19 April 2016

New low in marriage equality debate

| Steven Bailey
Join the conversation
73
couple-stock

Well written, well read. That’s the motto of Canberra print title City News. But as Canberrans turned the first page to read this week’s featured article, a turgid diatribe written by Nick Jenson proclaiming that he and his wife may divorce if gay people are allowed to legally marry, the ACT found itself at the centre of a new and bigoted low in the fight for marriage equality.

Jenson, a prominent affiliate of the Australian Christian Lobby, reasons that although he and his wife are deeply in love, they cannot “as a matter of conscience, recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same-sex couples.”

The mean-spirited invective in the guise of Christian probity continues as the naive and deluded ideologue declares that “by changing the definition of marriage, ‘marriage’ will, in years to come, have an altogether different sense and purpose. We no longer wish to be associated with this new definition.”

Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.

Until only recently, it seemed that same sex marriage would be unattainable in Australia during Abbott’s reign. But as many countries around the world begin to legislate for marriage equality, it is increasingly more likely that Abbott will succumb to the political opportunism of allowing a free vote within the Federal Parliament. Abbott knows that as objectionable the notion of two loving and consenting adults marrying is to him, it may be politically imperative to secure his survival for a second term.

The opponents to marriage equality have had to rally their troops faster than expected and, as a result, will resort to the desperate tactics that we have seen from Canberra couple Nick and Sarah Jenson.

Of course, the Jensons have to realise that we don’t care if they divorce. The argument for marriage equality is predicated on love and justice.

If the Jensons are prepared to dissolve their marriage because they reject the notion that two consenting and loving adults might marry, it only proves to the rest of Canberra, and Australia, that their marriage is not based on love at all. Their union is based on doctrine and scripture rather than a visceral and heartfelt need to be together.

The cause for marriage equality will be won by demonstrating the best of our humanity. In the face of hatred, rather than become hateful ourselves, we must demonstrate our humanity.

As painful as it may be for our young gay and lesbian children and brothers and sisters, we need to rise above the hatred that is directed towards them. That the opponents to marriage equality have sunk to a new low is simply an opportunity for the rest of Australia to rise above them.

Nick and Sarah Jenson, I forgive you.

Join the conversation

73
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest

Mysteryman said :

What has that got to do with anything? The government would set out the conditions of the plebiscite prior to any vote. They would determine whether it was binding or not.

Do you actually think they would go to the effort only to reject the outcome anyway? That would defeat the whole point of the exercise.

Exactly. It’s why there’ll never be a plebiscite.

Mysteryman said :

Do you actually think they would go to the effort only to reject the outcome anyway? That would defeat the whole point of the exercise.

So how did the referendum on Self Government for the ACT work out?

justin heywood5:10 pm 15 Jun 15

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Yes, there are people who disagree with gay marriage, just as there are people who support it, and people who don’t care either way. Generalising all those who disagree with your opinion as conservative, religious nutters is narrow-minded and, I suspect, inaccurate.

I think it’s better the let the debate run its course, and take the high road as far as expressing your viewpoint.

Absolutely. As the Irish vote has shown, most people either support it or don’t care that much. Let it go.

MrBigEars said :

Mysteryman said :

Nobody is saying the constitution needs to be changed. The term “referendum” is being used by people to refer to a plebiscite – a question asked of the entire voting population that doesn’t affect a constitutional change. It doesn’t cost a huge amount of money because it would be conducted at the same time as a federal election. People only have to tick one more piece of paper.

Plebiscites do not require “more than a majority” (I assume you’re referring to the requirements for changing the constitution – ‘a majority of people in a majority of states’). If the same-sex marriage advocates actually believed that two-thirds or more of Australian’s wanted same-sex marriage, they’d have no problem waiting for the election next year and pushing for a plebiscite.

But a government doesn’t have to honour the result of a plebiscite. Even if (when, more likely) the majority voted for it I doubt either pack of numpties would act upon it.

What has that got to do with anything? The government would set out the conditions of the plebiscite prior to any vote. They would determine whether it was binding or not.

Do you actually think they would go to the effort only to reject the outcome anyway? That would defeat the whole point of the exercise.

justin heywood5:07 pm 15 Jun 15

rubaiyat said :

The whole idea of democracy both ancient and modern has come from the left…

So if that makes me, or others, “left wing-nuts”, we wear it with honour.

False premise, so the rest of your argument makes no sense.

You’re only on the ‘left’ because of some arbitrary line drawn by the practicalities of the current Australian political scene. In plenty of other countries the ‘middle’ in Australia would be far to the right or to the left.

As for where you’d be in the political spectrum of ancient Athens, who’d know, but I reckon it’s a bit too long ago to claim the moral high ground.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back4:44 pm 15 Jun 15

watto23 said :

Mysteryman said :

Plebiscites do not require “more than a majority” (I assume you’re referring to the requirements for changing the constitution – ‘a majority of people in a majority of states’). If the same-sex marriage advocates actually believed that two-thirds or more of Australian’s wanted same-sex marriage, they’d have no problem waiting for the election next year and pushing for a plebiscite.

Which is perfectly ok, but the government will only call a plebiscite when it thinks it will will it. If the No vote was going to be so high then calling a plebiscite would be the answer to put the issue to sleep for a decade or so. The problem is poll after poll and the outcry regarding this couple indicates otherwise. The Ipsos poll today highlights the yes vote is getting larger and larger since 2011 (the earliest poll i could find from them), which was still a majority Yes vote. There has yet to be an independent poll that has said otherwise. While polls have margins for error, its never really been close. Do people really feel the majority will vote No???? The greens might be against it (for reasosn unknown by mean), but if you offered them a plebiscite, I doubt they’d turn it down.

When it comes down to it, the No vote is purely their opinion based on their faith (well yet to meet a non religious person highly opposed to it). Its perfectly ok for them to have that opinion and to keep it. What is not perfectly ok is to deny them the right to marriage, just because you think they are sinners in your set of beliefs.

I think all religious people are sad and weak people unable to think for themselves and easily manipulated by those in power, but I’m not going to use my opinion to say they shouldn’t be allowed to do something. This is the core issue with religions in general. Always trying to push their beliefs onto society, rather than being happy within themselves with their own beliefs. I’m happy for them to practice their beliefs as long as it doesn’t affect society, much the same way as I’m happy for homosexuals families to exist as long as they don’t demand things that affect society.

The conservative vote is coming across as very antagonistic, narrow minded, mean and nasty. It really isn’t helping them maintain the image they think they have, especially in times of declining numbers within the church and religion.

Yes, there are people who disagree with gay marriage, just as there are people who support it, and people who don’t care either way. Generalising all those who disagree with your opinion as conservative, religious nutters is narrow-minded and, I suspect, inaccurate.

I think it’s better the let the debate run its course, and take the high road as far as expressing your viewpoint.

Mysteryman said :

Because that’s so remarkably difference from the way left-wingnuts behave…

The whole idea of democracy both ancient and modern has come from the left, people who stand up for the majority in defence against the minority who think that they have an inherited right to rule.

The great thing about the Australian expression of that democracy is its obsession with fairness, even though that has come repeatedly under attack.

So if that makes me, or others, “left wing-nuts”, we wear it with honour.

Mysteryman said :

Nobody is saying the constitution needs to be changed. The term “referendum” is being used by people to refer to a plebiscite – a question asked of the entire voting population that doesn’t affect a constitutional change. It doesn’t cost a huge amount of money because it would be conducted at the same time as a federal election. People only have to tick one more piece of paper.

Plebiscites do not require “more than a majority” (I assume you’re referring to the requirements for changing the constitution – ‘a majority of people in a majority of states’). If the same-sex marriage advocates actually believed that two-thirds or more of Australian’s wanted same-sex marriage, they’d have no problem waiting for the election next year and pushing for a plebiscite.

But a government doesn’t have to honour the result of a plebiscite. Even if (when, more likely) the majority voted for it I doubt either pack of numpties would act upon it.

Mysteryman said :

Plebiscites do not require “more than a majority” (I assume you’re referring to the requirements for changing the constitution – ‘a majority of people in a majority of states’). If the same-sex marriage advocates actually believed that two-thirds or more of Australian’s wanted same-sex marriage, they’d have no problem waiting for the election next year and pushing for a plebiscite.

Which is perfectly ok, but the government will only call a plebiscite when it thinks it will will it. If the No vote was going to be so high then calling a plebiscite would be the answer to put the issue to sleep for a decade or so. The problem is poll after poll and the outcry regarding this couple indicates otherwise. The Ipsos poll today highlights the yes vote is getting larger and larger since 2011 (the earliest poll i could find from them), which was still a majority Yes vote. There has yet to be an independent poll that has said otherwise. While polls have margins for error, its never really been close. Do people really feel the majority will vote No???? The greens might be against it (for reasosn unknown by mean), but if you offered them a plebiscite, I doubt they’d turn it down.

When it comes down to it, the No vote is purely their opinion based on their faith (well yet to meet a non religious person highly opposed to it). Its perfectly ok for them to have that opinion and to keep it. What is not perfectly ok is to deny them the right to marriage, just because you think they are sinners in your set of beliefs.

I think all religious people are sad and weak people unable to think for themselves and easily manipulated by those in power, but I’m not going to use my opinion to say they shouldn’t be allowed to do something. This is the core issue with religions in general. Always trying to push their beliefs onto society, rather than being happy within themselves with their own beliefs. I’m happy for them to practice their beliefs as long as it doesn’t affect society, much the same way as I’m happy for homosexuals families to exist as long as they don’t demand things that affect society.

The conservative vote is coming across as very antagonistic, narrow minded, mean and nasty. It really isn’t helping them maintain the image they think they have, especially in times of declining numbers within the church and religion.

justin heywood12:20 pm 15 Jun 15

rubaiyat said :

Conservatives are only interested in democracy as a convenient means to an end. i.e. They tolerate it so long as they get their way. If they don’t get their way then they resort to any means available to circumvent it.

….and anyone to the left of ME politically is a dedicated Marxist determined to ruin the country and establish a worker’s paradise. I put about the same amount of thought into that view as you did to yours.
We all exist somewhere on a continuum between far left and far right. To ascribe a set of values to all those to the left or right of you is intellectually lazy, but oh so common

Back OT, politicians from all sides have been trying to dodge the issue of gay marriage for many years in the belief that the issue is too ‘hot’ politically. I think the Irish result shows that the issue is not as ‘hot’ as they fear.

The marriage issue is useful as a token of acceptance for the gay community, a useful way to wedge an unpopular and very Catholic Prime Minister, and a rallying point for ultra-religious types. But I think that, as in Ireland, MOST Australians either support the idea or don’t much care either way.

rubaiyat said :

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.

Isn’t it remarkable how conservatives rail against compulsory voting yet when a poll goes against them in a country with voluntary voting they pull out the argument that such and such a percentage didn’t vote so somehow it doesn’t count. So the 40% who didn’t vote were all against gay marriage and would have defeated the referendum if there had been compulsory voting, eh? Ridiculous. We heard the same drivel from Fairfax’s Paul Sheehan, the poor man’s Piers Akerman. Oh and by the way, isn’t it funny how we never heard the same argument from these people when only 60% of Britons voted in the recent general election and gave David Cameron and the Conservatives an unexpected majority?

Conservatives are only interested in democracy as a convenient means to an end. i.e. They tolerate it so long as they get their way. If they don’t get their way then they resort to any means available to circumvent it.

Because that’s so remarkably difference from the way left-wingnuts behave…

watto23 said :

Grrrr said :

Calls for a referendum on Marriage Equality are silly: The constitution doesn’t need to be changed because it doesn’t disallow it, and doesn’t need to recognise it.

A parliamentary vote will do the job just fine.

Agree and to pass a referendum you generally need more than a majority. And why is this such a big issue that it needs to waste taxpayers money for a referendum.

Its really got minimal impact on absolutely everyone else except for gay people. The issue is a small part of society feels they have ownership of marriage, they don’t like homosexuality and thus are flexing their muscles to deny as much as possible to a group of people they don’t like..

Nobody is saying the constitution needs to be changed. The term “referendum” is being used by people to refer to a plebiscite – a question asked of the entire voting population that doesn’t affect a constitutional change. It doesn’t cost a huge amount of money because it would be conducted at the same time as a federal election. People only have to tick one more piece of paper.

Plebiscites do not require “more than a majority” (I assume you’re referring to the requirements for changing the constitution – ‘a majority of people in a majority of states’). If the same-sex marriage advocates actually believed that two-thirds or more of Australian’s wanted same-sex marriage, they’d have no problem waiting for the election next year and pushing for a plebiscite.

Mysteryman said :

bryansworld said :

Mysteryman said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

Keep burying your head in the sand. If voting was not compulsory in Australia you’d find this is also a non issue to a similar amount of people in Australia. A lot of people don’t care and can’t see the fuss. That leaves the minorities who support and oppose it to argue. So a very large proportion of people in ireland either didn’t care strongly enough to vote against it or cared enough to support it. Its a very large majority who did NOT oppose gay marriage. If the coalition were confident a referendum would come back with a NO to gay marriage, they’d have called it, just to bury the issue. Do you think Howard called a referendum on the Republic without being confident it would be a No vote.

Your personal experience is based on people you associate with, generally people associate with people of similar tastes. My experience is hundreds of people I know support it. I even know many religious people who don’t really like the idea but also agree its wrong to deny people something just because you don’t want them to have it.

Just about every poll conducted, many by reputable poll companies, say Australians are in favour of it. Poll companies generally get a wider range of people than the hundred of people you have asked. They are also generally unbiased, but I’ve seen the denialism from the conservative side of australia. If the poll doesn’t suit you, call everyone biased. ABC cops a fair amount of biased crap when mostly its not that biased, certainly doesn’t lean as far left as News corp leans right.

Wow.. .where to begin.

I guess I’ll just say this: the Greens and “marriage equality” groups have stated they are completely against letting the issue go to a plebiscite/referendum, despite their insistence that “nearly 2/3 of Australians want same-sex marriage”. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you. They know that the percentage of people who would vote in favour of it is less than half. Probably a lot less.

I’ve seen people continuously quoting the two-thirds number and claiming that it’s backed up by reputable polls and surveys. It’s not. The one actual survey that same-sex marriage advocates are using to justify this claim surveyed a total of ~700 people in Sydney and Melbourne. Hardly a large enough cross section to extrapolate across the whole country.

The issue should go to a referendum at the same time as the issue of indigenous recognition in the constitution. Get them both done at the same time. If the majority of Australian’s *actually* want it, then make the law, same as they did in Ireland. If the majority don’t want it, stop wasting time in parliament with it.

Yeah sure, let’s vote on capital punishment while we are at it. There are very good reasons why Australia is a representative democracy.

If that’s your position, then why even let people vote? Let’s just have the politicians select their own successors and decide everything based on what they feel, rather than what the majority of people in their electorate feel. You’re obviously in favour of having them tell us what to do, rather than have them represent us. Are you also in favour of having our government tell other governments how they should govern? Were you a big supporter of telling Indonesia how they should conduct their business?

I won’t bother to address the fallacy in equating the capital punishment with same-sex marriage.

I said “representative democracy”. Let them get on with the job of governing. At regular intervals (ideally fixed four or five year terms) have your say on the kind of job they have done. I was not equating same-sex marriage with capital punishment. I referred to capital punushment to make the point that putting controversial issues to a popular vote could produce bad outcomes e.g. reintroducing capital punishment.

Steven Bailey8:09 am 15 Jun 15

This is a conversation that I had on the matter with 2CC recently. http://2cc.net.au/podcasts/3521-marriage-debate-reaches-new-lows.html

watto23 said :

Grrrr said :

Calls for a referendum on Marriage Equality are silly: The constitution doesn’t need to be changed because it doesn’t disallow it, and doesn’t need to recognise it.

A parliamentary vote will do the job just fine.

Agree and to pass a referendum you generally need more than a majority. And why is this such a big issue that it needs to waste taxpayers money for a referendum.

Its really got minimal impact on absolutely everyone else except for gay people. The issue is a small part of society feels they have ownership of marriage, they don’t like homosexuality and thus are flexing their muscles to deny as much as possible to a group of people they don’t like.

Laws are still very much in favour of marriage as well. I know a heterosexual couple who are not married yet. They both have children from previous partners. She has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Its basically been said that they should get married as that will make everything simpler with regards to the children after she has died. So I can imagine if its bad for a couple who can legally get married, imagine the inequity that would apply to a homosexual couple in this situation.

The world isn’t fair, we can’t control who gets cancer, or which country someone is born into, but we can control minor things like allowing people who want to get married to let them marry.

Otherwise i’m happy if laws allow me to discriminate against people of religious faith. If its ok by them, then I’m happy to play that game also. Tax churches for a start.

“……everything simpler with regards to the children after she has died….”
This infers that she cannot disperse assets because she isn’t married?
Most people have a will – you don’t have to be married to have a will. Even homosexuals can have a will.

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.

Isn’t it remarkable how conservatives rail against compulsory voting yet when a poll goes against them in a country with voluntary voting they pull out the argument that such and such a percentage didn’t vote so somehow it doesn’t count. So the 40% who didn’t vote were all against gay marriage and would have defeated the referendum if there had been compulsory voting, eh? Ridiculous. We heard the same drivel from Fairfax’s Paul Sheehan, the poor man’s Piers Akerman. Oh and by the way, isn’t it funny how we never heard the same argument from these people when only 60% of Britons voted in the recent general election and gave David Cameron and the Conservatives an unexpected majority?

Conservatives are only interested in democracy as a convenient means to an end. i.e. They tolerate it so long as they get their way. If they don’t get their way then they resort to any means available to circumvent it.

John Moulis said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.

Isn’t it remarkable how conservatives rail against compulsory voting yet when a poll goes against them in a country with voluntary voting they pull out the argument that such and such a percentage didn’t vote so somehow it doesn’t count. So the 40% who didn’t vote were all against gay marriage and would have defeated the referendum if there had been compulsory voting, eh? Ridiculous. We heard the same drivel from Fairfax’s Paul Sheehan, the poor man’s Piers Akerman. Oh and by the way, isn’t it funny how we never heard the same argument from these people when only 60% of Britons voted in the recent general election and gave David Cameron and the Conservatives an unexpected majority?

Another Rioter who ignores the point I made that the media reports of the Ireland referendum not qualifying the fact that 40% of people eligible to vote did not.
I don’t care what happens with so called “marriage equality” but I do care that it is being treated as an issue more important than national security and the economy.

Grrrr said :

Calls for a referendum on Marriage Equality are silly: The constitution doesn’t need to be changed because it doesn’t disallow it, and doesn’t need to recognise it.

A parliamentary vote will do the job just fine.

Agree and to pass a referendum you generally need more than a majority. And why is this such a big issue that it needs to waste taxpayers money for a referendum. Its really got minimal impact on absolutely everyone else except for gay people. The issue is a small part of society feels they have ownership of marriage, they don’t like homosexuality and thus are flexing their muscles to deny as much as possible to a group of people they don’t like.

Laws are still very much in favour of marriage as well. I know a heterosexual couple who are not married yet. They both have children from previous partners. She has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. Its basically been said that they should get married as that will make everything simpler with regards to the children after she has died. So I can imagine if its bad for a couple who can legally get married, imagine the inequity that would apply to a homosexual couple in this situation.

The world isn’t fair, we can’t control who gets cancer, or which country someone is born into, but we can control minor things like allowing people who want to get married to let them marry.

Otherwise i’m happy if laws allow me to discriminate against people of religious faith. If its ok by them, then I’m happy to play that game also. Tax churches for a start.

Acton said :

It is surprising to see the rather naïve faith the some people still put in polls.

The poll referred to here
http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/
used a sample size of only 1000 but has the audacity to conclude that “almost three-quarters of Australians (72%) now support legalising same-sex marriage.”
Polls are unreliable as demonstrated quite clearly in the recent UK general election.
The question about changing the Marriage Act is important to many sectors of the community and cannot be based on perceived poll results.
Polls often use small sampling sizes, or unrepresentative samples undermining the credibility of the results.
The major difficulty for polling organisations is getting access to a large representative cross section of the community. How do you contact a large number of random people of all ages, locations, genders, educational, social and ethnic backgrounds to truly reflect the views and diversity of the broader Australian population? Polling organisations used to rely on large phone surveys, but gone are the days when you could use phone books and landlines for representative samples.
Should people’s opinions not count simply because they don’t have an entry in the phonebook?
Even if you can access a representative cross section the next problem is getting people to participate in the poll and to answer all the questions.
Another major difficulty is getting honest answers – answers which truly reflect the views or intentions of those being polled. Some people will give the answers they think the other person wants to hear, or puts themselves in the best light.
A further problem is designing non-leading questions which provide honest answers, rather than questions intentionally or unintentionally eliciting answers the organisation commissioning the poll wishes to receive.
People who self- select to participate in polls generally have strong views one way or the other otherwise they would not have the motivation to be involved. So online polls which rely on self-selected participants can immediately be discounted on the basis of bias which skews the result.
So for such an important question as amending the Marriage Act, it should not be left to Parliament, and it should certainly not be based on polls. It should go to a referendum.
And if you are opposed to a referendum because you think the result won’t support your own view, then that is condoning the dangerous precedent of the minority dictating to the majority. Call it what you like, but it would not be democratic.
I guess it just comes down to whether we trust our fellow Australians to do the right thing. Do we?
Put it to a referendum and find out.

You have said it all.

Calls for a referendum on Marriage Equality are silly: The constitution doesn’t need to be changed because it doesn’t disallow it, and doesn’t need to recognise it.

A parliamentary vote will do the job just fine.

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.

Isn’t it remarkable how conservatives rail against compulsory voting yet when a poll goes against them in a country with voluntary voting they pull out the argument that such and such a percentage didn’t vote so somehow it doesn’t count. So the 40% who didn’t vote were all against gay marriage and would have defeated the referendum if there had been compulsory voting, eh? Ridiculous. We heard the same drivel from Fairfax’s Paul Sheehan, the poor man’s Piers Akerman. Oh and by the way, isn’t it funny how we never heard the same argument from these people when only 60% of Britons voted in the recent general election and gave David Cameron and the Conservatives an unexpected majority?

devils_advocate said :

chewy14 said :

The government should stick to the legal issues relating to relationships such as property or children and completely divorce itself from the rest.

We need a civil union bill where any couple can go to a government office, sign a contract and have their relationship recognised for legal matters. Then they can go off and have a ceremony, a party, pray to whatever sky fairy they wish or simply do nothing, it’s got nothing to do with the government. Then if you wanted to, you can call your own relationship a marriage, a partnership, a Jesus threesome, an evil allegiance or whatever.

I agree with the first part, but would go further. There is no longer any sound argument why marriage should be an issue dealt with under the law.

In the past, there were very sound reasons. For example, in a time when women were largely treated by the legal system as an item of property, and indeed could not hold property or contract in their own right, a minimum set of contractual terms were needed to allocate ownership (i.e. the woman passing from the father to the husband) and other obligations and liabilities. Now that women are independent legal agents, who can participate in labour markets, own property, inherit, etc. this would seem superfluous.

Secondly, in an era before DNA-based paternity testing, there were non-rebuttable legal presumption that dictated that a man was responsible for any children borne by his wife. Now, this presumption is no longer required.

Issues such as survivorship, inheritances, superannuation and other ‘spousal’ entitlements are either already dealt with by the common law (recognising de facto arrangements) or could be addressed through contractual arrangements or deeds.

Government welfare entitlements are currently paid based on either a ‘single’ or ‘couple’ rate – but again, it’s been a long time since this was determined based solely on marital status, and its not clear why people should be penalised for shared living arrangements based on whether they are in some kind of ‘relationship’.

Finally, the courts are well versed in inquiring into the specific circumstances of a de-facto relationship to determine property settlements etc when the relationship breaks down. The fact of legal marriage is almost irrelevant to this consideration.

So, then, why the continued need for a legislated “Marriage Act” at all?

There may not indeed be a need but as long as we have such laws, we should try to keep them relevant to changing society.

The claims by this man that marriage has been the same for millennia are factually wrong. The man has a right to his opinion but no-one has a “right” to be wrong. Marriage was traditionally about property and inheritance. Love was sometimes, even often, involved but by no means essential. Compare and contrast chivalric love (which rarely if ever had anything to do with sex) and marriage at the same time. Different people, different interactions. I wouldn’t be surprised if less than one millennia ago only the propertied classes even bothered with i(getting married, that is).

devils_advocate said :

chewy14 said :

The government should stick to the legal issues relating to relationships such as property or children and completely divorce itself from the rest.

We need a civil union bill where any couple can go to a government office, sign a contract and have their relationship recognised for legal matters. Then they can go off and have a ceremony, a party, pray to whatever sky fairy they wish or simply do nothing, it’s got nothing to do with the government. Then if you wanted to, you can call your own relationship a marriage, a partnership, a Jesus threesome, an evil allegiance or whatever.

I agree with the first part, but would go further. There is no longer any sound argument why marriage should be an issue dealt with under the law.

In the past, there were very sound reasons. For example, in a time when women were largely treated by the legal system as an item of property, and indeed could not hold property or contract in their own right, a minimum set of contractual terms were needed to allocate ownership (i.e. the woman passing from the father to the husband) and other obligations and liabilities. Now that women are independent legal agents, who can participate in labour markets, own property, inherit, etc. this would seem superfluous.

Secondly, in an era before DNA-based paternity testing, there were non-rebuttable legal presumption that dictated that a man was responsible for any children borne by his wife. Now, this presumption is no longer required.

Issues such as survivorship, inheritances, superannuation and other ‘spousal’ entitlements are either already dealt with by the common law (recognising de facto arrangements) or could be addressed through contractual arrangements or deeds.

Government welfare entitlements are currently paid based on either a ‘single’ or ‘couple’ rate – but again, it’s been a long time since this was determined based solely on marital status, and its not clear why people should be penalised for shared living arrangements based on whether they are in some kind of ‘relationship’.

Finally, the courts are well versed in inquiring into the specific circumstances of a de-facto relationship to determine property settlements etc when the relationship breaks down. The fact of legal marriage is almost irrelevant to this consideration.

So, then, why the continued need for a legislated “Marriage Act” at all?

I think it is needed still to reference protocols for the Family Court (name change needed there) as, if homosexual marriage becomes legal, the Family Court will get a lot busier.
There will be a lot of arguments about who gets custody of the “family” cat.

It is surprising to see the rather naïve faith the some people still put in polls. The poll referred to here
http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/
used a sample size of only 1000 but has the audacity to conclude that “almost three-quarters of Australians (72%) now support legalising same-sex marriage.”
Polls are unreliable as demonstrated quite clearly in the recent UK general election.
The question about changing the Marriage Act is important to many sectors of the community and cannot be based on perceived poll results.
Polls often use small sampling sizes, or unrepresentative samples undermining the credibility of the results.
The major difficulty for polling organisations is getting access to a large representative cross section of the community. How do you contact a large number of random people of all ages, locations, genders, educational, social and ethnic backgrounds to truly reflect the views and diversity of the broader Australian population? Polling organisations used to rely on large phone surveys, but gone are the days when you could use phone books and landlines for representative samples.
Should people’s opinions not count simply because they don’t have an entry in the phonebook?
Even if you can access a representative cross section the next problem is getting people to participate in the poll and to answer all the questions.
Another major difficulty is getting honest answers – answers which truly reflect the views or intentions of those being polled. Some people will give the answers they think the other person wants to hear, or puts themselves in the best light.
A further problem is designing non-leading questions which provide honest answers, rather than questions intentionally or unintentionally eliciting answers the organisation commissioning the poll wishes to receive.
People who self- select to participate in polls generally have strong views one way or the other otherwise they would not have the motivation to be involved. So online polls which rely on self-selected participants can immediately be discounted on the basis of bias which skews the result.
So for such an important question as amending the Marriage Act, it should not be left to Parliament, and it should certainly not be based on polls. It should go to a referendum.
And if you are opposed to a referendum because you think the result won’t support your own view, then that is condoning the dangerous precedent of the minority dictating to the majority. Call it what you like, but it would not be democratic.
I guess it just comes down to whether we trust our fellow Australians to do the right thing. Do we?
Put it to a referendum and find out.

rubaiyat said :

Mysteryman said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

Keep burying your head in the sand. If voting was not compulsory in Australia you’d find this is also a non issue to a similar amount of people in Australia. A lot of people don’t care and can’t see the fuss. That leaves the minorities who support and oppose it to argue. So a very large proportion of people in ireland either didn’t care strongly enough to vote against it or cared enough to support it. Its a very large majority who did NOT oppose gay marriage. If the coalition were confident a referendum would come back with a NO to gay marriage, they’d have called it, just to bury the issue. Do you think Howard called a referendum on the Republic without being confident it would be a No vote.

Your personal experience is based on people you associate with, generally people associate with people of similar tastes. My experience is hundreds of people I know support it. I even know many religious people who don’t really like the idea but also agree its wrong to deny people something just because you don’t want them to have it.

Just about every poll conducted, many by reputable poll companies, say Australians are in favour of it. Poll companies generally get a wider range of people than the hundred of people you have asked. They are also generally unbiased, but I’ve seen the denialism from the conservative side of australia. If the poll doesn’t suit you, call everyone biased. ABC cops a fair amount of biased crap when mostly its not that biased, certainly doesn’t lean as far left as News corp leans right.

Wow.. .where to begin.

I guess I’ll just say this: the Greens and “marriage equality” groups have stated they are completely against letting the issue go to a plebiscite/referendum, despite their insistence that “nearly 2/3 of Australians want same-sex marriage”. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you. They know that the percentage of people who would vote in favour of it is less than half. Probably a lot less.

I’ve seen people continuously quoting the two-thirds number and claiming that it’s backed up by reputable polls and surveys. It’s not. The one actual survey that same-sex marriage advocates are using to justify this claim surveyed a total of ~700 people in Sydney and Melbourne. Hardly a large enough cross section to extrapolate across the whole country.

The issue should go to a referendum at the same time as the issue of indigenous recognition in the constitution. Get them both done at the same time. If the majority of Australian’s *actually* want it, then make the law, same as they did in Ireland. If the majority don’t want it, stop wasting time in parliament with it.

Clearly not true:

http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/

By the same people as poll for the Liberal Party, Crosby Textor.

Also it is not true that it is just one survey.

Even amongst the most conservative cohort, the over 65s there is a more favor Same Sex marriage than oppose it:

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/AMEpollfactsheet@Jun11.pdf

Amongst the the young it is game over, just get on with it. It will not be the end of civilisation and it is a basic libertarian principle to not interfere in people’s private lives.

Thanks for the link. I took a look and noticed a number of things.

Firstly, a >3% margin of error is quite large. Secondly, there is no mention of the way the survey was conducted, what questions were asked, or how respondents were introduced to the subject matter. How do we know that from the 1000 people who completed the survey, 500 others didn’t just hang up because they didn’t want to “answer a few questions on “marriage equality”. The respondents might have been randomly selected, but less random is the fact that people who feel really strongly in favour might be more likely to stay on the phone and complete the survey. But we aren’t given the information about the poll, what was asked, or how it was conducted, so it’s difficult to know if it’s a fair assessment of what the Australian population as a whole believes. I don’t think it is.

Considering the fact that the surveys are also commissioned and funded by a group trying to convince us all that what they want is what everyone wants, I’m skeptical of the results. The same way you would be of a poll commissioned by an anti same-sex marriage group.

And I think you’ll find that there is still reasonable amount of opposition to it from a decent percentage of young people. They just don’t speak up about it because of the slander and vilification they receive for holding an opposing view.

bryansworld said :

Mysteryman said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

Keep burying your head in the sand. If voting was not compulsory in Australia you’d find this is also a non issue to a similar amount of people in Australia. A lot of people don’t care and can’t see the fuss. That leaves the minorities who support and oppose it to argue. So a very large proportion of people in ireland either didn’t care strongly enough to vote against it or cared enough to support it. Its a very large majority who did NOT oppose gay marriage. If the coalition were confident a referendum would come back with a NO to gay marriage, they’d have called it, just to bury the issue. Do you think Howard called a referendum on the Republic without being confident it would be a No vote.

Your personal experience is based on people you associate with, generally people associate with people of similar tastes. My experience is hundreds of people I know support it. I even know many religious people who don’t really like the idea but also agree its wrong to deny people something just because you don’t want them to have it.

Just about every poll conducted, many by reputable poll companies, say Australians are in favour of it. Poll companies generally get a wider range of people than the hundred of people you have asked. They are also generally unbiased, but I’ve seen the denialism from the conservative side of australia. If the poll doesn’t suit you, call everyone biased. ABC cops a fair amount of biased crap when mostly its not that biased, certainly doesn’t lean as far left as News corp leans right.

Wow.. .where to begin.

I guess I’ll just say this: the Greens and “marriage equality” groups have stated they are completely against letting the issue go to a plebiscite/referendum, despite their insistence that “nearly 2/3 of Australians want same-sex marriage”. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you. They know that the percentage of people who would vote in favour of it is less than half. Probably a lot less.

I’ve seen people continuously quoting the two-thirds number and claiming that it’s backed up by reputable polls and surveys. It’s not. The one actual survey that same-sex marriage advocates are using to justify this claim surveyed a total of ~700 people in Sydney and Melbourne. Hardly a large enough cross section to extrapolate across the whole country.

The issue should go to a referendum at the same time as the issue of indigenous recognition in the constitution. Get them both done at the same time. If the majority of Australian’s *actually* want it, then make the law, same as they did in Ireland. If the majority don’t want it, stop wasting time in parliament with it.

Yeah sure, let’s vote on capital punishment while we are at it. There are very good reasons why Australia is a representative democracy.

If that’s your position, then why even let people vote? Let’s just have the politicians select their own successors and decide everything based on what they feel, rather than what the majority of people in their electorate feel. You’re obviously in favour of having them tell us what to do, rather than have them represent us. Are you also in favour of having our government tell other governments how they should govern? Were you a big supporter of telling Indonesia how they should conduct their business?

I won’t bother to address the fallacy in equating the capital punishment with same-sex marriage.

Mysteryman said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

Keep burying your head in the sand. If voting was not compulsory in Australia you’d find this is also a non issue to a similar amount of people in Australia. A lot of people don’t care and can’t see the fuss. That leaves the minorities who support and oppose it to argue. So a very large proportion of people in ireland either didn’t care strongly enough to vote against it or cared enough to support it. Its a very large majority who did NOT oppose gay marriage. If the coalition were confident a referendum would come back with a NO to gay marriage, they’d have called it, just to bury the issue. Do you think Howard called a referendum on the Republic without being confident it would be a No vote.

Your personal experience is based on people you associate with, generally people associate with people of similar tastes. My experience is hundreds of people I know support it. I even know many religious people who don’t really like the idea but also agree its wrong to deny people something just because you don’t want them to have it.

Just about every poll conducted, many by reputable poll companies, say Australians are in favour of it. Poll companies generally get a wider range of people than the hundred of people you have asked. They are also generally unbiased, but I’ve seen the denialism from the conservative side of australia. If the poll doesn’t suit you, call everyone biased. ABC cops a fair amount of biased crap when mostly its not that biased, certainly doesn’t lean as far left as News corp leans right.

Wow.. .where to begin.

I guess I’ll just say this: the Greens and “marriage equality” groups have stated they are completely against letting the issue go to a plebiscite/referendum, despite their insistence that “nearly 2/3 of Australians want same-sex marriage”. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you. They know that the percentage of people who would vote in favour of it is less than half. Probably a lot less.

I’ve seen people continuously quoting the two-thirds number and claiming that it’s backed up by reputable polls and surveys. It’s not. The one actual survey that same-sex marriage advocates are using to justify this claim surveyed a total of ~700 people in Sydney and Melbourne. Hardly a large enough cross section to extrapolate across the whole country.

The issue should go to a referendum at the same time as the issue of indigenous recognition in the constitution. Get them both done at the same time. If the majority of Australian’s *actually* want it, then make the law, same as they did in Ireland. If the majority don’t want it, stop wasting time in parliament with it.

Clearly not true:

http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/

By the same people as poll for the Liberal Party, Crosby Textor.

Also it is not true that it is just one survey.

Even amongst the most conservative cohort, the over 65s there is a more favor Same Sex marriage than oppose it:

http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/AMEpollfactsheet@Jun11.pdf

Amongst the the young it is game over, just get on with it. It will not be the end of civilisation and it is a basic libertarian principle to not interfere in people’s private lives.

bryansworld said :

Mysteryman said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

Keep burying your head in the sand. If voting was not compulsory in Australia you’d find this is also a non issue to a similar amount of people in Australia. A lot of people don’t care and can’t see the fuss. That leaves the minorities who support and oppose it to argue. So a very large proportion of people in ireland either didn’t care strongly enough to vote against it or cared enough to support it. Its a very large majority who did NOT oppose gay marriage. If the coalition were confident a referendum would come back with a NO to gay marriage, they’d have called it, just to bury the issue. Do you think Howard called a referendum on the Republic without being confident it would be a No vote.

Your personal experience is based on people you associate with, generally people associate with people of similar tastes. My experience is hundreds of people I know support it. I even know many religious people who don’t really like the idea but also agree its wrong to deny people something just because you don’t want them to have it.

Just about every poll conducted, many by reputable poll companies, say Australians are in favour of it. Poll companies generally get a wider range of people than the hundred of people you have asked. They are also generally unbiased, but I’ve seen the denialism from the conservative side of australia. If the poll doesn’t suit you, call everyone biased. ABC cops a fair amount of biased crap when mostly its not that biased, certainly doesn’t lean as far left as News corp leans right.

Wow.. .where to begin.

I guess I’ll just say this: the Greens and “marriage equality” groups have stated they are completely against letting the issue go to a plebiscite/referendum, despite their insistence that “nearly 2/3 of Australians want same-sex marriage”. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you. They know that the percentage of people who would vote in favour of it is less than half. Probably a lot less.

I’ve seen people continuously quoting the two-thirds number and claiming that it’s backed up by reputable polls and surveys. It’s not. The one actual survey that same-sex marriage advocates are using to justify this claim surveyed a total of ~700 people in Sydney and Melbourne. Hardly a large enough cross section to extrapolate across the whole country.

The issue should go to a referendum at the same time as the issue of indigenous recognition in the constitution. Get them both done at the same time. If the majority of Australian’s *actually* want it, then make the law, same as they did in Ireland. If the majority don’t want it, stop wasting time in parliament with it.

Yeah sure, let’s vote on capital punishment while we are at it. There are very good reasons why Australia is a representative democracy.

Careful what you wish for.

bryansworld said :

Mumbucks said :

Disagreeing with a minority doesn’t make one a bigot.
Declaring your values in this climate whether others agree with you is commendable.
Well done the Jensons.

Advocating discrimination against a fellow human being on the basis of an inherent characteristic makes them a bigot.

Did you lift this “Advocating discrimination against a fellow human being on the basis of an inherent characteristic makes them a bigot” from an old Monty Python script. Possibly the Life of Brian.
Certainly sounds familiar.

devils_advocate4:46 pm 12 Jun 15

chewy14 said :

The government should stick to the legal issues relating to relationships such as property or children and completely divorce itself from the rest.

We need a civil union bill where any couple can go to a government office, sign a contract and have their relationship recognised for legal matters. Then they can go off and have a ceremony, a party, pray to whatever sky fairy they wish or simply do nothing, it’s got nothing to do with the government. Then if you wanted to, you can call your own relationship a marriage, a partnership, a Jesus threesome, an evil allegiance or whatever.

I agree with the first part, but would go further. There is no longer any sound argument why marriage should be an issue dealt with under the law.

In the past, there were very sound reasons. For example, in a time when women were largely treated by the legal system as an item of property, and indeed could not hold property or contract in their own right, a minimum set of contractual terms were needed to allocate ownership (i.e. the woman passing from the father to the husband) and other obligations and liabilities. Now that women are independent legal agents, who can participate in labour markets, own property, inherit, etc. this would seem superfluous.

Secondly, in an era before DNA-based paternity testing, there were non-rebuttable legal presumption that dictated that a man was responsible for any children borne by his wife. Now, this presumption is no longer required.

Issues such as survivorship, inheritances, superannuation and other ‘spousal’ entitlements are either already dealt with by the common law (recognising de facto arrangements) or could be addressed through contractual arrangements or deeds.

Government welfare entitlements are currently paid based on either a ‘single’ or ‘couple’ rate – but again, it’s been a long time since this was determined based solely on marital status, and its not clear why people should be penalised for shared living arrangements based on whether they are in some kind of ‘relationship’.

Finally, the courts are well versed in inquiring into the specific circumstances of a de-facto relationship to determine property settlements etc when the relationship breaks down. The fact of legal marriage is almost irrelevant to this consideration.

So, then, why the continued need for a legislated “Marriage Act” at all?

Mysteryman said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

Keep burying your head in the sand. If voting was not compulsory in Australia you’d find this is also a non issue to a similar amount of people in Australia. A lot of people don’t care and can’t see the fuss. That leaves the minorities who support and oppose it to argue. So a very large proportion of people in ireland either didn’t care strongly enough to vote against it or cared enough to support it. Its a very large majority who did NOT oppose gay marriage. If the coalition were confident a referendum would come back with a NO to gay marriage, they’d have called it, just to bury the issue. Do you think Howard called a referendum on the Republic without being confident it would be a No vote.

Your personal experience is based on people you associate with, generally people associate with people of similar tastes. My experience is hundreds of people I know support it. I even know many religious people who don’t really like the idea but also agree its wrong to deny people something just because you don’t want them to have it.

Just about every poll conducted, many by reputable poll companies, say Australians are in favour of it. Poll companies generally get a wider range of people than the hundred of people you have asked. They are also generally unbiased, but I’ve seen the denialism from the conservative side of australia. If the poll doesn’t suit you, call everyone biased. ABC cops a fair amount of biased crap when mostly its not that biased, certainly doesn’t lean as far left as News corp leans right.

Wow.. .where to begin.

I guess I’ll just say this: the Greens and “marriage equality” groups have stated they are completely against letting the issue go to a plebiscite/referendum, despite their insistence that “nearly 2/3 of Australians want same-sex marriage”. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you. They know that the percentage of people who would vote in favour of it is less than half. Probably a lot less.

I’ve seen people continuously quoting the two-thirds number and claiming that it’s backed up by reputable polls and surveys. It’s not. The one actual survey that same-sex marriage advocates are using to justify this claim surveyed a total of ~700 people in Sydney and Melbourne. Hardly a large enough cross section to extrapolate across the whole country.

The issue should go to a referendum at the same time as the issue of indigenous recognition in the constitution. Get them both done at the same time. If the majority of Australian’s *actually* want it, then make the law, same as they did in Ireland. If the majority don’t want it, stop wasting time in parliament with it.

Yeah sure, let’s vote on capital punishment while we are at it. There are very good reasons why Australia is a representative democracy.

pink little birdie3:11 pm 12 Jun 15

I guess I’ll just say this: the Greens and “marriage equality” groups have stated they are completely against letting the issue go to a plebiscite/referendum, despite their insistence that “nearly 2/3 of Australians want same-sex marriage”. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you. They know that the percentage of people who would vote in favour of it is less than half. Probably a lot less.

I’ve seen people continuously quoting the two-thirds number and claiming that it’s backed up by reputable polls and surveys. It’s not. The one actual survey that same-sex marriage advocates are using to justify this claim surveyed a total of ~700 people in Sydney and Melbourne. Hardly a large enough cross section to extrapolate across the whole country.

The issue should go to a referendum at the same time as the issue of indigenous recognition in the constitution. Get them both done at the same time. If the majority of Australian’s *actually* want it, then make the law, same as they did in Ireland. If the majority don’t want it, stop wasting time in parliament with it.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

Keep burying your head in the sand. If voting was not compulsory in Australia you’d find this is also a non issue to a similar amount of people in Australia. A lot of people don’t care and can’t see the fuss. That leaves the minorities who support and oppose it to argue. So a very large proportion of people in ireland either didn’t care strongly enough to vote against it or cared enough to support it. Its a very large majority who did NOT oppose gay marriage. If the coalition were confident a referendum would come back with a NO to gay marriage, they’d have called it, just to bury the issue. Do you think Howard called a referendum on the Republic without being confident it would be a No vote.

Your personal experience is based on people you associate with, generally people associate with people of similar tastes. My experience is hundreds of people I know support it. I even know many religious people who don’t really like the idea but also agree its wrong to deny people something just because you don’t want them to have it.

Just about every poll conducted, many by reputable poll companies, say Australians are in favour of it. Poll companies generally get a wider range of people than the hundred of people you have asked. They are also generally unbiased, but I’ve seen the denialism from the conservative side of australia. If the poll doesn’t suit you, call everyone biased. ABC cops a fair amount of biased crap when mostly its not that biased, certainly doesn’t lean as far left as News corp leans right.

Wow.. .where to begin.

I guess I’ll just say this: the Greens and “marriage equality” groups have stated they are completely against letting the issue go to a plebiscite/referendum, despite their insistence that “nearly 2/3 of Australians want same-sex marriage”. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you. They know that the percentage of people who would vote in favour of it is less than half. Probably a lot less.

I’ve seen people continuously quoting the two-thirds number and claiming that it’s backed up by reputable polls and surveys. It’s not. The one actual survey that same-sex marriage advocates are using to justify this claim surveyed a total of ~700 people in Sydney and Melbourne. Hardly a large enough cross section to extrapolate across the whole country.

The issue should go to a referendum at the same time as the issue of indigenous recognition in the constitution. Get them both done at the same time. If the majority of Australian’s *actually* want it, then make the law, same as they did in Ireland. If the majority don’t want it, stop wasting time in parliament with it.
Cancel
Saving… [/end quote]

The post directly above yours links to a document with a graph on polls conducted they include Newspoll and galaxy
here is the information on the 72% result.
http://www.crosbytextor.com/news/record-support-for-same-sex-marriage/

In that graph (pg 27) of the Human rights publication it has people against same sex mariage falling faster than the trend line
Even pleblicites are very expensive to run.

bryansworld said :

Mumbucks said :

Disagreeing with a minority doesn’t make one a bigot.
Declaring your values in this climate whether others agree with you is commendable.
Well done the Jensons.

Advocating discrimination against a fellow human being on the basis of an inherent characteristic makes them a bigot.

Amazing. Like a lost script from The life of Brian. “Advocating discrimination against a fellow human being on the basis of an inherent characteristic “.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Mysteryman said :

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

Keep burying your head in the sand. If voting was not compulsory in Australia you’d find this is also a non issue to a similar amount of people in Australia. A lot of people don’t care and can’t see the fuss. That leaves the minorities who support and oppose it to argue. So a very large proportion of people in ireland either didn’t care strongly enough to vote against it or cared enough to support it. Its a very large majority who did NOT oppose gay marriage. If the coalition were confident a referendum would come back with a NO to gay marriage, they’d have called it, just to bury the issue. Do you think Howard called a referendum on the Republic without being confident it would be a No vote.

Your personal experience is based on people you associate with, generally people associate with people of similar tastes. My experience is hundreds of people I know support it. I even know many religious people who don’t really like the idea but also agree its wrong to deny people something just because you don’t want them to have it.

Just about every poll conducted, many by reputable poll companies, say Australians are in favour of it. Poll companies generally get a wider range of people than the hundred of people you have asked. They are also generally unbiased, but I’ve seen the denialism from the conservative side of australia. If the poll doesn’t suit you, call everyone biased. ABC cops a fair amount of biased crap when mostly its not that biased, certainly doesn’t lean as far left as News corp leans right.

Wow.. .where to begin.

I guess I’ll just say this: the Greens and “marriage equality” groups have stated they are completely against letting the issue go to a plebiscite/referendum, despite their insistence that “nearly 2/3 of Australians want same-sex marriage”. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you. They know that the percentage of people who would vote in favour of it is less than half. Probably a lot less.

I’ve seen people continuously quoting the two-thirds number and claiming that it’s backed up by reputable polls and surveys. It’s not. The one actual survey that same-sex marriage advocates are using to justify this claim surveyed a total of ~700 people in Sydney and Melbourne. Hardly a large enough cross section to extrapolate across the whole country.

The issue should go to a referendum at the same time as the issue of indigenous recognition in the constitution. Get them both done at the same time. If the majority of Australian’s *actually* want it, then make the law, same as they did in Ireland. If the majority don’t want it, stop wasting time in parliament with it.

Good comment!

Funky1 said :

I may not be 100% up on divorce law, but in this country don’t you need to be legally seperated for at least 12 months before you can apply for a divorce? So that would mean not living together, having seperate finances i.e.bank accounts, etc.
From what they say, they plan to still live as husband and wife after the divorce, still co-habitate, still have kids, etc. So do they plan on non co-habiting for 12 months prior or have they really not thought this through.
Or (heaven forbid!!) is this just a stunt!!!

You have to be “separated” for 12 months, but note that this doesn’t necessarily mean not living together. The only grounds for divorce is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.

It would make an interesting court case if the state tried to disallow their divorce on the grounds that they were still together.

watto23 said :

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

Keep burying your head in the sand. If voting was not compulsory in Australia you’d find this is also a non issue to a similar amount of people in Australia. A lot of people don’t care and can’t see the fuss. That leaves the minorities who support and oppose it to argue. So a very large proportion of people in ireland either didn’t care strongly enough to vote against it or cared enough to support it. Its a very large majority who did NOT oppose gay marriage. If the coalition were confident a referendum would come back with a NO to gay marriage, they’d have called it, just to bury the issue. Do you think Howard called a referendum on the Republic without being confident it would be a No vote.

Your personal experience is based on people you associate with, generally people associate with people of similar tastes. My experience is hundreds of people I know support it. I even know many religious people who don’t really like the idea but also agree its wrong to deny people something just because you don’t want them to have it.

Just about every poll conducted, many by reputable poll companies, say Australians are in favour of it. Poll companies generally get a wider range of people than the hundred of people you have asked. They are also generally unbiased, but I’ve seen the denialism from the conservative side of australia. If the poll doesn’t suit you, call everyone biased. ABC cops a fair amount of biased crap when mostly its not that biased, certainly doesn’t lean as far left as News corp leans right.

Wow.. .where to begin.

I guess I’ll just say this: the Greens and “marriage equality” groups have stated they are completely against letting the issue go to a plebiscite/referendum, despite their insistence that “nearly 2/3 of Australians want same-sex marriage”. Why do you think that is? I’ll tell you. They know that the percentage of people who would vote in favour of it is less than half. Probably a lot less.

I’ve seen people continuously quoting the two-thirds number and claiming that it’s backed up by reputable polls and surveys. It’s not. The one actual survey that same-sex marriage advocates are using to justify this claim surveyed a total of ~700 people in Sydney and Melbourne. Hardly a large enough cross section to extrapolate across the whole country.

The issue should go to a referendum at the same time as the issue of indigenous recognition in the constitution. Get them both done at the same time. If the majority of Australian’s *actually* want it, then make the law, same as they did in Ireland. If the majority don’t want it, stop wasting time in parliament with it.

pink little birdie12:19 pm 12 Jun 15

pink little birdie said :

It will get up.. A matter of timing. Three seperate states have already considered legislation for same sex marriage.

There is a pretty graph on page 27 of this document which tracks support of same sex marriage. Even when there was a drop in support for in 2011 in was still above 55% it now sits at 72%. The next poll I would suspect would have between 75% and 80%. I think the publicity of these people will give support an additional boost to support.
It will get up in a single issue vote. It won’t get up in a general election as it’s a main issue for the majority.

Forgot the Link to the document
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/SOGII%20Rights%20Report%202015_Web_Version.pdf

pink little birdie12:19 pm 12 Jun 15

It will get up.. A matter of timing. Three seperate states have already considered legislation for same sex marriage.

There is a pretty graph on page 27 of this document which tracks support of same sex marriage. Even when there was a drop in support for in 2011 in was still above 55% it now sits at 72%. The next poll I would suspect would have between 75% and 80%. I think the publicity of these people will give support an additional boost to support.
It will get up in a single issue vote. It won’t get up in a general election as it’s a main issue for the majority.

I may not be 100% up on divorce law, but in this country don’t you need to be legally seperated for at least 12 months before you can apply for a divorce? So that would mean not living together, having seperate finances i.e.bank accounts, etc.
From what they say, they plan to still live as husband and wife after the divorce, still co-habitate, still have kids, etc. So do they plan on non co-habiting for 12 months prior or have they really not thought this through.
Or (heaven forbid!!) is this just a stunt!!!

Southmouth said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

I believe one thing about this whole fiasco. Religion and state should stay far away from each other.
Anything to with religious teachings shouldn’t be brought into law, politics etc. If you believe otherwise, then why not start implementing “laws” from middle eastern religious culture into our society if enough people want it? Marriage, in the true sense of the word, is a union between people and their God, not a formality used to prove to authorities that two people’s financial affairs are now intertwined. As has been pointed out, gay couples can have civil unions and such to “cement” their relationship. What is the ultimate end-game here? Do they want their union to be recognized by the church? If that is the case, take it up with the church, don’t waste our government resources to get your way.
As i said before, religion and government should stay at arm’s length from one another. Start developing laws around religion’s doctrines and we could get into some serious complications.

+1. This is just an attempt to force mainstream churches to accept homosexuality which they can’t ever accept without re-writing their Bibles. It will probably get up though, because the average bogan doesn’t care enough about anything to vote against it.

Errrr, all the versions of the proposed legislative changes make it very clear that religious organisations would not be forced to do anything with which they have a problem. However, I do agree that the state shouldn’t really be involved in the act of marriage.

wildturkeycanoe said :

I believe one thing about this whole fiasco. Religion and state should stay far away from each other.
Anything to with religious teachings shouldn’t be brought into law, politics etc. If you believe otherwise, then why not start implementing “laws” from middle eastern religious culture into our society if enough people want it? Marriage, in the true sense of the word, is a union between people and their God, not a formality used to prove to authorities that two people’s financial affairs are now intertwined. As has been pointed out, gay couples can have civil unions and such to “cement” their relationship. What is the ultimate end-game here? Do they want their union to be recognized by the church? If that is the case, take it up with the church, don’t waste our government resources to get your way.
As i said before, religion and government should stay at arm’s length from one another. Start developing laws around religion’s doctrines and we could get into some serious complications.

+1. This is just an attempt to force mainstream churches to accept homosexuality which they can’t ever accept without re-writing their Bibles. It will probably get up though, because the average bogan doesn’t care enough about anything to vote against it.

dungfungus said :

The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

Keep burying your head in the sand. If voting was not compulsory in Australia you’d find this is also a non issue to a similar amount of people in Australia. A lot of people don’t care and can’t see the fuss. That leaves the minorities who support and oppose it to argue. So a very large proportion of people in ireland either didn’t care strongly enough to vote against it or cared enough to support it. Its a very large majority who did NOT oppose gay marriage. If the coalition were confident a referendum would come back with a NO to gay marriage, they’d have called it, just to bury the issue. Do you think Howard called a referendum on the Republic without being confident it would be a No vote.

Your personal experience is based on people you associate with, generally people associate with people of similar tastes. My experience is hundreds of people I know support it. I even know many religious people who don’t really like the idea but also agree its wrong to deny people something just because you don’t want them to have it.

Just about every poll conducted, many by reputable poll companies, say Australians are in favour of it. Poll companies generally get a wider range of people than the hundred of people you have asked. They are also generally unbiased, but I’ve seen the denialism from the conservative side of australia. If the poll doesn’t suit you, call everyone biased. ABC cops a fair amount of biased crap when mostly its not that biased, certainly doesn’t lean as far left as News corp leans right.

Basically those against have not actually put forward a legitimate argument:

1. Any argument raising children is null and void. Gay couples don’t need marriage to raise children, currently do so and currently no evidence supports any issues with them raising children. Also any argument about this insults and incredibly large proportion of society who are single parents, or extended families, parents with adopted children. Basically any argument here offends many more people doing a great job of raising children.
2. Arguments about childrens welfare are also null and void. The Catholic church has a horrendous record regarding care of children. Don’t throw stones in glass houses.
3. Marriage existed before religion existed. Religion has no more right over the name marriage than does anyone else.
4. Common language will prevail. Give homosexual couples a legalised civil union. You can’t stop them from saying they are married, or calling each other husbands or wives. so the name argument is also quite pointless.
5. The arguments all seem to be about a group in society who don’t particularly want homosexuals to have the same rights as them. Then they say they are not homophobic or bigoted. However the mere action of denying someone a right, that really has no affect on their life is actually part of the definition of what makes someone a homophobe or bigot. Denying someone something based on a characteristic you don’t like or approve of means exactly that. You are a bigot.

So this couple has had their fame. they probably will continue to live in ignorance within their cosy confines of their religion and church. Isn’t it lovely they can do that, while others are denied something they would like, that has absolutely NO affect on anyone else other than it challenges their views on homosexuals and thus makes them bigots, which they also don’t like being called.

Mumbucks said :

Disagreeing with a minority doesn’t make one a bigot.
Declaring your values in this climate whether others agree with you is commendable.
Well done the Jensons.

Like advocating to retain slavery when it was abolished in the West?

Mumbucks said :

Disagreeing with a minority doesn’t make one a bigot.
Declaring your values in this climate whether others agree with you is commendable.
Well done the Jensons.

Advocating discrimination against a fellow human being on the basis of an inherent characteristic makes them a bigot.

dungfungus said :

Aragornerama said :

dungfungus said :

Holden Caulfield said :

I assume they already know they won’t meet the requirements for a divorce, which aside from nothing else, would surely go against their Christian beliefs.

And then there’s the fact that state-sanctioned marriages have been possible for years (ie. without any association to any religion), which appears to be his biggest beef with gay marriage.

It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

The Irish referendum was a stunt also considering that 40% of eligible voters cared not to be involved.
I am sure a referendum on the same question in Australia would be a resounding NO considering voting is compulsory here.
In Ireland, the Yes vote prevailed by 62 to 38 per cent with a 60.5 per cent turnout.
I can’t see what all the fuss is about.

Ha! Despite your prickly conservatism you’ve been growing on me slightly, but if same-sex marriage ever makes it to a referendum here there’s simply no way it wouldn’t get up. The holdout stone-age cave dwellers are a dwindling minority – I’m afraid you’ll probably have to start getting used to the idea that gay marriage is inevitable and some point in the short-medium term future.

For the Irish result to change, two thirds of people who didn’t vote would have needed to vote against it. Do you really think that’s likely when close to two thirds of those who DID vote voted in favor? Also worth remembering this is IRELAND – probably the most socially conservative Anglophone country. Reliable polls estimate over 70% of Australians favour gay marriage.

I am not speculating on whether the vote would have been the same in Ireland had voting been compulsory. I am pointing out that the result has been reported without qualification and in most cases, totally misleading.
The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

“I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.”

You have been busy. Who where these people? The general population, or select members of a group?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back9:27 am 12 Jun 15

I am both amazed and impressed. I had no idea anyone actually read CityNews.

Aragornerama said :

dungfungus said :

Holden Caulfield said :

I assume they already know they won’t meet the requirements for a divorce, which aside from nothing else, would surely go against their Christian beliefs.

And then there’s the fact that state-sanctioned marriages have been possible for years (ie. without any association to any religion), which appears to be his biggest beef with gay marriage.

It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

The Irish referendum was a stunt also considering that 40% of eligible voters cared not to be involved.
I am sure a referendum on the same question in Australia would be a resounding NO considering voting is compulsory here.
In Ireland, the Yes vote prevailed by 62 to 38 per cent with a 60.5 per cent turnout.
I can’t see what all the fuss is about.

Ha! Despite your prickly conservatism you’ve been growing on me slightly, but if same-sex marriage ever makes it to a referendum here there’s simply no way it wouldn’t get up. The holdout stone-age cave dwellers are a dwindling minority – I’m afraid you’ll probably have to start getting used to the idea that gay marriage is inevitable and some point in the short-medium term future.

For the Irish result to change, two thirds of people who didn’t vote would have needed to vote against it. Do you really think that’s likely when close to two thirds of those who DID vote voted in favor? Also worth remembering this is IRELAND – probably the most socially conservative Anglophone country. Reliable polls estimate over 70% of Australians favour gay marriage.

I am not speculating on whether the vote would have been the same in Ireland had voting been compulsory. I am pointing out that the result has been reported without qualification and in most cases, totally misleading.
The facts remain that 40% of Ireland’s eligible voters didn’t vote.
As to the “reliable polls” in Australia, I have asked hundreds of people if they were polled and none were. Most were not in favour of a homosexual version of the current Marriage Act either.

wildturkeycanoe8:10 am 12 Jun 15

I believe one thing about this whole fiasco. Religion and state should stay far away from each other.
Anything to with religious teachings shouldn’t be brought into law, politics etc. If you believe otherwise, then why not start implementing “laws” from middle eastern religious culture into our society if enough people want it? Marriage, in the true sense of the word, is a union between people and their God, not a formality used to prove to authorities that two people’s financial affairs are now intertwined. As has been pointed out, gay couples can have civil unions and such to “cement” their relationship. What is the ultimate end-game here? Do they want their union to be recognized by the church? If that is the case, take it up with the church, don’t waste our government resources to get your way.
As i said before, religion and government should stay at arm’s length from one another. Start developing laws around religion’s doctrines and we could get into some serious complications.

Aragornerama12:44 am 12 Jun 15

Where were they the first time around? Shouldn’t they have already divorced back in 2013 when the ACT briefly legalised same-sex marriage?

Aragornerama12:39 am 12 Jun 15

Aragornerama said :

dungfungus said :

Holden Caulfield said :

I assume they already know they won’t meet the requirements for a divorce, which aside from nothing else, would surely go against their Christian beliefs.

And then there’s the fact that state-sanctioned marriages have been possible for years (ie. without any association to any religion), which appears to be his biggest beef with gay marriage.

It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

The Irish referendum was a stunt also considering that 40% of eligible voters cared not to be involved.
I am sure a referendum on the same question in Australia would be a resounding NO considering voting is compulsory here.
In Ireland, the Yes vote prevailed by 62 to 38 per cent with a 60.5 per cent turnout.
I can’t see what all the fuss is about.

Ha! Despite your prickly conservatism you’ve been growing on me slightly, but if same-sex marriage ever makes it to a referendum here there’s simply no way it wouldn’t get up. The holdout stone-age cave dwellers are a dwindling minority – I’m afraid you’ll probably have to start getting used to the idea that gay marriage is inevitable and some point in the short-medium term future.

For the Irish result to change, two thirds of people who didn’t vote would have needed to vote against it. Do you really think that’s likely when close to two thirds of those who DID vote voted in favor? Also worth remembering this is IRELAND – probably the most socially conservative Anglophone country. Reliable polls estimate over 70% of Australians favour gay marriage.

At, not and.

Aragornerama12:39 am 12 Jun 15

dungfungus said :

Holden Caulfield said :

I assume they already know they won’t meet the requirements for a divorce, which aside from nothing else, would surely go against their Christian beliefs.

And then there’s the fact that state-sanctioned marriages have been possible for years (ie. without any association to any religion), which appears to be his biggest beef with gay marriage.

It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

The Irish referendum was a stunt also considering that 40% of eligible voters cared not to be involved.
I am sure a referendum on the same question in Australia would be a resounding NO considering voting is compulsory here.
In Ireland, the Yes vote prevailed by 62 to 38 per cent with a 60.5 per cent turnout.
I can’t see what all the fuss is about.

Ha! Despite your prickly conservatism you’ve been growing on me slightly, but if same-sex marriage ever makes it to a referendum here there’s simply no way it wouldn’t get up. The holdout stone-age cave dwellers are a dwindling minority – I’m afraid you’ll probably have to start getting used to the idea that gay marriage is inevitable and some point in the short-medium term future.

For the Irish result to change, two thirds of people who didn’t vote would have needed to vote against it. Do you really think that’s likely when close to two thirds of those who DID vote voted in favor? Also worth remembering this is IRELAND – probably the most socially conservative Anglophone country. Reliable polls estimate over 70% of Australians favour gay marriage.

The Gov do something so both sides shut up and stop whingeing .

Why on Earth are you giving them a further platform? There are a thousand better topics you could be bothering with than this footnote!

Malcolm Street7:19 pm 11 Jun 15

Mumbucks said :

Disagreeing with a minority doesn’t make one a bigot.
Declaring your values in this climate whether others agree with you is commendable.
Well done the Jensons.

What minority is this? The 72% of Australians who support gay marriage. Last time I looked that makes it a 3:1 majority.

They’re perfectly entitled to express their views. Just as those of us who don’t agree with them are entitled to say that their views are ridiculous.

Malcolm Street7:17 pm 11 Jun 15

dungfungus said :

Holden Caulfield said :

I assume they already know they won’t meet the requirements for a divorce, which aside from nothing else, would surely go against their Christian beliefs.

And then there’s the fact that state-sanctioned marriages have been possible for years (ie. without any association to any religion), which appears to be his biggest beef with gay marriage.

It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

The Irish referendum was a stunt also considering that 40% of eligible voters cared not to be involved.
I am sure a referendum on the same question in Australia would be a resounding NO considering voting is compulsory here.
In Ireland, the Yes vote prevailed by 62 to 38 per cent with a 60.5 per cent turnout.
I can’t see what all the fuss is about.

How is the Irish referendum a stunt?

60% voted yes or no. 40% decided they didn’t care either way.

Thus the total of the Irish electorate who either positively wanted same-sex marriage or did not think it was worth opposing and hence tacitly supported its introduction comes to 40 + 36% =76%.

The total who were sufficiently opposed to vote against it was only the remaining 24%.

So would they have got divorced when in previous times marriage laws and practices changed such that inter-racial couples could marry (lets not forget parts of the bible condone slavery), or when women were no longer considered items of property belonging to their husbands? nut jobs.

HiddenDragon5:49 pm 11 Jun 15

Given the general tenor of the opinion pieces which they run, I can understand why City News might feel the need to restore the balance, now and again, but this is overkill with a capital OVAH.

Anyway, aside from the fact that it’s up to the federal parliament, we’ve recently heard from Jeremy Hanson on this subject, so marriage equality doesn’t need to be wheeled out as a handy little dog-whistle distraction in the lead up to October 2016, does it….

HiddenDragon5:36 pm 11 Jun 15

dungfungus said :

Tymefor said :

Wil Anderson ?@Wil_Anderson · 6h6 hours ago
If marriage equality means gay people can get married and bigoted people get divorced, I consider that a win-win for marriage…

win

Err, who is Wil Anderson?

There were bits of Gruen Transfer you’d probably quite enjoy – it wasn’t all PC.

“Err, who is Wil Anderson?”
Google it. I needed to. Ah, yes, I then said, him. Obviously I shouldn’t get out so much.

Holden Caulfield said :

I assume they already know they won’t meet the requirements for a divorce, which aside from nothing else, would surely go against their Christian beliefs.

And then there’s the fact that state-sanctioned marriages have been possible for years (ie. without any association to any religion), which appears to be his biggest beef with gay marriage.

It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

The Irish referendum was a stunt also considering that 40% of eligible voters cared not to be involved.
I am sure a referendum on the same question in Australia would be a resounding NO considering voting is compulsory here.
In Ireland, the Yes vote prevailed by 62 to 38 per cent with a 60.5 per cent turnout.
I can’t see what all the fuss is about.

rosscoact said :

dungfungus said :

Tymefor said :

Wil Anderson ?@Wil_Anderson · 6h6 hours ago
If marriage equality means gay people can get married and bigoted people get divorced, I consider that a win-win for marriage…

win

Err, who is Wil Anderson?

You wouldn’t know him.

Obviously, or I wouldn’t have asked. I’ll accept that he is a nobody then.

Disagreeing with a minority doesn’t make one a bigot.
Declaring your values in this climate whether others agree with you is commendable.
Well done the Jensons.

Well it’s certainly huge publicity for a freebie magazine. I’m surprised nobody’s thought of this angle before now, considering the high profile couples who refuse to get married until the law is changed.

This whole debate. I don’t understand why equal billing is given to bigots. Well, I do. The media loves conflict. But equal billing should not be given to bigots. If I started a racist rant, I would be rightly abused and put in my place. Why is bigotry acceptable and treated like a reasonable point of view in this debate?

dungfungus said :

Tymefor said :

Wil Anderson ?@Wil_Anderson · 6h6 hours ago
If marriage equality means gay people can get married and bigoted people get divorced, I consider that a win-win for marriage…

win

Err, who is Wil Anderson?

You wouldn’t know him.

Tymefor said :

Wil Anderson ?@Wil_Anderson · 6h6 hours ago
If marriage equality means gay people can get married and bigoted people get divorced, I consider that a win-win for marriage…

win

Err, who is Wil Anderson?

As a libertarian Steven, why on earth would you not understand the problems that this couple have highlighted? And why would you not support their wish to live their lives as they want to? What business is it of yours if they get divorced?

Their argument is actually quite interesting and it provides the exact reasons why the state shouldn’t be involved in people’s relationships and most definitely shouldn’t be solemnising their “love”. The Jensen’s may be a nutty, religious couple but they are correct when they say that the government shouldn’t be changing or redefining marriage, mainly because they shouldn’t be involved at all. It exemplifies the stupidity of state involvement in treating certain relationships and love as special or different from others.

The government should stick to the legal issues relating to relationships such as property or children and completely divorce itself from the rest.

We need a civil union bill where any couple can go to a government office, sign a contract and have their relationship recognised for legal matters. Then they can go off and have a ceremony, a party, pray to whatever sky fairy they wish or simply do nothing, it’s got nothing to do with the government. Then if you wanted to, you can call your own relationship a marriage, a partnership, a Jesus threesome, an evil allegiance or whatever.

The amount of invective these people have been given for simply living their lives the way they want to is a joke.

justin heywood3:38 pm 11 Jun 15

John Moulis said :

This publicity stunt by the Australian Christian Lobby is up there (or down there) with their “homosexuality is worse than smoking” nonsense of a couple of years back.

I was thinking more of a publicity stunt by the CityNews rather than the Christian Lobby.

I think most media media normally ignore the nuttier fringe, but CityNews sure hit the publicity jackpot by giving these two some space. It’s all over the web.

This publicity stunt by the Australian Christian Lobby is up there (or down there) with their “homosexuality is worse than smoking” nonsense of a couple of years back.

justin heywood3:08 pm 11 Jun 15

Holden Caulfield said :

….It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

Correct.

Cynical media finds a nutbag, gives him oxygen.

The righteous go into meltdown.

Wil Anderson ?@Wil_Anderson · 6h6 hours ago
If marriage equality means gay people can get married and bigoted people get divorced, I consider that a win-win for marriage…

win

Holden Caulfield2:40 pm 11 Jun 15

I assume they already know they won’t meet the requirements for a divorce, which aside from nothing else, would surely go against their Christian beliefs.

And then there’s the fact that state-sanctioned marriages have been possible for years (ie. without any association to any religion), which appears to be his biggest beef with gay marriage.

It’s a publicity stunt, nothing more.

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.