Gay marriage status quo has Abbott on shaky ground

No_Nose said :

I would have no issue with a plebecite being held if it were to be done quickly with a simple question. But that of course is not going to happen, it will be at least two years away. This is quite clearly a delaying tactic by Abbott, nothing more.

And I do know how to spell ‘plebiscite’…honest!

No_Nose said :

justin heywood said :

Masquara said :

Referendums fail. In 90 per cent of cases. That is what Abbott is counting on . Referendum is the last thing we should be supporting.

So, despite the frequent claim that ‘70% of Australians support SSM’, a referendum/plebiscite would fail? I doubt it, if that figure is correct.

You would think that the SSM cheerleaders would be cheering, unless it’s because:

A. The’re a bit doubtful about the 70% figure themselves

B. It’s mostly about politics, and if the hated Abbott hands the decision over to the Australian people, that’s the end of what has been very effective wedge politics.

I would have no issue with a plebecite being held if it were to be done quickly with a simple question. But that of course is not going to happen, it will be at least two years away. This is quite clearly a delaying tactic by Abbott, nothing more.

I find that very hard to believe, since you appear to have a problem with *everything* the government does. A plebiscite, even if it were two years away, would still hold a great chance of passing than the alternative, which if the government continuing to vote against the bills in the lower house. Is that what you’d prefer?

justin heywood said :

Masquara said :

Referendums fail. In 90 per cent of cases. That is what Abbott is counting on . Referendum is the last thing we should be supporting.

So, despite the frequent claim that ‘70% of Australians support SSM’, a referendum/plebiscite would fail? I doubt it, if that figure is correct.

You would think that the SSM cheerleaders would be cheering, unless it’s because:

A. The’re a bit doubtful about the 70% figure themselves

B. It’s mostly about politics, and if the hated Abbott hands the decision over to the Australian people, that’s the end of what has been very effective wedge politics.

Absolutely.

It seems very obvious to me that this is a game of wedge politics for the Labor party. One only has to compare the *now* outspoken members of the opposition to their silence on the issue when they were in government to see the truth.

As I’ve been saying for years – put it to a plebiscite. Let Australian’s decide once and for all, and end the political posturing and the wasted time on this issue.

justin heywood said :

Masquara said :

Referendums fail. In 90 per cent of cases. That is what Abbott is counting on . Referendum is the last thing we should be supporting.

So, despite the frequent claim that ‘70% of Australians support SSM’, a referendum/plebiscite would fail? I doubt it, if that figure is correct.

You would think that the SSM cheerleaders would be cheering, unless it’s because:

A. The’re a bit doubtful about the 70% figure themselves

B. It’s mostly about politics, and if the hated Abbott hands the decision over to the Australian people, that’s the end of what has been very effective wedge politics.

I would have no issue with a plebecite being held if it were to be done quickly with a simple question. But that of course is not going to happen, it will be at least two years away. This is quite clearly a delaying tactic by Abbott, nothing more.

John Moulis said :

HenryBG said :

No_Nose said :

I’ll be changing my vote because I believe that if the government can’t even get the small and inconsequential issues sorted in the simplest manner, then they really have no hope of dealing with bigger issues.

a) You keep saying this about your voting history and intentions, and I am fairly confident that it is not the truth.

b) in the enormously unlikely event that a long-time Liberal-voter would change their voting intentions on the issue of homosexual marriage, I would say that person was seriously intellectually-challenged.
Claiming that a redefinition of “marriage” is more important than the Libs’ destruction of the renewables industry and their incompetent economic management that has led to an *increase* of the deficit and a massive increase of our foreign debt is utterly moronic.

As a long-time Liberal voter who has posted videos on YouTube appealing for people not to vote for The Greens, I will be voting for the Greens candidate in the Senate at the next election. Zed has completely lost me with his opposition to gay marriage. If Gary Humphries was still the Lib senator I would be voting for him, but I cannot vote for Zed.

I think The Greens are more tolerant of tats than the Libs too.

justin heywood said :

Masquara said :

Referendums fail. In 90 per cent of cases. That is what Abbott is counting on . Referendum is the last thing we should be supporting.

So, despite the frequent claim that ‘70% of Australians support SSM’, a referendum/plebiscite would fail? I doubt it, if that figure is correct.

You would think that the SSM cheerleaders would be cheering, unless it’s because:

A. The’re a bit doubtful about the 70% figure themselves

B. It’s mostly about politics, and if the hated Abbott hands the decision over to the Australian people, that’s the end of what has been very effective wedge politics.

I think you have nailed it.
On Insiders, ABC TV yesterday, one of the mature panellists Michael Stutchbury, said that it would be doubtful if a referendum on the issue would get up. The other panellists and host Barrie Cassidy didn’t disagree with Stuchbury’s statement.
This contrast’s with video later in the day of opposition leader Bill Shorten in full flight claiming that
70% of Australia wants SSM so a referendum wasn’t required”.
The wider agenda is to continue the attack on Abbott and destabilise his leadership. This attack is being led by Mark Kenny of Fairfax Media who is at it again in the Canberra Times this morning as he gloats over the latest poll showing Malcolm Turnbull as preferred PM.
It appears that a lot of the cheer leaders for SSM are people of opposite sex in relationships without marriage.
Isn’t that ironic?

Masquara said :

Referendums fail. In 90 per cent of cases. That is what Abbott is counting on . Referendum is the last thing we should be supporting.

So, despite the frequent claim that ‘70% of Australians support SSM’, a referendum/plebiscite would fail? I doubt it, if that figure is correct.

You would think that the SSM cheerleaders would be cheering, unless it’s because:

A. The’re a bit doubtful about the 70% figure themselves

B. It’s mostly about politics, and if the hated Abbott hands the decision over to the Australian people, that’s the end of what has been very effective wedge politics.

HenryBG said :

No_Nose said :

I’ll be changing my vote because I believe that if the government can’t even get the small and inconsequential issues sorted in the simplest manner, then they really have no hope of dealing with bigger issues.

a) You keep saying this about your voting history and intentions, and I am fairly confident that it is not the truth.

b) in the enormously unlikely event that a long-time Liberal-voter would change their voting intentions on the issue of homosexual marriage, I would say that person was seriously intellectually-challenged.
Claiming that a redefinition of “marriage” is more important than the Libs’ destruction of the renewables industry and their incompetent economic management that has led to an *increase* of the deficit and a massive increase of our foreign debt is utterly moronic.

As a long-time Liberal voter who has posted videos on YouTube appealing for people not to vote for The Greens, I will be voting for the Greens candidate in the Senate at the next election. Zed has completely lost me with his opposition to gay marriage. If Gary Humphries was still the Lib senator I would be voting for him, but I cannot vote for Zed.

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

When a government doesn’t have a majority in both houses or an opposition that can act in the best interests of the country, the important things can’t be done..

And the excuse for not getting the simple things done is…?

It’s not an “excuse”, it’s a fact.

… that we have a government that thinks it is in permanent opposition and opposes everything.

Including its own claims that we are seriously over indebted so one of the first things it does when it gets in power is ask for another half trillion of debt!

… and the award for the biggest liar in Australian politics is shared between Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey, who also gets the Award for Kindergarten Treasurer of the Year.

dungfungus said :

When you say “we”, are you one of the 1% of all Australians who registered as being same-sex?
According to the 2011 Census, there were around 33,700 same-sex couples in Australia, with 17,600 male same-sex couples and 16,100 female same-sex couples. Same-sex couples represented about 1% of all couples in Australia.
Amazing how such a small section of Australia has generated a reported 70% support from Australia in their quest for “marriage equality”..

I’m not South African, but that didn’t stop me being vehemently opposed to apartheid.

You don’t have to be gay to be disgusted by government sanction discrimination.

You just have to be a human.

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

When a government doesn’t have a majority in both houses or an opposition that can act in the best interests of the country, the important things can’t be done..

And the excuse for not getting the simple things done is…?

It’s not an “excuse”, it’s a fact.

Masquara said :

Southmouth said :

Compulsory Referendum or Plebiscite is the only way to bring an end to this nonsense. Bring it on.

Referendums fail. In 90 per cent of cases. That is what Abbott is counting on . Referendum is the last thing we should be supporting.

When you say “we”, are you one of the 1% of all Australians who registered as being same-sex?
According to the 2011 Census, there were around 33,700 same-sex couples in Australia, with 17,600 male same-sex couples and 16,100 female same-sex couples. Same-sex couples represented about 1% of all couples in Australia.
Amazing how such a small section of Australia has generated a reported 70% support from Australia in their quest for “marriage equality”.
It would appear that a fair proportion of that 1% either are directly employed in the media are are totally supportive of opinion favouring support for “marriage equality”.
A referendum will soon sort that out.

No_Nose said :

I’ll be changing my vote because I believe that if the government can’t even get the small and inconsequential issues sorted in the simplest manner, then they really have no hope of dealing with bigger issues.

a) You keep saying this about your voting history and intentions, and I am fairly confident that it is not the truth.

b) in the enormously unlikely event that a long-time Liberal-voter would change their voting intentions on the issue of homosexual marriage, I would say that person was seriously intellectually-challenged.
Claiming that a redefinition of “marriage” is more important than the Libs’ destruction of the renewables industry and their incompetent economic management that has led to an *increase* of the deficit and a massive increase of our foreign debt is utterly moronic.

Southmouth said :

Compulsory Referendum or Plebiscite is the only way to bring an end to this nonsense. Bring it on.

Referendums fail. In 90 per cent of cases. That is what Abbott is counting on . Referendum is the last thing we should be supporting.

Abbott needs to bald face lie to the voters for years before he “has a mandate”.

You can’t expect him to do this overnight.

dungfungus said :

When a government doesn’t have a majority in both houses or an opposition that can act in the best interests of the country, the important things can’t be done..

And the excuse for not getting the simple things done is…?

Ghettosmurf87 said :

dungfungus said :

I would like to look at the questions asked in those polls and see if respondents were eligible to vote because that is what it will come down to. Also, were the responses different in some states and territories?
A marriage equality referendum can be held concurrently with the other proposed referendum for indigenous inclusion so the cost is not an issue.
To be done on the floor of parliament the issue needs to be taken to the next election as a clear policy so there can be no disputing the will of the people.

Go and ask the pollsters. Demographics are often published for these polls too, though I do not have the details of those, so won’t make assumptions about them.

There is no guarantee that any referendum on indigenous inclusion in the constitution will occur. There is still significant infighting about what form the proposed change might take, let alone whether or not it will be voted on or enacted.

How many other legislative changes are made for which no policy was taken to the previous election? You are not seriously suggesting that no new policies on topics are even devised during the 3 years of a Parliament? Also, what policy did John Howard take to the polls regarding changing the Marriage Act? He didn’t take one at all, he simply decided that that was how he wanted things to go and pushed it through with the support of his majority in both houses. It was never a question raised with the public and there was no populace will or desire of the masses to which he was reacting. He just did it.

“He just did it.”
Because he could!
Abbott does not have that option.

dungfungus said :

I would like to look at the questions asked in those polls and see if respondents were eligible to vote because that is what it will come down to. Also, were the responses different in some states and territories?
A marriage equality referendum can be held concurrently with the other proposed referendum for indigenous inclusion so the cost is not an issue.
To be done on the floor of parliament the issue needs to be taken to the next election as a clear policy so there can be no disputing the will of the people.

Go and ask the pollsters. Demographics are often published for these polls too, though I do not have the details of those, so won’t make assumptions about them.

There is no guarantee that any referendum on indigenous inclusion in the constitution will occur. There is still significant infighting about what form the proposed change might take, let alone whether or not it will be voted on or enacted.

How many other legislative changes are made for which no policy was taken to the previous election? You are not seriously suggesting that no new policies on topics are even devised during the 3 years of a Parliament? Also, what policy did John Howard take to the polls regarding changing the Marriage Act? He didn’t take one at all, he simply decided that that was how he wanted things to go and pushed it through with the support of his majority in both houses. It was never a question raised with the public and there was no populace will or desire of the masses to which he was reacting. He just did it.

No_Nose said :

chewy14 said :

Isn’t that what you’re saying as well?

That it’s a simple issue that could (should) have been solved in a simple afternoon’s sitting of parliament and no one would think about it later, but it’s also a massive issue that’s going to cause you and thousands of others to change their votes?

I’ll be changing my vote because I believe that if the government can’t even get the small and inconsequential issues sorted in the simplest manner, then they really have no hope of dealing with bigger issues.

As an aside, I also find it funny when people say something along the lines of ‘The government shouldn’t be focussing on this, the government should be focussing on the important issues’ . That statement implies that they must believe the government is not capable of doing two things at once. And when the Prime Minister himself says this it hardly inspires confidence!

When a government doesn’t have a majority in both houses or an opposition that can act in the best interests of the country, the important things can’t be done.
The Medicare co-payment is a classic example. It was something that had been previously been suggested by some in Labor but the current opposition would prefer us to keep borrowing to pay the interest on accrued debt.
Remember the GST? It was a Paul Keating initiative which was rejected by the socialist left in Labor. It took a conservative government to get it up and running.

chewy14 said :

Isn’t that what you’re saying as well?

That it’s a simple issue that could (should) have been solved in a simple afternoon’s sitting of parliament and no one would think about it later, but it’s also a massive issue that’s going to cause you and thousands of others to change their votes?

I’ll be changing my vote because I believe that if the government can’t even get the small and inconsequential issues sorted in the simplest manner, then they really have no hope of dealing with bigger issues.

As an aside, I also find it funny when people say something along the lines of ‘The government shouldn’t be focussing on this, the government should be focussing on the important issues’ . That statement implies that they must believe the government is not capable of doing two things at once. And when the Prime Minister himself says this it hardly inspires confidence!

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

He has an obligation to all Australians to have a say and a referendum is the only way this can be done..

So what you are saying is that this is a minor non-issue that parliament should not be wasting time on that is also a major issue that warrants two years of debate, around $50 million dollars of taxpayers money and the involvement of every citizen in the country?

Clear as mud!

Isn’t that what you’re saying as well?

That it’s a simple issue that could (should) have been solved in a simple afternoon’s sitting of parliament and no one would think about it later, but it’s also a massive issue that’s going to cause you and thousands of others to change their votes?

Ghettosmurf87 said :

dungfungus said :

Abbott has been forced into this situation by the media which overwhelmingly supports marriage equality (or whatever one wants to call it).
They often use the claim that “70% of Australians support marriage equality” yet there is little proof to support this claim.
He has an obligation to all Australians to have a say and a referendum is the only way this can be done.
The supporters of marriage equality were all gung-ho for a referendum in Australia a few months ago after the Irish one. Why don’t they still support it?
It is not a “poor political call” for at least 30% of Australians.

Why do you say that the 70% claim of support for SSM is lacking in proof? This has been the figure reached consistently by all polling companies, including by the Coalition’s own preferred polling agency, Crosby Textor, headed up by ex-liberal party federal director Lynton Crosby.

I know what you will say, these polls have all been commissioned by the SSM lobby and are biased. But you would be wrong, this is not a small issue that only one-side has been involved in. All of these polls, even the one commissioned by the Australian Christian Lobby themselves have come back in favour of Same Sex Marriage, much to their chagrin.

Why is SSM an issue for all Australians to have a say in, but not other issues, such as taxation, welfare, workplace rights, refugee policies, roads? Why is this issue any different?

Also, there is no reason for a referendum, as the Constitution does not require change. What would instead occur is that a plebiscite would be held. A plebiscite is non-binding and voting is not compulsory. It is also likely to cost upward of $80million. Pretty expensive exercise for something like this, which can be simply done on the floor of parliament.

I would like to look at the questions asked in those polls and see if respondents were eligible to vote because that is what it will come down to. Also, were the responses different in some states and territories?
A marriage equality referendum can be held concurrently with the other proposed referendum for indigenous inclusion so the cost is not an issue.
To be done on the floor of parliament the issue needs to be taken to the next election as a clear policy so there can be no disputing the will of the people.

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

I don’t even recall Howard re-defining marriage in 2004 – it was a non-issue then and given the gravity of Australia’s economic problems, it is now.

Exactly my point. It is an issue that could have been easily sorted out in a single afternoons parliament sitting. It would have cost nothing and disappeared from the news cycle in a week or two and from public memory in a year or two.

Abbott is the one who has now made it into a significant issue that will continually feature highly in the news cycle up to and through the next election and will take up parliaments time and effort.

Not to mention the not insignificant cost of running a plebiscite/referendum ( although it seems unlikely that will occur anyway).

Basically just another poor political call on his part.

Abbott has been forced into this situation by the media which overwhelmingly supports marriage equality (or whatever one wants to call it).
They often use the claim that “70% of Australians support marriage equality” yet there is little proof to support this claim.
He has an obligation to all Australians to have a say and a referendum is the only way this can be done.
The supporters of marriage equality were all gung-ho for a referendum in Australia a few months ago after the Irish one. Why don’t they still support it?
It is not a “poor political call” for at least 30% of Australians.

The definitive proof that the overwhelming Australian Public support SSM would be your refusal to see what you don’t want to see.

dungfungus said :

He has an obligation to all Australians to have a say and a referendum is the only way this can be done..

So what you are saying is that this is a minor non-issue that parliament should not be wasting time on that is also a major issue that warrants two years of debate, around $50 million dollars of taxpayers money and the involvement of every citizen in the country?

Clear as mud!

dungfungus said :

Abbott has been forced into this situation by the media which overwhelmingly supports marriage equality (or whatever one wants to call it).
They often use the claim that “70% of Australians support marriage equality” yet there is little proof to support this claim.
He has an obligation to all Australians to have a say and a referendum is the only way this can be done.
The supporters of marriage equality were all gung-ho for a referendum in Australia a few months ago after the Irish one. Why don’t they still support it?
It is not a “poor political call” for at least 30% of Australians.

Why do you say that the 70% claim of support for SSM is lacking in proof? This has been the figure reached consistently by all polling companies, including by the Coalition’s own preferred polling agency, Crosby Textor, headed up by ex-liberal party federal director Lynton Crosby.

I know what you will say, these polls have all been commissioned by the SSM lobby and are biased. But you would be wrong, this is not a small issue that only one-side has been involved in. All of these polls, even the one commissioned by the Australian Christian Lobby themselves have come back in favour of Same Sex Marriage, much to their chagrin.

Why is SSM an issue for all Australians to have a say in, but not other issues, such as taxation, welfare, workplace rights, refugee policies, roads? Why is this issue any different?

Also, there is no reason for a referendum, as the Constitution does not require change. What would instead occur is that a plebiscite would be held. A plebiscite is non-binding and voting is not compulsory. It is also likely to cost upward of $80million. Pretty expensive exercise for something like this, which can be simply done on the floor of parliament.

JC said :

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

The supporters of “marriage equality” realise that and that is why the pressure is on to get a parliamentary resolution.

No. The supporters of marriage equality (it doesn’t need quotes) realise that it will be at least two years before a plebiscite takes place. At least two further years of government sanctioned discrimination. That is the reason. And when (if it does actually take place at all) it will have some poorly worded and ambiguous question that does not actually reflect the issue, similar to the republic referendum question.

dungfungus said :

I think Tony Abbott has successfully “headed this off at the pass” and he is rightly passing the issue to the voters to make the decision.

So was he wrong a couple of months ago when he said it should be up to the government to decide and not the people? That there was no need for a referendum on this issue? And the High Court was wrong when they said it the responsibility of Parliament? And John Howard was wrong when he single handedly re-defined marriage in 2004?

According to the ABC and Fairfax Media, Abbott is perpetually wrong.
I don’t even recall Howard re-defining marriage in 2004 – it was a non-issue then and given the gravity of Australia’s economic problems, it is now.

Suggest you look up the Marriage Amendment Act 2004.

PS according to News Corp Abbott and his merry band of thieves can do no wrong. Go figure hey?

You ignore my suggestions so I will do the same to yours.
Newscorp do not have any media outlets in Canberra

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

I don’t even recall Howard re-defining marriage in 2004 – it was a non-issue then and given the gravity of Australia’s economic problems, it is now.

Exactly my point. It is an issue that could have been easily sorted out in a single afternoons parliament sitting. It would have cost nothing and disappeared from the news cycle in a week or two and from public memory in a year or two.

Abbott is the one who has now made it into a significant issue that will continually feature highly in the news cycle up to and through the next election and will take up parliaments time and effort.

Not to mention the not insignificant cost of running a plebiscite/referendum ( although it seems unlikely that will occur anyway).

Basically just another poor political call on his part.

Abbott has been forced into this situation by the media which overwhelmingly supports marriage equality (or whatever one wants to call it).
They often use the claim that “70% of Australians support marriage equality” yet there is little proof to support this claim.
He has an obligation to all Australians to have a say and a referendum is the only way this can be done.
The supporters of marriage equality were all gung-ho for a referendum in Australia a few months ago after the Irish one. Why don’t they still support it?
It is not a “poor political call” for at least 30% of Australians.

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

The supporters of “marriage equality” realise that and that is why the pressure is on to get a parliamentary resolution.

No. The supporters of marriage equality (it doesn’t need quotes) realise that it was will be at least two years before a plebiscite takes place. At least two further years of government sanctioned discrimination. That is the reason. And when (if it does actually take place at all) it will have some poorly worded and ambiguous question that does not actually reflect the issue, similar to the republic referendum question.

dungfungus said :

I think Tony Abbott has successfully “headed this off at the pass” and he is rightly passing the issue to the voters to make the decision.

So was he wrong a couple of months ago when he said it should be up to the government to decide and not the people? That there was no need for a referendum on this issue? And the High Court was wrong when they said it the responsibility of Parliament? And John Howard was wrong when he single handedly re-defined marriage in 2004?

According to the ABC and Fairfax Media, Abbott is perpetually wrong.
I don’t even recall Howard re-defining marriage in 2004 – it was a non-issue then and given the gravity of Australia’s economic problems, it is now.

Sounds like you agree with the ABC and Fairfax.

Abbott is now going to waste even more taxpayers money and blame the opposition for his failures. Again.

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

The supporters of “marriage equality” realise that and that is why the pressure is on to get a parliamentary resolution.

No. The supporters of marriage equality (it doesn’t need quotes) realise that it was will be at least two years before a plebiscite takes place. At least two further years of government sanctioned discrimination. That is the reason. And when (if it does actually take place at all) it will have some poorly worded and ambiguous question that does not actually reflect the issue, similar to the republic referendum question.

dungfungus said :

I think Tony Abbott has successfully “headed this off at the pass” and he is rightly passing the issue to the voters to make the decision.

So was he wrong a couple of months ago when he said it should be up to the government to decide and not the people? That there was no need for a referendum on this issue? And the High Court was wrong when they said it the responsibility of Parliament? And John Howard was wrong when he single handedly re-defined marriage in 2004?

According to the ABC and Fairfax Media, Abbott is perpetually wrong.
I don’t even recall Howard re-defining marriage in 2004 – it was a non-issue then and given the gravity of Australia’s economic problems, it is now.

dungfungus said :

I don’t even recall Howard re-defining marriage in 2004 – it was a non-issue then and given the gravity of Australia’s economic problems, it is now.

Exactly my point. It is an issue that could have been easily sorted out in a single afternoons parliament sitting. It would have cost nothing and disappeared from the news cycle in a week or two and from public memory in a year or two.

Abbott is the one who has now made it into a significant issue that will continually feature highly in the news cycle up to and through the next election and will take up parliaments time and effort. Not to mention the not insignificant cost of running a plebiscite/referendum ( although it seems unlikely that will occur anyway).

Basically just another poor political call on his part.

dungfungus said :

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

The supporters of “marriage equality” realise that and that is why the pressure is on to get a parliamentary resolution.

No. The supporters of marriage equality (it doesn’t need quotes) realise that it will be at least two years before a plebiscite takes place. At least two further years of government sanctioned discrimination. That is the reason. And when (if it does actually take place at all) it will have some poorly worded and ambiguous question that does not actually reflect the issue, similar to the republic referendum question.

dungfungus said :

I think Tony Abbott has successfully “headed this off at the pass” and he is rightly passing the issue to the voters to make the decision.

So was he wrong a couple of months ago when he said it should be up to the government to decide and not the people? That there was no need for a referendum on this issue? And the High Court was wrong when they said it the responsibility of Parliament? And John Howard was wrong when he single handedly re-defined marriage in 2004?

According to the ABC and Fairfax Media, Abbott is perpetually wrong.
I don’t even recall Howard re-defining marriage in 2004 – it was a non-issue then and given the gravity of Australia’s economic problems, it is now.

Suggest you look up the Marriage Amendment Act 2004.

PS according to News Corp Abbott and his merry band of thieves can do no wrong. Go figure hey?

dungfungus said :

chewy14 said :

No_Nose said :

Maya123 said :

The survey needs one other place to tick…’Don’t care’. I mean, not even all heterosexuals want to, or care to, marry.

And that is another example of how the PM is out of touch. He has taken an issue that really doesn’t affect many people and has no detrimental effects on anyone at all ( except in a few people’s minds) and could be sorted out in a couple of hours…and turned it into a major election issue which is going to overshadow everything else.

There is no way he is going to win votes with this strategy…but he will certainly lose some.

I don’t see how you could think this will lose Abbott votes.

The people who are firmly in support of this issue would never vote for a conservative politician like Abbott and the people firmly opposed would most likely already be supporting him.

And for the people who don’t really care either way or only mildly support or oppose, I find it hard to believe they’ll be changing their vote based on this issue. I think the electoral effect would be minimal.

The best comment so far as it has addressed the facts and not the emotion.
A couple more points.
There is no such thing as “traditional” marriage. It will always be simply “marriage” – the definition of what that entails may change but there is no scope for re-badging marriage as “traditional” and “non-traditional” (I can hear the screams already).
Secondly, if a referendum is held to decide the fate of this issue it will have to be carried by majorities in each state and territory as well as an overall majority. It has already been suggested that the ACT will vote “yes” – I am not sure about that.
I would wager money that it will be a “no” vote in the Deep North (Queensland) so that will be the end of it.
The supporters of “marriage equality” realise that and that is why the pressure is on to get a parliamentary resolution.
I think Tony Abbott has successfully “headed this off at the pass” and he is rightly passing the issue to the voters to make the decision.
This will only enrage the Abbott haters so we are sure to see and hear a lot more bile (if that is possible) in the near future.
A point to consider also is the result in the Irish referendum on equal marriage is not a benchmark for Australia due to the low turnout in Ireland where voting is not compulsory.

If it is a plebescite rather than a referendum voting is not compulsory. We will have all those idiots who pooh-poohed the Irish referendum because 40% didn’t vote bleating again. A referendum can only be held to change the constitution. The constitution merely mentions “marriage”. A referendum will have to insert the words “between one man and one woman, one man and one man or one woman and one woman”. A stupid, superfluous and very costly idea.

No_Nose said :

dungfungus said :

The supporters of “marriage equality” realise that and that is why the pressure is on to get a parliamentary resolution.

No. The supporters of marriage equality (it doesn’t need quotes) realise that it will be at least two years before a plebiscite takes place. At least two further years of government sanctioned discrimination. That is the reason. And when (if it does actually take place at all) it will have some poorly worded and ambiguous question that does not actually reflect the issue, similar to the republic referendum question.

dungfungus said :

I think Tony Abbott has successfully “headed this off at the pass” and he is rightly passing the issue to the voters to make the decision.

So was he wrong a couple of months ago when he said it should be up to the government to decide and not the people? That there was no need for a referendum on this issue? And the High Court was wrong when they said it the responsibility of Parliament? And John Howard was wrong when he single handedly re-defined marriage in 2004?

According to the ABC and Fairfax Media, Abbott is perpetually wrong.
I don’t even recall Howard re-defining marriage in 2004 – it was a non-issue then and given the gravity of Australia’s economic problems, it is now.

No_Nose said :

chewy14 said :

I don’t see how you could think this will lose Abbott votes.

The people who are firmly in support of this issue would never vote for a conservative politician like Abbott and the people firmly opposed would most likely already be supporting him.

And for the people who don’t really care either way or only mildly support or oppose, I find it hard to believe they’ll be changing their vote based on this issue. I think the electoral effect would be minimal.

I know its anecdotal evidence only but myself and many of my friends (all close to coming up on retirement age) have never voted anything but Liberal/National (OK..one election I did a very long time ago!) and all are changing their votes due to this issue.

I also know a lot of people 30yrs and under (most in what would traditional be considered conservative sectors). Many claim to have never voted for Labor or Greens but they honestly say that in other policies they see no difference between the major parties…except this issue. And that is what they will be voting on.

Around 90% of the electorate rarely (or never) change their votes and elections are won or lost with the remaining 10%. I used to find it hard to believe that this issue would be important enough to change votes, (and in fact I am quite surprised at myself) but it is obvious to me that this is the straw that has broken the camels back and finally shifted many of the small ‘l’ liberals.

As I said, it really is an issue that could have been sorted in a single afternoon parliaments session and then would have just gone out of the news cycle, and peoples minds, very quickly.

Anecdotally, I would argue the opposite in that I don’t know a single person that would change their vote over this issue unless they were directly affected (or believe they are).

And I dont know how people can say there is no difference between Labor and the Liberals over issues like the economy after the last few years. The policy differences are much starker than they were at the last election.

In the end, most people vote from tradition or issues that personally affect their own lives, this isn’t one of those really big issues and Abbott knows it which is why he’s willing to make this decision.

It’s looking like a re-run (or attempted) of the kill-the-republic strategy of the Howard Government. It might also be a cunning plan to get rid of Turnbull once and for all – sacrifice Wentworth while attempting to shore up some of the western Sydney seats.

Antagonist said :

watto23 said :

Would the catholic church like it if they were discriminated against? Probably not.

You don’t know much history about the Catholics.

According to Roman historian Tacitus, Emperor Nero had Christians “… covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights.” Nasty fella that Nero.

Hell of a fiddle player though, I hear.

dungfungus said :

The supporters of “marriage equality” realise that and that is why the pressure is on to get a parliamentary resolution.

No. The supporters of marriage equality (it doesn’t need quotes) realise that it will be at least two years before a plebiscite takes place. At least two further years of government sanctioned discrimination. That is the reason. And when (if it does actually take place at all) it will have some poorly worded and ambiguous question that does not actually reflect the issue, similar to the republic referendum question.

dungfungus said :

I think Tony Abbott has successfully “headed this off at the pass” and he is rightly passing the issue to the voters to make the decision.

So was he wrong a couple of months ago when he said it should be up to the government to decide and not the people? That there was no need for a referendum on this issue? And the High Court was wrong when they said it the responsibility of Parliament? And John Howard was wrong when he single handedly re-defined marriage in 2004?

chewy14 said :

I don’t see how you could think this will lose Abbott votes.

The people who are firmly in support of this issue would never vote for a conservative politician like Abbott and the people firmly opposed would most likely already be supporting him.

And for the people who don’t really care either way or only mildly support or oppose, I find it hard to believe they’ll be changing their vote based on this issue. I think the electoral effect would be minimal.

I know its anecdotal evidence only but myself and many of my friends (all close to coming up on retirement age) have never voted anything but Liberal/National (OK..one election I did a very long time ago!) and all are changing their votes due to this issue.

I also know a lot of people 30yrs and under (most in what would traditional be considered conservative sectors). Many claim to have never voted for Labor or Greens but they honestly say that in other policies they see no difference between the major parties…except this issue. And that is what they will be voting on.

Around 90% of the electorate rarely (or never) change their votes and elections are won or lost with the remaining 10%. I used to find it hard to believe that this issue would be important enough to change votes, (and in fact I am quite surprised at myself) but it is obvious to me that this is the straw that has broken the camels back and finally shifted many of the small ‘l’ liberals.

As I said, it really is an issue that could have been sorted in a single afternoon parliaments session and then would have just gone out of the news cycle, and peoples minds, very quickly.

watto23 said :

Would the catholic church like it if they were discriminated against? Probably not.

You don’t know much history about the Catholics. According to Roman historian Tacitus, Emperor Nero had Christians “… covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and when the day waned, burned to serve for the evening lights.” Nasty fella that Nero.

Maya123 said :

The survey needs one other place to tick…’Don’t care’. I mean, not even all heterosexuals want to, or care to, marry.

Agree.

chewy14 said :

No_Nose said :

Maya123 said :

The survey needs one other place to tick…’Don’t care’. I mean, not even all heterosexuals want to, or care to, marry.

And that is another example of how the PM is out of touch. He has taken an issue that really doesn’t affect many people and has no detrimental effects on anyone at all ( except in a few people’s minds) and could be sorted out in a couple of hours…and turned it into a major election issue which is going to overshadow everything else.

There is no way he is going to win votes with this strategy…but he will certainly lose some.

I don’t see how you could think this will lose Abbott votes.

The people who are firmly in support of this issue would never vote for a conservative politician like Abbott and the people firmly opposed would most likely already be supporting him.

And for the people who don’t really care either way or only mildly support or oppose, I find it hard to believe they’ll be changing their vote based on this issue. I think the electoral effect would be minimal.

The best comment so far as it has addressed the facts and not the emotion.
A couple more points.
There is no such thing as “traditional” marriage. It will always be simply “marriage” – the definition of what that entails may change but there is no scope for re-badging marriage as “traditional” and “non-traditional” (I can hear the screams already).
Secondly, if a referendum is held to decide the fate of this issue it will have to be carried by majorities in each state and territory as well as an overall majority. It has already been suggested that the ACT will vote “yes” – I am not sure about that.
I would wager money that it will be a “no” vote in the Deep North (Queensland) so that will be the end of it.
The supporters of “marriage equality” realise that and that is why the pressure is on to get a parliamentary resolution.
I think Tony Abbott has successfully “headed this off at the pass” and he is rightly passing the issue to the voters to make the decision.
This will only enrage the Abbott haters so we are sure to see and hear a lot more bile (if that is possible) in the near future.
A point to consider also is the result in the Irish referendum on equal marriage is not a benchmark for Australia due to the low turnout in Ireland where voting is not compulsory.

chewy14 said :

]

I don’t see how you could think this will lose Abbott votes.

The people who are firmly in support of this issue would never vote for a conservative politician like Abbott and the people firmly opposed would most likely already be supporting him.

And for the people who don’t really care either way or only mildly support or oppose, I find it hard to believe they’ll be changing their vote based on this issue. I think the electoral effect would be minimal.

The thing is he has lost a lot of the moderates and swing voters who voted for him last time. so he won’t gain any ground either. It will be interesting to see what the key policies will be to try and win another term. I’m not sure the public will fall for the debt and deficit disaster again (of which its only got bigger because of the refusal to put in fair policies to reign in the debt), and he has turned back the boats, so unless he can concoct a terrorist event he may struggle to scare the voters into voting for security. He certainly has a pretty big hill to climb.

chewy14 said :

No_Nose said :

Maya123 said :

The survey needs one other place to tick…’Don’t care’. I mean, not even all heterosexuals want to, or care to, marry.

And that is another example of how the PM is out of touch. He has taken an issue that really doesn’t affect many people and has no detrimental effects on anyone at all ( except in a few people’s minds) and could be sorted out in a couple of hours…and turned it into a major election issue which is going to overshadow everything else.

There is no way he is going to win votes with this strategy…but he will certainly lose some.

I don’t see how you could think this will lose Abbott votes.

The people who are firmly in support of this issue would never vote for a conservative politician like Abbott and the people firmly opposed would most likely already be supporting him.

And for the people who don’t really care either way or only mildly support or oppose, I find it hard to believe they’ll be changing their vote based on this issue. I think the electoral effect would be minimal.

I think you’re right, there’s probably not a significant number of people who are going to vote against the government for this issue. Let’s face it, there’s plenty of reasons to vote against the government widely recognised as the worst since federation so the SSM issue won’t be the line in the sand.
Unfortunately, the government needs to get about 8% of the population to think they have something positive to offer the country and they seem to be hellbent on doing the opposite.

Southmouth said :

Compulsory Referendum or Plebiscite is the only way to bring an end to this nonsense. Bring it on.

The thing is, the high court ruled that the Federal parliament have the power to legislate regarding marriage. Thus a referendum is not needed and a waste of taxpayers money. A plebiscite is just an expensive poll except everyone has their. Can anyone tell me when the last Federal plebiscite was held? It was 1977 to decide on the preferred national anthem. Its also been used in the states for things like daylight saving and shopping trading hours. Things that do affect everyone fairly equally. So why for this issue? Why don’t we call for a plebiscite on how we treat refugees? I like the idea of plebiscites in general, at each election the government should put its major policies up in a plebiscite and see what the people say. Often those voting them in don’t agree to all the “mandates” they think they have.

As for SSM, there has yet to be a credible argument as to why SSM will have any affect on society today. People will still have the freedom to disagree with SSM, they can still be homophobic, they can still have everything they had before. So other than morally opposing it there is really no affect to them, except some feeling of not having as much power over a minority group as they did before. All arguments involving kids and the standard family unit are a null argument as gay couples can have kids regardless of marriage status just like straight couples can. I’m yet to hear an argument that clearly states why they personally will be affected and how, except that they don’t like it.
You know what, I don’t like how the church tries to interfere with my life. Usually it doesn’t affect me that much, so I ignore it. I find the catholic lifestyle to not be to my taste, but happy for others to lead that lifestyle. Would the catholic church like it if they were discriminated against? Probably not.

No_Nose said :

Maya123 said :

The survey needs one other place to tick…’Don’t care’. I mean, not even all heterosexuals want to, or care to, marry.

And that is another example of how the PM is out of touch. He has taken an issue that really doesn’t affect many people and has no detrimental effects on anyone at all ( except in a few people’s minds) and could be sorted out in a couple of hours…and turned it into a major election issue which is going to overshadow everything else.

There is no way he is going to win votes with this strategy…but he will certainly lose some.

I don’t see how you could think this will lose Abbott votes.

The people who are firmly in support of this issue would never vote for a conservative politician like Abbott and the people firmly opposed would most likely already be supporting him.

And for the people who don’t really care either way or only mildly support or oppose, I find it hard to believe they’ll be changing their vote based on this issue. I think the electoral effect would be minimal.

Maya123 said :

The survey needs one other place to tick…’Don’t care’. I mean, not even all heterosexuals want to, or care to, marry.

That is true. And not all same sex couples want to marry either. But it would be better if all couples were in a position to make that choice for themselves.

With Abbott having chosen this path its obvious that same sex marriage won’t be passed by this parliament – the social conservatives amongst both Labor & Liberal backed up by social progressives in the coalition ministry and backbench progressives who don’t want to stand out will easily defeat any bill.

With this position the best outcome is a plebiscite alongside the next election, with both major parties agreeing to pass legislation in accordance with the people’s wishes. Gay marriage has been in the spotlight for some years now so I don’t think that there is any reason to delay on the basis of the different sides of the debate needing more time to communicate with the public. I would see any attempt by Abbott to delay until some indeterminate date after the next election as an attempt to weasel out and keep his preferred definition as long as possible.

Compulsory Referendum or Plebiscite is the only way to bring an end to this nonsense. Bring it on.

Maya123 said :

The survey needs one other place to tick…’Don’t care’. I mean, not even all heterosexuals want to, or care to, marry.

And that is another example of how the PM is out of touch. He has taken an issue that really doesn’t affect many people and has no detrimental effects on anyone at all ( except in a few people’s minds) and could be sorted out in a couple of hours…and turned it into a major election issue which is going to overshadow everything else.

There is no way he is going to win votes with this strategy…but he will certainly lose some.

What’s particularly interesting to note is that they spent six hours debating this. Given they have spent less time debating tax reform, climate change and even national security, it’s proof of how divisive this issue is within the party.

The PM’s blinding ideology and stubborn refusal to budge from his extremely conservative ‘values’ really is strangely fascinating to watch. I used to actually believe that this kind of ignorance couldn’t possibly be accidental; that is must be part of some overarching plan hatched in the depths of the party room. But as I continue to observe this sideshow I become increasingly convinced that he really is as oblivious as he seems.

The survey needs one other place to tick…’Don’t care’. I mean, not even all heterosexuals want to, or care to, marry.

I am continually stunned that someone can be in politics for most of their life and rise to the Prime Ministership and yet be so inept at reading what is relevant to the public. Tony Abbott has shown this time and time again.

This is the man who for years advised John Howard to just make a national apology to aborigines as by failing to do so (when it was inevitable that it would happen at some stage) just gave the opposition a stick to beat him with, and made his government seem irrelevant and out of touch. He argued that, it was a minor matter, easily fixed that would have no impact on 90% of the population and would soon disappear from the news cycle after the apology.

How can he not see that this issue is exactly the same? The only reason it has become a major issue is because he made it one. It is something that could be sorted in a single afternoon parliament sitting without any problems.

It will now become a major election issue, in fact for many under forty who basically see no difference in the major parties policies on everything else, this will be the only issue.

can only hope this will be the nail in the coffin for Tony’s leadership

Yes, I do.