Support NeoGAF

[Jintor]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty...eople-are-chee?utm_term=.in00e6BN0#.bfNRJPBxR

The announcement was months in the making, and boy, was it organised.
On Tuesday morning, a bunch of “rainbow families” – same-sex parents and their kids – file out of an anteroom off the Labor caucus room in Parliament House, and assemble for photographs. Most had flown to Canberra the night before.

Journalists are told to vacate the seats directly in front of a waiting podium. “They’re for the families,” a staffer says. There’s a bit of groaning about the pointlessness of it all. Everyone knows what’s coming.

Then Labor heavyweights roll in the door. Leader Bill Shorten, deputy Tanya Plibersek, senate leader Penny Wong, and shadow attorney general Mark Dreyfus make a beeline for the kids, and the room is filled with the sound of camera shutters.

Long-time marriage equality advocate Rodney Croome is standing quietly in the corner, watching the hubbub. I walk over, and he flashes me a goofy smile and a double thumbs up, before rapidly returning to his usual calm demeanour. He is elated. “I don’t usually show much emotion,” he quips.

Shorten is there to announce what everyone already knows: Labor will vote against the government’s proposed plebiscite on same-sex marriage. He reels off the list of objectionable qualities everyone has been hearing for months: the vote will be costly, non-binding, and – most of all – harmful, to LGBTI people and to their kids.

He’s asked if Labor will have failed if blocking the plebiscite doesn’t bring on a free vote. Couldn’t this mean a several-year delay?

“No, the plebiscite is a bad idea, and us stopping a bad idea is a good thing,” Shorten says.

“We don’t understand why the government is so keen to stop there being a vote in parliament and a free vote on marriage equality. We’ll keep pressing the case. I hope it doesn’t take as long as your question said.”

After the presser, I see Shelley Argent – the proudest of proud mums, as the face of PFLAG in Australia – collapsed in a chair, wiping away tears. She’s got a black boot brace on her leg and I’m temporarily alarmed. Has she injured herself?

But then I realise I’ve read it wrong. The plebiscite is gone, and Argent is crying tears of relief.

To try and cliffnotes a bit for our international friends:

1) Current ruling party, the Liberal-National coalition (Australian Liberals are the conservative party, don't ask), are currently headed by the moderate Malcolm Turnbull.

2) One of Turnbull's election promises was something for the LGBT community, but he can't go out-and-out in support because the Right Wing of his own party will revolt against him. Thus his compromise offer: a National Plebiscite - a nation-wide, federally-funded opinion poll with no force of law.

3) Libs don't have the numbers to force anything through parliament without the crossbench (independent senators), and enough crossbenchers indicated they were anti-plebiscite that so long as the major opposition party joined ranks and opposed, the plebiscite was dead in the water. They have done so.

4) Major reasons against the plebiscite were varied, but the top few were probably that a) federal funding had to go to both "Yes gay marriage" and "No gay marriage" campaigns, and churches etc were free to spend as much money as they liked and weren't held to truth in advertising standards, b) It was probably going to give bigots a wonderful licence to spout off their garbage as if it was worth anything and c) even if it went through the Libs weren't going to be bound by its results anyway so what was the fucking point?


End result is Australia probably won't get gay marriage until the next government at the earliest. Despite this though, LGBTI community is pretty happy. Read the article for more information, cheers.

 

[Dryk]

The community should settle for nothing less. Fuck the LNP.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

:')

 

[Peru]

It's pretty incredible to me that Australia hasn't voted through a yes for gay marriage yet.

 

[Stop It]

I'm really confused.

Surely a vote like what happened in Ireland is a good idea? If a Catholic nation voted in support of Gay marriage, surely you Aussies will too, forcing government legislation via moral impetus, even if it wouldn't be legally binding.

This just puts the law change back rather than forward and while I understand this tactic, I really can't agree with it.

The sooner the issue is settled and into statute the better. Using a referendum may not be the easiest solution but it would be the cleanest. Instead it'll become rolled into the usual campaign politics in the next election and the cause may be drowned out.

 

[Mohonky]

It's pretty incredible to me that Australia hasn't voted through a yes for gay marriage yet.

We're kind of weird that way. Progressive in some areas, backward in others.

 

[Zoggy]

Haha even America beat you to it.

Take that you dingoes

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

It's weird to see the US ahead of the curve on (some) LGBT issues compared to other countries.

 

[Jintor]

I'm really confused.

Surely a vote like what happened in Ireland is a good idea? If a Catholic nation voted in support of Gay marriage, surely you Aussies will too, forcing government legislation via moral impetus, even if it wouldn't be legally binding.

This just puts the law change back rather than forward and while I understand this tactic, I really can't agree with it.

The sooner the issue is settled and into statute the better. Using a referendum may not be the easiest solution but it would be the cleanest. Instead it'll become rolled into the usual campaign politics in the next election and the cause may be drowned out.

Australia has been polling at Gay Marriage support at roughly 60-70% levels for a year or two now, but it hasn't stopped the LNP or more accurately the right wing of the LNP blocking it through parliament anyway. Moral impetus just can't match the Great Game, it seems.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

that's a relief

 

[Dryk]

I'm really confused.

Surely a vote like what happened in Ireland is a good idea? If a Catholic nation voted in support of Gay marriage, surely you Sissies will too, forcing government legislation via moral impetus, even if it wouldn't be legally binding.

This just puts the law change back rather than forward and while I understand this tactic, I really can't agree with it.

The sooner the issue is settled and into statute the better. Using a referendum may not be the easiest solution but it would be the cleanest. Instead it'll become rolled into the usual campaign politics in the next election and the cause may be drowned out.

Our LGBT+ community is unanimous on this. They don't want to have to suffer through months of the ad campaigns and the general public openly discussing whether they should have civil rights. As a civil rights issue and it shouldn't be up for debate, and giving anti-SSM people a debate is dignifying their position with a response it does not deserve.

 

[RocknRola]

I was about to type "Welcome to the Family, Australia" until I finished reading the OP. Kinda disappointing.

Ah well.

Dark blue is where same-sex marriage is fully legal.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

I'm really confused.

Surely a vote like what happened in Ireland is a good idea? If a Catholic nation voted in support of Gay marriage, surely you Aussies will too, forcing government legislation via moral impetus, even if it wouldn't be legally binding.

This just puts the law change back rather than forward and while I understand this tactic, I really can't agree with it.

The sooner the issue is settled and into statute the better. Using a referendum may not be the easiest solution but it would be the cleanest. Instead it'll become rolled into the usual campaign politics in the next election and the cause may be drowned out.

while the day the results of the marriage referendum was amazing, I would not want to make any one other person suffer through that process ever again.

 

[turmoil]

What a clusterfuck. At the beginning, it looked like a bizarre case of stockholm syndrome, but looking carefully it makes complete sense to not let yourself being played for those arseholes.

 

[Audioboxer]

I was about to type "Welcome to the Family, Australia" until I finished reading the OP. Kinda disappointing.

Ah well.

Dark blue is where same-sex marriage is fully legal.

Eeek.

Basically where Catholicism/Christianity has a grip over the poor (Africa) and where Islam is the dominant religion/state religion (most of the middle East).

Then Russia.

 

[gofreak]

I'm really confused.

Surely a vote like what happened in Ireland is a good idea? If a Catholic nation voted in support of Gay marriage, surely you Aussies will too, forcing government legislation via moral impetus, even if it wouldn't be legally binding.

This just puts the law change back rather than forward and while I understand this tactic, I really can't agree with it.

The sooner the issue is settled and into statute the better. Using a referendum may not be the easiest solution but it would be the cleanest. Instead it'll become rolled into the usual campaign politics in the next election and the cause may be drowned out.

While in the end things worked out for the best here in Ireland, I'm really conflicted when I think back on it. The campaign itself was very stressful. It elevates and amplifies what may be marginal voices in the name of 'balance'. That constant media 'balancing' can skew your perception of what others are thinking and be very disheartening. You have to deal with the anger of lies being peddled from posters everywhere you look. Homophobic incidences do rise when even a small minority of assholes feel they have license, that your life is up for public debate now. And I don't know if in principle things like this should hang in the balance of public whim.

On the flipside, the unequivocal public backing led to all kinds of nice side effects. You can have no complaint about the government forcing anything. In the Irish case specifically a public vote enshrines it constitutionally and not just legislatively. It felt like a peoples' movement, it felt like an affirmation of gay people's dignity coming straight from the people, that I think as allowed a much freer comfort for gay people. Seeing gay couples walking around holding hands in Dublin is common now where it was exceptionally rare before. So that kind of collective cathartic event can be very helpful to the broader culture beyond the legal rubberstamping.

But damn if it wasn't a rough battle up to that point.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

It's pretty incredible to me that Australia hasn't voted through a yes for gay marriage yet.

We haven't exactly had the chance. It been in the Governments hands the whole time and they have been to scarred to do anything with it. The people would have more than likely passed it a while ago now as there seems to be more people for it than against at least in my experience.

I think that if it went to a vote it would have passed, which is why I'm a bit surprised really. The Government pretty much said "hey we don't want to be seen supporting this even though most of us support it..... But we don't want to lose you're vote if you're a trash human or follow some cult, so were gonna palm it off to you and see what happens."

I can understand their joy though, it will pass now and there's some accountability passed back onto the Government.

I do think it would have passed though.

Haha even America beat you to it.

Take that you dingoes

Hows that gun control going.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

While in the end things worked out for the best here in Ireland, I'm really conflicted when I think back on it. The campaign itself was very stressful. And I don't know if in principle things like this should hang in the balance of public whim.

On the flipside, the unequivocal public backing led to all kinds of nice side effects. You can have no complaint about the government forcing anything. It felt like a peoples' movement, it felt like an affirmation of gay people's dignity coming straight from the people, that I think as allowed a much freer comfort for gay people. Seeing gay couples walking around holding hands in Dublin is common now where it was exceptionally rare before. So that kind of collective cathartic event can be very helpful to the broader culture beyond the legal rubberstamping.

But damn if it wasn't a rough battle up to that point.

yep it was an amazing life changing experience here, but before it happened it was depressing and stressful. I wouldn't even want to begin thinking of what would have happened had the result been different.

 

[Kthulhu]

Does Australia have an equivalent to the US Supreme Court? You guys should just do what the US did if that's the case.

 

[Maledict]

I love the way Australia has these words for politics that no-where else uses, and am fascinated by how that's come to be. The other Anglo-sphere countries haven't developed in the same way, so how on earth did 'spill' and 'plebiscite' become part of the naitional political language?

 

[RocknRola]

Eeek.

Basically where Catholicism/Christianity has a grip over the poor (Africa) and where Islam is the dominant religion/state religion (most of the middle East).

Then Russia.

I'm still somewhat surprised that Portugal somehow managed to get that done in 2007. Like, we're very much a Catholic country though mostly non-practicing (perhaps this was the bit that made the difference) and that was done with little fuss. We even managed to the same-sex adoption issues fixed just last year (so now, every family of any type can adopt a child if need be).

This goes quite contrary to our own belief that we're very much backwards compared to central/north Europe.

 

[Maledict]

Eeek.

Basically where Catholicism/Christianity has a grip over the poor (Africa) and where Islam is the dominant religion/state religion (most of the middle East).

Then Russia.

Russia is very firmly in the grip of Christianity. Don't forget the Orthodox branch of Christianity, which is a state tool in Russia and extremely homophobic.

 

[spekkeh]

Eeek.

Basically where Catholicism/Christianity has a grip over the poor (Africa) and where Islam is the dominant religion/state religion (most of the middle East).

Then Russia.

Catholicism has a grip over Asia?

It's basically just the West.

 

[Peru]

Eeek.

Basically where Catholicism/Christianity has a grip over the poor (Africa) and where Islam is the dominant religion/state religion (most of the middle East).

Then Russia.

+ Asia

Although in the case of South Korea you have the Confucian emphasis on family values + strong christian lobby groups for a potent mix of conservative throttling of lgbt laws.

 

[Stop It]

Our LGBT+ community is unanimous on this. They don't want to have to suffer through months of the ad campaigns and the general public openly discussing whether they should have civil rights. As a civil rights issue and it shouldn't be up for debate, and giving anti-SSM people a debate is dignifying their position with a response it does not deserve.

I'm really torn on this. While I would rather anyone suffer any abuse because of the voting campaigns, bringing bigoted views to light and smashing them publicly has a lot of value to it. These bigots need to be challenged openly and to be shown up properly.

In the end, the Irish vote while stressful for everyone put the boot in for the antis and frankly has put them on the wrong side of history. Sometimes progress is painful. Not having a vote doesn't preclude a public debate anyway. I'm the UK we just put it through parliament and had months of whining from the antis about it "not being in the Tory manifesto, blah blah" and dragged the LGBT community through the mud anyway.

If there was a vote and the government didn't act on it then they should be thrown out for ignoring a democratic mandate. This just throws the issues into the long grass and I can't support that. I still support a vote, because you can't ignore the clear will of the people.

 

[Maledict]

I'm still somewhat surprised that Portugal somehow managed to get that done in 2007. Like, we're very much a Catholic country though mostly non-practicing (perhaps this was the bit that made the difference) and that was done with little fuss. We even managed to the same-sex adoption issues fixed just last year (so now, every family of any type can adopt a child if need be).

This goes quite contrary to our own belief that we're very much backwards compared to central/north Europe.

I'd say the same about South America. Not saying Portugal is like South America, or visa versa, but that both are on paper very catholic countries that actually got this passed fairly easily and in some cases a while ago. Catholicism is a strange religion, and despite how it's structured and it's teachings it does seem like almost everyone picks and chooses bits of it they prefer (see also contraception).

 

[Kthulhu]

I love the way Australia has these words for politics that no-where else uses, and am fascinated by how that's come to be. The other Anglo-sphere countries haven't developed in the same way, so how on earth did 'spill' and 'plebiscite' become part of the naitional political language?

What's a "spill"?

 

[Maledict]

What's a "spill"?

A leadership challenge.

 

[RocknRola]

For those curious this is the map of fully legal same-sex adoption in the world:

Dark pink is fully legal.
Light pink (one or two countries) is second parent adoption.

 

[Stop It]

While in the end things worked out for the best here in Ireland, I'm really conflicted when I think back on it. The campaign itself was very stressful. It elevates and amplifies what may be marginal voices in the name of 'balance'. That constant media 'balancing' can skew your perception of what others are thinking and be very disheartening. You have to deal with the anger of lies being peddled from posters everywhere you look. Homophobic incidences do rise when even a small minority of assholes feel they have license, that your life is up for public debate now. And I don't know if in principle things like this should hang in the balance of public whim.

On the flipside, the unequivocal public backing led to all kinds of nice side effects. You can have no complaint about the government forcing anything. In the Irish case specifically a public vote enshrines it constitutionally and not just legislatively. It felt like a peoples' movement, it felt like an affirmation of gay people's dignity coming straight from the people, that I think as allowed a much freer comfort for gay people. Seeing gay couples walking around holding hands in Dublin is common now where it was exceptionally rare before. So that kind of collective cathartic event can be very helpful to the broader culture beyond the legal rubberstamping.

But damn if it wasn't a rough battle up to that point.

I know, neither way is perfect. I trust the electorate to send a message though and a referendum clearly achieves this. Instead it can get lost in the mire and with the right taking hold in Australia like the UK it may be seen as an issue not worth the hassle of putting into a manifesto which would be a travesty.

 

[Tanis]

I'm really confused.

Surely a vote like what happened in Ireland is a good idea? If a Catholic nation voted in support of Gay marriage, surely you Aussies will too, forcing government legislation via moral impetus, even if it wouldn't be legally binding.

This just puts the law change back rather than forward and while I understand this tactic, I really can't agree with it.

The sooner the issue is settled and into statute the better. Using a referendum may not be the easiest solution but it would be the cleanest. Instead it'll become rolled into the usual campaign politics in the next election and the cause may be drowned out.

The key difference is that a vote was required in Ireland. Marriage was defined as between male and female in their constitution and the only mechanism to change that was referendum (a nationwide vote).

No such thing is required in Australia. The legislation that defines marriage was only between male and females was enacted in the 2000s without any popular vote. It can be reversed thought regular legislation by the government.

Our country has gone through generations of change in regards to our rights without needing to resort to a plebiscite. It's viewed in the same light as whether we should vote if women are equal to men, or if you should be able to refuse service to someone based on the colour of their skin. There is no need for a plebiscite on those matters and there is no need for a plebiscite on same sex marriage. The populace has repeatedly shown through polls that we want it and it's time for the government to just do it.

 

[Audioboxer]

Russia is very firmly in the grip of Christianity. Don't forget the Orthodox branch of Christianity, which is a state tool in Russia and extremely homophobic.

Catholicism has a grip over Asia?

It's basically just the West.

+ Asia

Although in the case of South Korea you have the Confucian emphasis on family values + strong christian lobby groups for a potent mix of conservative throttling of lgbt laws.

I'm still somewhat surprised that Portugal somehow managed to get that done in 2007. Like, we're very much a Catholic country though mostly non-practicing (perhaps this was the bit that made the difference) and that was done with little fuss. We even managed to the same-sex adoption issues fixed just last year (so now, every family of any type can adopt a child if need be).

This goes quite contrary to our own belief that we're very much backwards compared to central/north Europe.

All true.

The Catholicism remark was more about Africa because of how poor and lacking in education most unfortunately are. Catholicism/Christianity fills those gaps and you have some of the poorest and most vulnerable believing condoms are a sin, let alone same sex marriage which they probably kill/beat people for even displaying same sex relations. *Insert eat da poo poo meme* for a rather funny, but utterly depressing look at how badly educated and bigoted people in Africa are.

I mean there is bigoted places where we are fighting for equal rights where people aren't getting killed, and then there is places even to try and fight for equal rights might end up with you in jail/killed. Let alone the gay people, who most certainly are killed/jailed.

It's just a stark reminder when you see a picture of the world like that, rather than just arguing based on countries that are 'common knowledge' to be anti-homosexuality.

 

[Aytrial]

Edit: Pocket post!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Our LGBT+ community is unanimous on this. They don't want to have to suffer through months of the ad campaigns and the general public openly discussing whether they should have civil rights. As a civil rights issue and it shouldn't be up for debate, and giving anti-SSM people a debate is dignifying their position with a response it does not deserve.

I don't understand this stance. It is being debated already, publicly and frequently - the fact we're discussing a referendum at all means that people are debating the issue. Gay marriage would have overwhelmingly won and it would have been a huge public affirmation of the support for gay marriage in Australia. Is there something I'm missing here?

 

[Jintor]

Does Australia have an equivalent to the US Supreme Court? You guys should just do what the US did if that's the case.

Traditionally our Supreme Court is a lot less activist than the US Court. I personally count it as a good-ish thing - a partisan Supreme Court is all well and good in some cases, but in others you end up with Citizens United and so on. On the other hand you do get justices reluctantly having to uphold detention centres etc because the case wasn't argued in the right way, etc.

I do miss Kirby J though. The Great Dissenter.

I don't understand this stance. It is being debated already, publicly and frequently - the fact were discussing a referendum at all means that people are debating the issue. Gay marriage would have overwhelmingly won and it would have been a huge public affirmation of the support for gay marriage in Australia. Is there something I'm missing here?

I laid it out in the OP but it boils down to three things:

a) Public funding for bigotry
b) Even more widespread public forum for bigotry (considering the ACL's fucking press releases this is kind of astounding personally)
c) Even if passed it has no more legal force than what is already known (a majority of Australians support gay marriage)

 

[farmerboy]

I'm really torn on this. While I would rather anyone suffer any abuse because of the voting campaigns, bringing bigoted views to light and smashing them publicly has a lot of value to it. These bigots need to be challenged openly and to be shown up properly.

In the end, the Irish vote while stressful for everyone put the boot in for the antis and frankly has put them on the wrong side of history. Sometimes progress is painful. Not having a vote doesn't preclude a public debate anyway. I'm the UK we just put it through parliament and had months of whining from the antis about it "not being in the Tory manifesto, blah blah" and dragged the LGBT community through the mud anyway.

If there was a vote and the government didn't act on it then they should be thrown out for ignoring a democratic mandate. This just throws the issues into the long grass and I can't support that. I still support a vote, because you can't ignore the clear will of the people.

Totally agree with you. I am a conservative, no doubt.

But I was looking forward to having my chance to vote a resounding yes.

 

[jambo]

I love the way Australia has these words for politics that no-where else uses, and am fascinated by how that's come to be. The other Anglo-sphere countries haven't developed in the same way, so how on earth did 'spill' and 'plebiscite' become part of the naitional political language?

Other countries use plebiscite, like Ireland and Canada in recent times and Germany and Italy back in the 30s.

 

[Maledict]

I know, neither way is perfect. I trust the electorate to send a message though and a referendum clearly achieves this. Instead it can get lost in the mire and with the right taking hold in Australia like the UK it may be seen as an issue not worth the hassle of putting into a manifesto which would be a travesty.

Bearing in mind the circumstances in the UK were different to basically everywhere else that has passed same sex marriage - it was our right wing party that did it whilst in government, and the right wing leader of the party had been talking about it for years. It was seen as a way to detoxify the right wing brand. I think at some point the same thing will start to happen elsewhere to be honest, especially if the research around attitudes towards this continues o say the same thing.

(That for people 30 and below, opposition to same sex marriage is a litmus test issue - if you are against it, they won't vote for you no matter what. The right wing doesn't need LGBT voters, by it sure as hell needs SOME voters in that age bracket).

 

[Jintor]

I know, neither way is perfect. I trust the electorate to send a message though and a referendum clearly achieves this. Instead it can get lost in the mire and with the right taking hold in Australia like the UK it may be seen as an issue not worth the hassle of putting into a manifesto which would be a travesty.

It specifically wasn't a referendum. It was a plebiscite. I understand your overall point though.

 

[Maledict]

Other countries use plebiscite, like Ireland recently and Germany and Italy back in the 30s.

Ireland's was generally called referendum.

I know it's a proper word (unlike spill!), but everywhere else in modern times we now use referendum. Australia is the only country I know that still uses plebiscite (which is actually the correct usage of the word rather than referendum, as a plebiscite is Non-binding). The UKs Brexit vote should have been called a plebiscite for example, as it was also non-binding.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I love the way Australia has these words for politics that no-where else uses, and am fascinated by how that's come to be. The other Anglo-sphere countries haven't developed in the same way, so how on earth did 'spill' and 'plebiscite' become part of the naitional political language?

Plebiscite is used elsewhere?

 

[RocknRola]

I'd say the same about South America. Not saying Portugal is like South America, or visa versa, but that both are on paper very catholic countries that actually got this passed fairly easily and in some cases a while ago. Catholicism is a strange religion, and despite how it's structured and it's teachings it does seem like almost everyone picks and chooses bits of it they prefer (see also contraception).

Yeah, it's kinda weird. Still, glad all that is sorted out here, means people can live as they want and not have to worry about having their rights cut off. And it's the sort of that thing that, as more and more time passes the more normal it becomes, allowing them to suffer less (and hopefully at some point, none at all) discrimination.

Let's just hope the World keeps up.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ireland's was generally called referendum.

I know it's a proper word (unlike spill!), but everywhere else in modern times we now use referendum. Australia is the only country I know that still uses plebiscite (which is actually the correct usage of the word rather than referendum, as a plebiscite is Non-binding). The UKs Brexit vote should have been called a plebiscite for example, as it was also non-binding.

I don't think that actually is the difference. Australia uses referendum if the result would change constitutional law and plebiscite otherwise. In some countries they're synonymous. I think it's just a case of mild cultural divergence - a we say jam, they say jelly kind of thing.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Just make it legal already. Shit.

 

[Audioboxer]

I'd say the same about South America. Not saying Portugal is like South America, or visa versa, but that both are on paper very catholic countries that actually got this passed fairly easily and in some cases a while ago. Catholicism is a strange religion, and despite how it's structured and it's teachings it does seem like almost everyone picks and chooses bits of it they prefer (see also contraception).

The more liberal country you tend to go to the more the religion needs to do brain gymnastics to be relevant. If Catholicism didn't begrudgingly "accept" same sex marriage in some countries it would bleed followers, especially of the younger generations which religions are trying so hard to capture (once old people die off who else is left?). Let us not forget the whole point of most mainstream religions are to spread themselves like a virus, and try and be more popular than the other "wrong" religions. Most still do this "by the sword" in some parts of the world. Heck even killing gays is meant to be a costly reminder that if you don't follow the hardline interpretation of the religion you will die.

You see the proof for this when you look at places like Africa, where the Catholic missionaries and aid go over and teach some of the hardest, backwards and most vicious interpretations of the religion. Why? Because they can and people march in line. A large part of that due to being so poor and under-educated. It's literally if you ask me abusing some of the most vulnerable, but hey, that's what Catholicism is good at doing. Islam does this as well, reigning over under-educated and poor people in the middle east with some of the most barbaric and disgusting interpretations of the Koran.

The only chance the world has to colour in more of that map is education and empowering those in poverty, especially women. It probably won't happen in our life times though, I expect potentially hundreds of years for humanity to auto-correct itself largely away from ridiculously stupid, discriminatory and bigoted ways of thinking. Sadly much more blood is going to be spilled before then as well. What can we do while alive? Begin by calling a spade a spade. The regressive tactics to virtue signal to religions out of fear actually stifles progression. Just because you/we live in more liberal countries doesn't mean humanities work is "done" for us.

 

[seanoff]

those of you from elsewhere.

be aware
1) a pretty large majority of the country are all for gay marraige.

2) almost the same number of people want the parliament to vote on it without wasting millions of dollars to have a vote to tell the parliament what is already evident.

3) a conscience vote in the parliament would pass

 

[Deleted member 18827]

Labor could've passed gay marriage nearly a decade ago when they were still riding the Rudd wave and the GFC was a distraction. Instead they made poor Penny Wong tow the party line and come out against it.

Dont get your wires crossed, Labor have only nuked this because they want the credit and goodwill when it does, eventually, become law. But then, if libs worried less about bigoted parts of their supporter base they wouldn't have given Labor such and easy win on this front.

Pretty much, both sides have used this as a political football and its really gross for a first world country in 2016.

 

[bomma_man]

Haha even America beat you to it.

Take that you dingoes

It's weird to see the US ahead of the curve on (some) LGBT issues compared to other countries.

There is nothing in the constitution that would've let this proceed through the courts rather than parliament. Further, the Feds cover the field in respect of marriage; thus the states can't legalise it themselves. If the only way to get gay marriage was through the federal US congress then there is no way in hell that the US would have it now, or probably for at least another decade.

Having said that, our centre left party should've got it through last time they were in power, or Turnbull should act on his principles for once, so I'm not trying to make excuses.

 

[nephilimdj]

Not sure why the eastern states have so many people who love liberals and nationals (and nutters like pauline), less then 1/3 in some areas are for gay marriage.. its insane

 

[Grug]

The LNP are pathetic.

Labor did the right thing to shield LGBTI people from the insidiousness of a plebiscite campaign.

We elect these people to lead... fucking lead Malcolm. Australia wants marriage equality.