Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Gay marriage status quo has Abbott on shaky ground

Marcus Paul 13 August 2015 64

tony-abbott-stock

And so it was, the Coalition’s marathon same-sex marriage debate in Canberra has ended in farce.

With two thirds of the joint party room supporting ‘traditional’ marriage, our MPs and senators have drawn attention to the fact that our country remains stuck in the 50’s. According to some it’s made us an international laughing stock.

To the disappointment of many, our current government is yet to decide on exactly what policy it will take to next year’s election.

“Our position going into the next election should be that in a subsequent term of Parliament this is a matter that should rightly be put to the Australian people,” Mr Abbott said.

What form will this take, PM? Will this popular vote will be a plebiscite, where the controversial question can be carried by a simple majority? Or perhaps even a referendum-style vote?

The latter of course, is far more risky for supporters of same sex marriage (as I am) as it would need to be confirmed with a much greater majority of Australian’s across all state’s and territories. It’s fairly obvious it would pass here in the ACT.

What else is certain is that ministers, MPs and senators are becoming even more concerned over the Prime Minister’s handling of this debate and the issue surrounding former speaker Bronwyn Bishop. The image of Mr Abbott sharing a kiss with Ms Bishop on Monday, whilst others clearly kept their distance, has rankled many.

There are now even more doubts about the Prime Minister’s judgement and leadership.

One can only wonder whether it leads to another party room revolt similar to the one we saw six months ago.

There are also many predicting Malcom Turnbull will become increasingly vocal in the near future.

Perhaps a plebiscite is the better way to go – but it should be done in line with the next election, and NOT after.

Do you support same sex marriage?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Marcus Paul is the host of Canberra Live 3pm weekdays on 2CC.


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
64 Responses to
Gay marriage status quo has Abbott on shaky ground
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
GrumpyMark 9:01 pm 17 Aug 15

dungfungus 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.

Agree.

dungfungus said :

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

I’m having trouble reconciling the fact that on one hand you seem to agree with someone who doesn’t care about SSM, but on the other hand you suggest that everyone should be forced to express an opinion via a referendum.

Perhaps your next suggestion will be that Senator Cory Bernardi should draft the amendment to the question? That would ensure that the referendum would be defeated.

As an earlier poster advised you, the constitution does not need to be amended, as there is no definition of marriage contained therein. Consequently a plebiscite is the logical approach – the question can simply be put in the same simple manner as the OP has done in the survey. Those who have an opinion can express it and those who do not can abstain. Perhaps you are concerned that the Far North Queenslanders will be apathetic and not turn out to return a “No” majority.

You denounce the result in the Irish referendum because of the relatively low number of votes cast. Well that just means that a lot of voters did not wish to express an opinion one way or the other – a perfectly good reason why the result was valid.

dungfungus said :

… When you say “we”, are you one of the 1% of all Australians who registered as being same-sex? …

Before you play the “you support SSM therefore you are gay” card, I’m a happily married heterosexual male. I support SSM because it will have no impact whatsoever on my marriage of almost 36 years to the same lovely lady.

However, I will confess to a dark secret. I actually have friends who identify as gay or lesbian. So my opinion is tainted by a desire for them to be able to openly, in front of their friends and loved ones, declare their love for their respective partners in the same way my wife and I were able to do so all those years ago.

dungfungus 6:29 pm 17 Aug 15

Garfield said :

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.

As another long-time Liberal voter, I don’t know what I’ll do come the next election. Abbott and the conservatives have pushed the party too far to the right, with the 2014 budget and this staunch opposition to SSM showing their true colours. I don’t know that I can bring myself to vote Labor or Green so maybe I’ll just turn up to get my name signed off and not cast a vote. Maybe the Liberals need to be annihilated so that Abbott goes and Zed goes locally so that the party can come back with a better balance between the conservatives and moderates.

Careful what you wish for there, Garfield.

Garfield 4:23 pm 17 Aug 15

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.

As another long-time Liberal voter, I don’t know what I’ll do come the next election. Abbott and the conservatives have pushed the party too far to the right, with the 2014 budget and this staunch opposition to SSM showing their true colours. I don’t know that I can bring myself to vote Labor or Green so maybe I’ll just turn up to get my name signed off and not cast a vote. Maybe the Liberals need to be annihilated so that Abbott goes and Zed goes locally so that the party can come back with a better balance between the conservatives and moderates.

Mysteryman 3:13 pm 17 Aug 15

watto23 said :

Well firstly referendums are for constitutional change. Even the suggestion of a referendum is a political tool from the anti SSM side. Also it comes down to the exact wording and the fact you need a majority of states to agree, thus votes in the ACT and NT actually mean much less in a referendum, which in itself is a form of discrimination that needs to be fixed.

People are using the words referendum and plebiscite interchangeably because they don’t know the difference. It’s nothing to do with it being a political tactic.

watto23 said :

Plebiscite is the tool a government can use to gauge public support. My only concern on a plebiscite is not that it wouldn’t pass, but again its being used as a political tools. Typically plebiscites have been used to determine public opinion on issues like the national anthem and daylight savings…. Not on issues involving the rights of minorities.

Actually they’ve only been used 3 times at a Federal level – and twice it was relating to military conscription.

watto23 said :

The reason that support is high for SSM…/quote]

You forgot to mention the public shaming and vilification of anyone who doesn’t agree with it. I’m certain there are a LOT of people who won’t speak publicly about their stance for fear of unjustly being branded a bigot.

watto23 11:14 am 17 Aug 15

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.

Well firstly referendums are for constitutional change. Even the suggestion of a referendum is a political tool from the anti SSM side. Also it comes down to the exact wording and the fact you need a majority of states to agree, thus votes in the ACT and NT actually mean much less in a referendum, which in itself is a form of discrimination that needs to be fixed.

Plebiscite is the tool a government can use to gauge public support. My only concern on a plebiscite is not that it wouldn’t pass, but again its being used as a political tools. Typically plebiscites have been used to determine public opinion on issues like the national anthem and daylight savings…. Not on issues involving the rights of minorities.

The reason that support is high for SSM, is because most people don’t care, but also thinks its bad to deny a group of people the freedom to get married. That is why I’m in favour of it. The conservative far right, seem to like hanging onto and little thing it perceives as being power and control over the people. again, there has been absolutely no valid reason put up regarding SSM. Mostly scare mongering, and any argument involving children is either null and void, because gay couples have families and children now, or highly insulting to families with single parents, or mixed families or any family that doesn’t fit the mother and father plus kids utopia sprouted as the ideal family unit by the conservative right. Fact is the world is not a perfect utopia and homosexuality is no threat to marriage. Plenty of people get divorced and married multiple times in their lives and others choose not to get married and live in “sin” according to the conservative right.

The issue is the conservative right tend to just go on what and how they feel, rather than use actual facts. Of course on many issues facts don’t support their argument and thus the scare campaign comes out.

No_Nose 10:48 am 17 Aug 15

Mysteryman said :

No_Nose said :

I would have preferred the Liberal Party living up to its own standards, ideals and beliefs whereby government does not unduly interfere in the private lives of citizens.

I wasn’t asking you, but aside from that… That’s exactly what they are doing. Opting to let the voters of Australia decide, rather than having the government make the decision.

Proper Liberal Party values and ethos would be, ‘Here is an unnecessary restriction placed on citizens by their government. That is wrong and, in keeping with our parties principles, we shall remove it”

I think Senator David Leyonhjelm got it right the other day when he said that the Liberal Party should really re-name itself The Conservative Party as they have moved well away from the founding ideals of Menzies.

Mysteryman 10:10 am 17 Aug 15

No_Nose said :

I would have preferred the Liberal Party living up to its own standards, ideals and beliefs whereby government does not unduly interfere in the private lives of citizens.

I wasn’t asking you, but aside from that… That’s exactly what they are doing. Opting to let the voters of Australia decide, rather than having the government make the decision.

No_Nose 10:05 am 17 Aug 15

Mysteryman said :

I find that very hard to believe, since you appear to have a problem with *everything* the government does

It’s hard to have a problem with ‘everything’ the government has done when basically they have done ‘nothing’ meaningful since gaining office.

Tony Abbott was a very effective Leader of the Opposition but this does not, and has not, translated into an effective (or competent) Prime Minister. I would probably default back to my normal dyed-in-the-wool coalition supporter position if they were to change leadership prior to the next election. I cannot in good conscience do anything that allows the current PM to continue to represent me. Unfortunately I live in a very safe Labor seat so anything I do is symbolic only!

Mysteryman said :

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?

I would have preferred the Liberal Party living up to its own standards, ideals and beliefs whereby government does not unduly interfere in the private lives of citizens.

Mysteryman 9:42 am 17 Aug 15

dungfungus said :

Mysteryman 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.

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.

Labor in government were not “silent” on the issue of SSM.
PM Gillard said several times she was against it and once she said that “loving relationships between two people were great but that didn’t require a marriage certificate”.
Did the media go into a frenzy? No.

That’s true. I was actually referring to specific outspoken Labor shadow ministers who are suspiciously quiet on the issue during that whole 6 years.

dungfungus 9:25 am 17 Aug 15

Mysteryman 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.

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.

Labor in government were not “silent” on the issue of SSM.
PM Gillard said several times she was against it and once she said that “loving relationships between two people were great but that didn’t require a marriage certificate”.
Did the media go into a frenzy? No.

No_Nose 9:18 am 17 Aug 15

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!

Mysteryman 9:16 am 17 Aug 15

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?

Mysteryman 9:12 am 17 Aug 15

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.

No_Nose 9:08 am 17 Aug 15

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.

dungfungus 8:37 am 17 Aug 15

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.

dungfungus 8:09 am 17 Aug 15

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?

justin heywood 7:11 pm 16 Aug 15

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.

John Moulis 4:09 pm 16 Aug 15

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.

rubaiyat 7:17 am 16 Aug 15

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.

No_Nose 6:55 pm 15 Aug 15

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.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site