15 November 2011

Greens move first on gay marriage

| johnboy
Join the conversation
69

At the start of the month there was much excitement about a minor change to the ways the Commonwealth can over ride the laws of this Territory.

While in theory it was about self determination it was mostly about gay marriage and euthanasia (with possibly some drug law reform if we ever get a government that isn’t gutless).

Today the other shoe has dropped with the Greens’ Shane Rattenbury getting gay marriage started again.

ACT Greens Attorney General spokesperson, Shane Rattenbury MLA, will table the motion which calls on Federal Parliament to amend Commonwealth laws to allow all couples to marry.

“The time has come for federal politicians to amend the Marriage Act to give all loving couples the chance to marry, regardless of sexuality,” Mr Rattenbury said.

“Most Australians agree that creating equal marriage is the right thing to do. Poll after poll shows this.

“Creating equal marriage would remove discrimination from the law and help Australia to foster greater acceptance of all couples in committed relationships, regardless of sexuality. In turn, this would reduce the aggression and violence that some people deal with.

“The best place for equal marriage law is at the Federal level so that the same scheme can apply in all States and Territories.

“I believe the ACT Assembly can send a clear message that this jurisdiction wants the Federal Parliament to change the laws. I am hopeful we will pass the motion and add this Parliament’s voice to the ongoing community campaign.

This follows Julia Gillard this morning announcing a conscience vote for her side of politics.

UPDATE: Hot on their heels Andrew Barr has announced his push in the Labor conference, and he’s not after some mealy mouthed conscience vote:

The Australian Rainbow Labor Network is calling on Labor national conference delegates to be on the right side of history and support a change to Labor’s national platform that will deliver marriage equality.

Rainbow Labor spokespersons, WA Senator Louise Pratt and ACT Deputy Chief Minister Andrew Barr said, “Rainbow Labor believes there needs to be a positive change for marriage equality in Labor’s national platform and we will continue our campaign for this change.”

“Rainbow Labor remains firmly of the view that matters of equality should not be the subject of a conscience vote,” Mr Barr said.

Labor has historically only permitted conscience votes on questions of life and death such as abortion and euthanasia.

Join the conversation

69
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Mysteryman said :

dungfungus said :

The ACT Greens should stick to matters involving the ACT alon. They were not elected to interfere with federal issues such as proposed legislation for homosexual marriage which is of interest to about 5% of the populace.
Surely there are some other things that need banning here besides plastic bags? Why haven’t they banned the “doggy in the window” at the pet shops yet?

+1. A bit too big for their britches.

Did you mean ” A bit too big for their bitches”?

Mr Gillespie10:28 am 16 Nov 11

The ACT Greens have done enough damage already. The Rainbow Green-Labor Alliance (Coalition Government) should be put in their place and not continue to be given the green light to waste OUR money chasing their idealist dream of turning the ACT into their own little utopia.

Jim Jones said :

You do realise that the Daily Mail is the tabloid of choice for people who can’t read.

If they’ve ever published something that’s factually correct, it was only by accident.

🙂 That is why they have lots of photos (for those, who can’t read).

DUB said :

@Jim Jones I am.:)

You do realise that the Daily Mail is the tabloid of choice for people who can’t read.

If they’ve ever published something that’s factually correct, it was only by accident.

sarahsarah said :

DUB said :

lennon said :

How can anyone be against gay marriage? It’s close enough to a victimless decision, with the only victims being ignorant people who can’t handle the truth (Nicholson, J 1992).

Because kids in such couples will be screwed up, their peers at school will laugh at them.
Have you seen this article?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html
🙁 This is disturbing. If you try to stop them doing this to a child, they will claim that they have been discriminated against.Political correctness…..

Right, because we all know straight people can’t raise screwed up kids, only those radical gays.

Did you actually read the article or just the headline?

His parents say the hormone treatment will give him time to figure out if he wants to fully transition to being female or go through puberty as a boy.

Sounds to me like they are giving the child every opportunity to make up their own mind when they are old enough rather than letting them rush into something they might regret later. Transgender issues are difficult to grapple with. Things aren’t always as clear cut as you may like to thi

DUB said :

lennon said :

How can anyone be against gay marriage? It’s close enough to a victimless decision, with the only victims being ignorant people who can’t handle the truth (Nicholson, J 1992).

Because kids in such couples will be screwed up, their peers at school will laugh at them.
Have you seen this article?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html
🙁 This is disturbing. If you try to stop them doing this to a child, they will claim that they have been discriminated against.Political correctness…..

You’re seriously quoting the Daily Mail?

nk.

@Jim Jones I am.:)
@sarahsarah I did read the article.And to me it sounds like they are trying hard to make a woman out of the poor boy.There is 99% chance he will “voluntary” decide to turn into a woman.

dungfungus said :

The ACT Greens should stick to matters involving the ACT alon. They were not elected to interfere with federal issues such as proposed legislation for homosexual marriage which is of interest to about 5% of the populace.
Surely there are some other things that need banning here besides plastic bags? Why haven’t they banned the “doggy in the window” at the pet shops yet?

+1. A bit too big for their britches.

johnboy said :

blowers said :

Interesting… the Greens say that the majority of people want this to happen. but…. a poll today in the Herald Sun shows that 65 percent of people do NOT agree with this.

It depends a lot on what question gets asked.

And where you ask it, ask the same question on the ABC website and the result will be very different, Ask it again on the JJJ website and it will change again. Ask it on the Convoy for Wankerirm (or whatever they were called) website and it will be very very different again.

DUB said :

lennon said :

How can anyone be against gay marriage? It’s close enough to a victimless decision, with the only victims being ignorant people who can’t handle the truth (Nicholson, J 1992).

Because kids in such couples will be screwed up, their peers at school will laugh at them.
Have you seen this article?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html
🙁 This is disturbing. If you try to stop them doing this to a child, they will claim that they have been discriminated against.Political correctness…..

You’re seriously quoting the Daily Mail?

DUB said :

lennon said :

How can anyone be against gay marriage? It’s close enough to a victimless decision, with the only victims being ignorant people who can’t handle the truth (Nicholson, J 1992).

Because kids in such couples will be screwed up, their peers at school will laugh at them.
Have you seen this article?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html
🙁 This is disturbing. If you try to stop them doing this to a child, they will claim that they have been discriminated against.Political correctness…..

Right, because we all know straight people can’t raise screwed up kids, only those radical gays.

Did you actually read the article or just the headline?

His parents say the hormone treatment will give him time to figure out if he wants to fully transition to being female or go through puberty as a boy.

Sounds to me like they are giving the child every opportunity to make up their own mind when they are old enough rather than letting them rush into something they might regret later. Transgender issues are difficult to grapple with. Things aren’t always as clear cut as you may like to think.

dungfungus said :

The ACT Greens should stick to matters involving the ACT alon. They were not elected to interfere with federal issues such as proposed legislation for homosexual marriage which is of interest to about 5% of the populace.
Surely there are some other things that need banning here besides plastic bags? Why haven’t they banned the “doggy in the window” at the pet shops yet?

+1, also make “My Family” stickers illegal!!!! Grrrrrrr.

Waiting For Godot said :

Bluey said :

If everyone just had to whinge for ages to get what they want what kind of world would we be living in?

It worked for those selfish NIMBYS who managed to scuttle the Hume power station, something that would have made the ACT self sufficient for electricity and brought power prices down. But in their case they only had to whinge for a couple of weeks before the powers that be buckled under.

The “Hume Power Station” was to be built primarily for a data storage facility that never happened. It could have supplied supplemntary electric power to Canberra. As it turns out Simon Corbell has this morning announced plans for Canberra to have a massive solar power station and become the leader in commercial solar power in Australia. Well, during the day that is; at night time extra blankets will be supplied.

The ACT Greens should stick to matters involving the ACT alon. They were not elected to interfere with federal issues such as proposed legislation for homosexual marriage which is of interest to about 5% of the populace.
Surely there are some other things that need banning here besides plastic bags? Why haven’t they banned the “doggy in the window” at the pet shops yet?

lennon said :

How can anyone be against gay marriage? It’s close enough to a victimless decision, with the only victims being ignorant people who can’t handle the truth (Nicholson, J 1992).

Because kids in such couples will be screwed up, their peers at school will laugh at them.
Have you seen this article?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043345/The-California-boy-11-undergoing-hormone-blocking-treatment.html
🙁 This is disturbing. If you try to stop them doing this to a child, they will claim that they have been discriminated against.Political correctness…..

Holden Caulfield said :

Jim Jones said :

You learned about Holden Caulfield through a documentary on Foxtel?

Kill me.

To be fair at least shadow boxer made the effort to read my book.

Too true – and I’m stoked whenever anyone reads a cool book. Anything that promotes that is completely awesome.

All of that said, it still makes me wince a bit.

How can anyone be against gay marriage? It’s close enough to a victimless decision, with the only victims being ignorant people who can’t handle the truth (Nicholson, J 1992).

TheDancingDjinn11:32 pm 15 Nov 11

Bosworth said :

Jim Jones said :

Kill me.

But you already committed suicide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

nice! – witty and informative

TheDancingDjinn11:31 pm 15 Nov 11

Jim Jones said :

shadow boxer said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Why is this still being debated? Just do it!

I think it is because the proponents have never really outlined what they mean by marriage, it is not a legal thing as all rights exist, I assume they don’t mean to impose themselves on religous organisations where homosexuality is against their teachings so what are we talking about ? is it just the bit of paper ?

btw Holden I watched a documentary on the guy that shot John Lennon on foxtel the other day which prompted me to read catcher in the rye so I now know who Holden Caulfiend is, ahhh the power of the internet.

You learned about Holden Caulfield through a documentary on Foxtel?

Kill me.

+1

chewy14 said :

It’s time to repeal the marriage act in it’s entirety.

Replace it with a civil union bill, where anyone can have the government recognise a relationship between themselves and one or more other people.

It’s the only way to remove discrimination totally.

+ 1000 … i have held this same position for years. it kills 2 birds with one stone – equality for all and lets the churchs and churchies keep their damned M word and their precious scripture quotes in tact.

for those on this thread being tired of other people ‘whining’ about wanting equality and an end to discrimination, so sorry to inconvenience you with such ‘pettiness’ and getting under your superior feet but we’re just ever so grateful that you’ll concede just to shut us all up!!

chewy14 said :

BTW, LOL at the Greens using public opinion as a reason to support gay marriage. What was the public opinion about the Carbon tax again?

Amen to that.

Same goes for wanting to “remove discrimination” in this instance, despite always advocating increased discrimination against high income earners by way of higher taxes or no compensation in situations like the carbon tax compo package. You want equal treatment for everyone – how about a flat tax rate, or even a head tax? You can’t get less discriminatory than that.

Waiting For Godot5:22 pm 15 Nov 11

Bluey said :

If everyone just had to whinge for ages to get what they want what kind of world would we be living in?

It worked for those selfish NIMBYS who managed to scuttle the Hume power station, something that would have made the ACT self sufficient for electricity and brought power prices down. But in their case they only had to whinge for a couple of weeks before the powers that be buckled under.

Holden Caulfield5:14 pm 15 Nov 11

Jim Jones said :

You learned about Holden Caulfield through a documentary on Foxtel?

Kill me.

To be fair at least shadow boxer made the effort to read my book.

Bluey said :

Pork Hunt said :

Give them what they want FFS, I’m sick of hearing about it !!

Worst.
Negotiator.
Ever.

If everyone just had to whinge for ages to get what they want what kind of world would we be living in?

You just hit the nail on the head.

Them: whinging for ages.
Me: sick of it.

Solidarity said :

HenryBG said :

Solidarity said :

Bluey said :

Pork Hunt said :

Give them what they want FFS, I’m sick of hearing about it !!

Worst.
Negotiator.
Ever.

If everyone just had to whinge for ages to get what they want what kind of world would we be living in?

Works for 5 year olds, and we all know the average mental age of most Greens supporters….

I can’t say *I* know that, but it would have to be considerably superior to the mental age of the idiots who gathered at Parliament House with Alan Jones recently to whinge and whine about their non-understanding of the laws of physics as they relate to carbon dioxide and its undeniable heat-trapping properties.

Hook, line and sinker. Thanks for proving my point.

As I am not a “Greens supporter”, and do not have a mental age of 5 (except sometimes very late on a Saturday night) your contribution has so far been pointless.
But thanks for proving mine, BTW.

Bosworth said :

Jim Jones said :

Kill me.

But you already committed suicide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

What?
You mean he’s not a Simpsons character?

johnboy said :

Mysteryman said :

johnboy said :

blowers said :

Interesting… the Greens say that the majority of people want this to happen. but…. a poll today in the Herald Sun shows that 65 percent of people do NOT agree with this.

It depends a lot on what question gets asked.

Certainly does! I guess the only way to find out would be a referendum.

Even then the phrasing of the question would be critical.

Definitely.

HenryBG said :

Solidarity said :

Bluey said :

Pork Hunt said :

Give them what they want FFS, I’m sick of hearing about it !!

Worst.
Negotiator.
Ever.

If everyone just had to whinge for ages to get what they want what kind of world would we be living in?

Works for 5 year olds, and we all know the average mental age of most Greens supporters….

I can’t say *I* know that, but it would have to be considerably superior to the mental age of the idiots who gathered at Parliament House with Alan Jones recently to whinge and whine about their non-understanding of the laws of physics as they relate to carbon dioxide and its undeniable heat-trapping properties.

Hook, line and sinker. Thanks for proving my point.

Mysteryman said :

johnboy said :

blowers said :

Interesting… the Greens say that the majority of people want this to happen. but…. a poll today in the Herald Sun shows that 65 percent of people do NOT agree with this.

It depends a lot on what question gets asked.

Certainly does! I guess the only way to find out would be a referendum.

Even then the phrasing of the question would be critical.

johnboy said :

blowers said :

Interesting… the Greens say that the majority of people want this to happen. but…. a poll today in the Herald Sun shows that 65 percent of people do NOT agree with this.

It depends a lot on what question gets asked.

Certainly does! I guess the only way to find out would be a referendum.

Jim Jones said :

Kill me.

But you already committed suicide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

Solidarity said :

Bluey said :

Pork Hunt said :

Give them what they want FFS, I’m sick of hearing about it !!

Worst.
Negotiator.
Ever.

If everyone just had to whinge for ages to get what they want what kind of world would we be living in?

Works for 5 year olds, and we all know the average mental age of most Greens supporters….

I can’t say *I* know that, but it would have to be considerably superior to the mental age of the idiots who gathered at Parliament House with Alan Jones recently to whinge and whine about their non-understanding of the laws of physics as they relate to carbon dioxide and its undeniable heat-trapping properties.

shadow boxer said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Why is this still being debated? Just do it!

I think it is because the proponents have never really outlined what they mean by marriage, it is not a legal thing as all rights exist, I assume they don’t mean to impose themselves on religous organisations where homosexuality is against their teachings so what are we talking about ? is it just the bit of paper ?

btw Holden I watched a documentary on the guy that shot John Lennon on foxtel the other day which prompted me to read catcher in the rye so I now know who Holden Caulfiend is, ahhh the power of the internet.

You learned about Holden Caulfield through a documentary on Foxtel?

Kill me.

Bluey said :

Pork Hunt said :

Give them what they want FFS, I’m sick of hearing about it !!

Worst.
Negotiator.
Ever.

If everyone just had to whinge for ages to get what they want what kind of world would we be living in?

Works for 5 year olds, and we all know the average mental age of most Greens supporters….

Holden Caulfield4:19 pm 15 Nov 11

Bluey said :

If everyone just had to whinge for ages to get what they want what kind of world would we be living in?

The world of Gen Y.

Mind, I like how seeking basic equality is simply having a “whinge”.

It all went downhill after we let women get the vote I guess. Damn whingers, if only they stayed in the bloody kitchen.

Holden Caulfield4:18 pm 15 Nov 11

shadow boxer said :

btw Holden I watched a documentary on the guy that shot John Lennon on foxtel the other day which prompted me to read catcher in the rye so I now know who Holden Caulfiend is, ahhh the power of the internet.

People never notice anything. 😉

Pork Hunt said :

Give them what they want FFS, I’m sick of hearing about it !!

Worst.
Negotiator.
Ever.

If everyone just had to whinge for ages to get what they want what kind of world would we be living in?

shadow boxer said :

btw Holden I watched a documentary on the guy that shot John Lennon on foxtel the other day which prompted me to read catcher in the rye so I now know who Holden Caulfiend is, ahhh the power of the internet.

What?
You mean it’s not a type of fully sick V8?

blowers said :

Interesting… the Greens say that the majority of people want this to happen. but…. a poll today in the Herald Sun shows that 65 percent of people do NOT agree with this.

It depends a lot on what question gets asked.

Interesting… the Greens say that the majority of people want this to happen. but…. a poll today in the Herald Sun shows that 65 percent of people do NOT agree with this.

It’s time to repeal the marriage act in it’s entirety.

Replace it with a civil union bill, where anyone can have the government recognise a relationship between themselves and one or more other people.

It’s the only way to remove discrimination totally.

BTW, LOL at the Greens using public opinion as a reason to support gay marriage.
What was the public opinion about the Carbon tax again?

Give them what they want FFS, I’m sick of hearing about it !!

shadow boxer4:01 pm 15 Nov 11

Holden Caulfield said :

Why is this still being debated? Just do it!

I think it is because the proponents have never really outlined what they mean by marriage, it is not a legal thing as all rights exist, I assume they don’t mean to impose themselves on religous organisations where homosexuality is against their teachings so what are we talking about ? is it just the bit of paper ?

btw Holden I watched a documentary on the guy that shot John Lennon on foxtel the other day which prompted me to read catcher in the rye so I now know who Holden Caulfiend is, ahhh the power of the internet.

Gungahlin Al said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Why is this still being debated? Just do it!

Yep +1
Rather disappointed (but not at all surprised) with Ms Gillard today…

Disappointed but definitely not surprised. The religious right tail wags the Laboral Party dog.

But if the gays get married, then they won’t have any children (because they’re gay) and humans as a species will die out, because no-one is having any children anymore … because of the gays getting married.

Jethro said :

poetix said :

Remember it would need a majority of voters in a majority of the States. Queensland might be a problem, and possibly WA. Tasmania, while in some ways progressive, is not certain to vote in favour. Not sure it would pass at all.

And the wording would be difficult, as the Commonwealth already has the power over marriage; it could legislate on this issue tomorrow if it wanted to, to include gay marriage.

Technically, it wouldn’t be a referendum, but a plebiscite. There wouldn’t be any change to the constitution. As such, I’m not sure the rules regarding a constitutional referendum would apply.

I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.

3 post nut….

Unless you are talking about changing the constitution to remove the power over marriage laws from the Federal government?

Gungahlin Al2:29 pm 15 Nov 11

Holden Caulfield said :

Why is this still being debated? Just do it!

Yep +1
Rather disappointed (but not at all surprised) with Ms Gillard today…

poetix said :

Remember it would need a majority of voters in a majority of the States. Queensland might be a problem, and possibly WA. Tasmania, while in some ways progressive, is not certain to vote in favour. Not sure it would pass at all.

And the wording would be difficult, as the Commonwealth already has the power over marriage; it could legislate on this issue tomorrow if it wanted to, to include gay marriage.

Technically, it wouldn’t be a referendum, but a plebiscite. There wouldn’t be any change to the constitution. As such, I’m not sure the rules regarding a constitutional referendum would apply.

I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong.

Mysteryman said :

DUB said :

shadow boxer said :

This debate would be a lot easier if people agreed on a definition of marriage.

Or, have a referendum.:) Majority will be against.

This. Let the people vote and decide.

I’m not sure popular vote is the way to go when it comes to providing/denying rights to a minority group in the community.

Holden Caulfield said :

Why is this still being debated? Just do it!

+1

GBT said :

From the same poll,

In the poll, Labor voters are overwhelmingly for changing the law (71-22 per cent), and Green supporters more so (86-10 per cent). But Coalition voters are more divided (50 per cent for change and 44 against).

There is majority support in every mainland state, with the highest backing (68 per cent ) in Victoria and the lowest in Queensland (56 per cent). Support is greater among women than men (71-53 per cent), and in capital cities compared with regional areas (65-58 per cent). Backing for a change declines with age, from 80 per cent among those 18 to 24, down to 41 per cent among those 55 and over.

So really, if it was purely a popular vote I’m sure it would pass.

The gap between men and women on this issue is astounding, if those figures are accurate. Men should really lift their game on this (to use a stupid sporting analogy). It wouldn’t make homosexuality compulsory.

Just wait and see the lobbying if such a referendum ever went ahead.
(Sorry just realised I’ve posted 3 times on this. Will shut up now.)

Bosworth said :

Why doesn’t the ACT legislative assembly pass a gay-marriage act, or a civil-unions act?

As opposed to the ineffective “we call on the federal govt to do xyz”.

You haven’t heard of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act have you.

From the same poll,

In the poll, Labor voters are overwhelmingly for changing the law (71-22 per cent), and Green supporters more so (86-10 per cent). But Coalition voters are more divided (50 per cent for change and 44 against).

There is majority support in every mainland state, with the highest backing (68 per cent ) in Victoria and the lowest in Queensland (56 per cent). Support is greater among women than men (71-53 per cent), and in capital cities compared with regional areas (65-58 per cent). Backing for a change declines with age, from 80 per cent among those 18 to 24, down to 41 per cent among those 55 and over.

So really, if it was purely a popular vote I’m sure it would pass.

Deref said :

DUB said :

shadow boxer said :

This debate would be a lot easier if people agreed on a definition of marriage.

Or, have a referendum.:) Majority will be against.

Definitely a referendum.

From today’s SMH: “Sixty-two per cent of voters would like to see gay marriage legalised, a rise from 57 per cent a year ago, according to the poll. Thirty-one per cent are opposed, compared with 37 per cent in November 2010.”

It’d pass with ease.

Remember it would need a majority of voters in a majority of the States. Queensland might be a problem, and possibly WA. Tasmania, while in some ways progressive, is not certain to vote in favour. Not sure it would pass at all.

And the wording would be difficult, as the Commonwealth already has the power over marriage; it could legislate on this issue tomorrow if it wanted to, to include gay marriage.

How about they just do it already and then people will realise that the world won’t be taken over by dinosaur-riding Nazis; the only consequence of gay marriage – gays get married.

Deref said :

DUB said :

shadow boxer said :

This debate would be a lot easier if people agreed on a definition of marriage.

Or, have a referendum.:) Majority will be against.

Definitely a referendum.

From today’s SMH: “Sixty-two per cent of voters would like to see gay marriage legalised, a rise from 57 per cent a year ago, according to the poll. Thirty-one per cent are opposed, compared with 37 per cent in November 2010.”

It’d pass with ease.

I’m not so sure, the usual FUD campaign would ensue and the sheeple would be easily herded

DUB said :

shadow boxer said :

This debate would be a lot easier if people agreed on a definition of marriage.

Or, have a referendum.:) Majority will be against.

Definitely a referendum.

From today’s SMH: “Sixty-two per cent of voters would like to see gay marriage legalised, a rise from 57 per cent a year ago, according to the poll. Thirty-one per cent are opposed, compared with 37 per cent in November 2010.”

It’d pass with ease.

DUB said :

shadow boxer said :

This debate would be a lot easier if people agreed on a definition of marriage.

Or, have a referendum.:) Majority will be against.

This. Let the people vote and decide.

Stevian said :

Waiting For Godot said :

Euthanasia next?

Why not?

Er, because the legislative change doesn’t provide for that?

Have a look at it – the territory is still not allowed to legislate in relation to euthanasia, among a couple of other key things (defence, money making, acquisition without due compensation, censorship, policing where it affects operation of AFP).

I agree that euthanasia should rightly be a federal matter, but surely we’re due to have another national debate about it soon?

Waiting For Godot said :

Euthanasia next?

Why not?

DUB said :

shadow boxer said :

This debate would be a lot easier if people agreed on a definition of marriage.

Or, have a referendum.:) Majority will be against.

Against marriage?
Only the bitter divorced types you recognise at 50 metres.
I hope that gay people soon get the right to bang on endlessly about their ex in an official way too.

shadow boxer said :

This debate would be a lot easier if people agreed on a definition of marriage.

Or, have a referendum.:) Majority will be against.

shadow boxer11:43 am 15 Nov 11

This debate would be a lot easier if people agreed on a definition of marriage.

powerpuffpete said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Why is this still being debated? Just do it!

+1

Solidarity: how about instead we just treat gays as human beings?

How the hell did you read my comment and think I was being serious? Lighten up ffs.

Waiting For Godot said :

Euthanasia next?

Both please.

powerpuffpete11:13 am 15 Nov 11

powerpuffpete said :

Holden Caulfield said :

Why is this still being debated? Just do it!

+1

Solidarity: how about instead we just treat gays as human beings?

PS: Clicks for the irony of your username though.

powerpuffpete11:12 am 15 Nov 11

Holden Caulfield said :

Why is this still being debated? Just do it!

+1

Solidarity: how about instead we just treat gays as human beings?

I’m all for implimenting gay marriage, but only if they are totally against gay divorce.

Waiting For Godot10:51 am 15 Nov 11

Euthanasia next?

Why doesn’t the ACT legislative assembly pass a gay-marriage act, or a civil-unions act?

As opposed to the ineffective “we call on the federal govt to do xyz”.

Holden Caulfield10:47 am 15 Nov 11

Why is this still being debated? Just do it!

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.