid enough to say it. Good riddence.

#21
stillflying9:31 am, 21 Sep 12

Damn quotation marks. -_- I blame the fact I’m forced to use internet explorer at work.

#22
NoAddedMSG9:33 am, 21 Sep 12

c_c said :

Can I say that given its the 21st century, I think the archaic requirement that an MP needs to run through the corridors and actually be present for a division is ridiculous.

Totally agree – I simply do not understand why they cannot put in an advance vote or phone in their vote or something similar. Utterly daft.

#23
johnboy9:41 am, 21 Sep 12

Well for a start if they were allowed remote voting the whips would have the gadgets under lock and key.

This way there’s a remote chance we might see a conscience vote one day.

It’s important to have hope.

#24
Mysteryman10:46 am, 21 Sep 12

SnapperJack said :

Does anybody seriously believe that Gillard is against gay marriage? It is simply political expediency and a public charade on her part because she is scared stiff the Australian Christian Lobby will campaign against her government in Queensland if she supports gay marriage.

Labor MPs have already said that Gillard – the unmarried athiest student activist and member of the Socialist Forum – was forced into her current position by the ACL. Jim Wallace has said on a number of occasions that Kevin Rudd won the 2007 election on the back of the Christian vote in rural Qld. The ACL endorsed Rudd and Labor in those seats because of Rudd’s record as a morally conservative, church-going Christian.

The problem with the gay marriage vote in parliament is that it leaves the issue festering and unable to be taken off the political agenda because gay issues are like that. They hang around and won’t go away and there is a very powerful lobby ensuring that the issue is unresolved until it finally gets approved by the parliament.

It will be a test of political resolve how this issue will be managed from now on because the backlash over the vote is being led by the Left and The Greens and we all know about how they are ultimately running the government nowadays.

From what I understand, the woman made an election promise, and kept it. Presumably her electorate was aware of this promise before they elected her.

Put the issue to a referendum. Then we will find out if the Australian majority want it. If it passes, make it law. If it doesn’t, drop it.

#25
Mysteryman10:47 am, 21 Sep 12

johnboy said :

Well for a start if they were allowed remote voting the whips would have the gadgets under lock and key.

This way there’s a remote chance we might see a conscience vote one day.

It’s important to have hope.

I don’t think remote voting is likely any time in the foreseeable future.

#26
Duffbowl12:04 pm, 21 Sep 12

c_c said :

Can I say that given its the 21st century, I think the archaic requirement that an MP needs to run through the corridors and actually be present for a division is ridiculous.

If they are visually recognised, it can be 100% certain that their vote was cast by them.

Until a remote system can be established that is 100% infallible, this is the best system. Before this descends into an argument about biometrics, etc., remember this: each system is only as secure as the users allow it to be. Anyone here password share at work, on any one of the accounts you have access to?

Besides, let the buggers work for their money.

#27
Truthiness12:14 pm, 21 Sep 12

if they allowed remote voting we wouldn’t need politicians

#28
Darkfalz5:41 pm, 21 Sep 12

SnapperJack said :

Does anybody seriously believe that Gillard is against gay marriage?

I don’t like Gillard at all but you seem to be under the impression people’s opinions are always based only upon immediate self interest, and that because Gillard is an unmarried atheist she couldn’t possibly believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. By your same logic, married non-gays with no gay family members couldn’t possibly be for SSM marriage, but some obviously are. She came from parents who were married for over 50 years and only separated by death, perhaps that model is important to her?

The nuclear family was the basis of most societies since the dawn of civilisation. They didn’t just decide it was the model when the bible appeared. The bonds between father, mother and child don’t have anything to do with religion.

#29
Darkfalz5:47 pm, 21 Sep 12

Mysteryman said :

Put the issue to a referendum. Then we will find out if the Australian majority want it. If it passes, make it law. If it doesn’t, drop it.

Boy, isn’t that’s optimistic. The smear and intimidation and suppression of opinion will continue until this aggressive and manipulative group get what they want. Because we suffer the disease of cultural Marxism (otherwise known as political correctness), the primary goal of which is to weaken society by undermining the family, they’ll eventually win, but there is value in delaying it as long as possible.

#30
Pork Hunt6:13 pm, 21 Sep 12

So now we have to put up with ten more years of them whinging.
Should have given them what they wanted.
It’s a LOGICAL extension to what has already occurred with other discrimination laws. Hello!!!!
The Godbotherers should realise that it won’t be compulsory and they don’t have to take part.
Euthanasia, anyone?

Follow
Follow The RiotACT
Get Premium Membership
Advertisement

Images of Canberra

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.