Same sex marriage

Strange way of thinking.

 

Heard an interesting explanation about why the government voted not to try and run same sex marriage legislation through parliament

Apparently if a bill passes thru parliament and fails (due to not getting enough parliamentarian votes in both houses) then the government cannot pass same sex marriage as law ... however ... if put to referendum, and gets enough votes from the public, then the government of the day has no choice but pass it into law.

Apparently the current government has sounded out the politicians of both houses and do not believe the old fogey conservatives, and obstacle-itions, would allow such a bill to pass.

Sadly the government didn't sell this explanation well enough for the common people to understand ... like they do with so many of their other decisions that might appear unfavorable on the surface, but were made for a specific beneficial reason.

 

That doesn't sound right. Plenty of bills fail only to be reintroduced later and ultimately passed. The Rudd government introduced a Carbon tax bill which failed, but was later passed under the Gillard government.

The legal definition of marriage isn't really a constitutional matter which is what a referendum entails, it's more a matter of law, which is outlined in parliament and tested in the courts.

A referendum is required to change the constitution and needs a two thirds majority to pass. It also entails a very specific set of wording that will be interpreted by the courts for essentially forever. A referendum is more likely to get significant opposition due to the constitutional implications and the specific working it entails, people are conservative on issues at this level. It's not something that's changed lightly and hence very few referendums succeed. It then gives the opposers a platform to continue to oppose legislation changes.

Even if a referendum does succeed, it then requires legal implementation through the courts, or via the parliament. Better to avoid the constitution altogether.

 

You think polygamy in Australia should be legalised?

 

This is incorrect. A referendum is passed if it is approved by a majority of voters across the nation and a majority of voters in a majority of states - the "double majority".

Also, there are two types of referendum in Australia; a constitutional referendum, which you have described, and an advisory referendum (plebiscite) which the PM has discussed on this topic.

 

Again, that's a strange way of thinking to come to that conclusion.

 

Gay marriage has no place down under IMO....

 

Which is not binding on the parliament. A plebiscite is a giant survey.

 

Limit it to above the waist?

 

Cool. Don't get married to someone of the same sex.

Problem solved.

 

I prefer it stay as is! NO! Disgusting.

 

Easy fix. Don't get married to someone of the same sex.

Their relationship and it's legal standing has zero impact on your life.

 

This is why I'm against gay marriage:

 

I simply asked a question. I haven't come to any conclusions.

 

Yep, that's the intention of it. Especially in this case where no constitutional change is required.

 

Q

Thanks for sharing, you have truly added something of value to the discussion.

 

IMO, SSM is a red herring in so many ways.

The gays are already 'married' as in living it, or not, if their individual arrangement allows it. The only legality it wants from the wider society with SSM is to make others join them, as they already have freedom to do what they want. However, it is crucial to get wider societal support and legality in law to demand governments to provide mainstream program funding, ie public funding to support their day to day living. For example, if they cannot have their own children, legal legitimacy gives stronger reasons for governments to provide health funding for surrogacy and in-vitro expenses. With legal legitimacy will lead naturally to enforcement through propagation, promotion, 'education' in the 'enlightenment', counseling, tax concessions for activities, etc.

'Bullying' and pressuring of mainstream religions to 'convert' over to their way of thinking will gather more momentum, which labeling of opponents and critics as bigots is a precursor. One of the hidden agenda of SSM is the destruction of traditional marriage and enduring partnership.

I am hunkering down in my bunker from the raining missiles!

 

welcome sanjeev

 

I still can not understand that in this day and age we even have to have this kind of discussion.

What everyone does or does not do in their bedrooms is their business, not anyone else's and if someone wants to show their commitment to each other and say 'I do' on the front of their relatives and friends and be a couple in legal sense let's support that. We might not need or want to get married with anyone, but it is not always about us, let's give a chance to those that wants to do it.