Same Sex Marriage Plebiscite

[IQS.RLOW]

I guess my main concern is that we are going to spend $160 million on a plebiscite that is non binding anyway. What if the people say Yes, and elements of the Coalition/Labor/etc say NO - or vice versa.

Let it be held in Parliament where the decision is binding either way. $160 million would buy a lot of healthcare, pensions and roads and rail

Oh dear, if it isn't the shallow and brainwashed speaking out.

All of us need to have a say in this... this is a major change to our society and millenia of tradition. You don't let 150 political morons change your society, just as we shouldn't be changing marriage and what it means for a minority of a minority.

The pleb will allow once and for all the Australian people to have a say on this issue... wassup? don't like democracy? Convert to Islam then.

A plebiscite is a non binding arrangement that may not allow the wishes of the people to be heard. Some members of the coalition have already publicly stated they will not support a yes vote. So 160 million may be wasted because politicians may use their personal beliefs to over ride a public majority vote. But you knew that, didn't you?

Again, straight from the leftard handbook on obfuscation, avoiding democracy and trying to stack outcomes.

[Lord Sir BigVic VSD and Bar]

I guess my main concern is that we are going to spend $160 million on a plebiscite that is non binding anyway. What if the people say Yes, and elements of the Coalition/Labor/etc say NO - or vice versa.

Let it be held in Parliament where the decision is binding either way. $160 million would buy a lot of healthcare, pensions and roads and rail

Oh dear, if it isn't the shallow and brainwashed speaking out.

All of us need to have a say in this... this is a major change to our society and millenia of tradition. You don't let 150 political morons change your society, just as we shouldn't be changing marriage and what it means for a minority of a minority.

The pleb will allow once and for all the Australian people to have a say on this issue... wassup? don't like democracy? Convert to Islam then.

A plebiscite is a non binding arrangement that may not allow the wishes of the people to be heard. Some members of the coalition have already publicly stated they will not support a yes vote. So 160 million may be wasted because politicians may use their personal beliefs to over ride a public majority vote. But you knew that, didn't you?

Again, straight from the leftard handbook on obfuscation, avoiding democracy and trying to stack outcomes.

Tell me where it is wrong

[IQS.RLOW]

I guess my main concern is that we are going to spend $160 million on a plebiscite that is non binding anyway. What if the people say Yes, and elements of the Coalition/Labor/etc say NO - or vice versa.

Let it be held in Parliament where the decision is binding either way. $160 million would buy a lot of healthcare, pensions and roads and rail

Oh dear, if it isn't the shallow and brainwashed speaking out.

All of us need to have a say in this... this is a major change to our society and millenia of tradition. You don't let 150 political morons change your society, just as we shouldn't be changing marriage and what it means for a minority of a minority.

The pleb will allow once and for all the Australian people to have a say on this issue... wassup? don't like democracy? Convert to Islam then.

A plebiscite is a non binding arrangement that may not allow the wishes of the people to be heard. Some members of the coalition have already publicly stated they will not support a yes vote. So 160 million may be wasted because politicians may use their personal beliefs to over ride a public majority vote. But you knew that, didn't you?

Again, straight from the leftard handbook on obfuscation, avoiding democracy and trying to stack outcomes.

Tell me where it is wrong

Any MP should be bound by the constituents he represents, not the party line.
This is probably a foreign concept for you because you are an ALP apparatchik and like your members goose stepping in unison.

It's the reason why Libs and Nats can cross the floor and do so. To restrict this would make them as bad as the ALP.

[Rorschach]

I guess my main concern is that we are going to spend $160 million on a plebiscite that is non binding anyway. What if the people say Yes, and elements of the Coalition/Labor/etc say NO - or vice versa.

Let it be held in Parliament where the decision is binding either way. $160 million would buy a lot of healthcare, pensions and roads and rail

Oh dear, if it isn't the shallow and brainwashed speaking out.

All of us need to have a say in this... this is a major change to our society and millenia of tradition. You don't let 150 political morons change your society, just as we shouldn't be changing marriage and what it means for a minority of a minority.

The pleb will allow once and for all the Australian people to have a say on this issue... wassup? don't like democracy? Convert to Islam then.

A plebiscite is a non binding arrangement that may not allow the wishes of the people to be heard.

Rubbish how do you think they will stop the result of a plebiscite being known???????????

Some members of the coalition have already publicly stated they will not support a yes vote.

How many? 4? 5? 6?

Gee that will really affect any vote wont it?

So 160 million may be wasted because politicians may use their personal beliefs to over ride a public majority vote. But you knew that, didn't you?

I know that the reason the LW Prog morons are worried is because they know they've been lying about the public support and are afraid that the result will be NO.
I know the small number of pollies that say they will vote against a change are not enough to stop the change if that is what the people vote for in the plebiscite. I know that anyone stupid enough to vote against the will of the people will be noted and even if it was possible for them to avert the will of the people they would be more than likely voted out at the next election.
Funny how disingenuous you are being about all of that.

[Black Orchid]

I don't trust my Member to voice my opinion on what he thinks his electorate wants. After all, he hasn't asked me or any of us actually.

[Rorschach]

Vic doesn't believe Australians should have a right to vote on the future of their society BO.

Nor do the GREENS apparently.

Greens to vote against same-sex marriage plebiscite
Michael Koziol, Tom McIlroy

The Greens have committed to voting down the Turnbull government's planned plebiscite on same-sex marriage, putting the onus on Labor to decide whether it will block the bill in the Senate.

The minor party said human rights should not be subjected to a popular vote and warned that the lives of young people were at stake in a divisive plebiscite campaign that threatened to incite homophobia and hatred.

Labor remains opposed to plebiscite

A vote in parliament, not a plebiscite, is the best way to legalise same-sex marriage, says Bill Shorten. Courtesy ABC News 24.

"A plebiscite will be harmful, it'll be divisive it'll be expensive, and we should never put questions of human rights to an opinion poll," Greens leader Richard Di Natale said.

"Young people are at risk. We will most likely see young people take their lives if this plebiscite goes ahead and the hate that will come [if] that is unleashed."

Announced on Friday, the Greens' decision will heap pressure on Labor to follow suit and form a blocking majority to stop the plebiscite going ahead, if they can gain the support of the three Nick Xenophon Team senators, or three other crossbenchers.

Labor has this week notched up its rhetoric against the plebiscite, with Opposition Leader Bill Shorten calling it "ridiculous" and giving his strongest indication yet that Labor will also seek to block the enabling legislation.

"The marriage plebiscite is something which I've been on the record as opposing and a lot of my colleagues have," he said. "Why on earth do the rest of us have to sign up to some deal Malcolm Turnbull did to keep the leadership of the Liberal Party?"

Those comments followed a meeting of senior Labor figures. Fairfax Media understands that while no decision has been made, the view within that group is hardening in favour of voting down any plebiscite.
The Greens will attempt to block the same-sex marriage plebiscite in the Senate.

A total of 38 votes are required to block legislation in the Senate, meaning the plebiscite can be stopped by a combination of Labor (26 senators), the Greens (9) and the NXT (3).

Senator Hinch has said he will not vote for the plebiscite, and Senator Xenophon gave a very strong indication his trio would do the same. "Right now it's a no," he told ABC radio this week.

The moves raise the very real prospect of no action being taken on marriage equality in this term of Parliament, with the Turnbull government resolute that it is the plebiscite or nothing.

Liberal MP Warren Entsch, a veteran advocate for same-sex marriage in the Coalition, told Fairfax Media: "If this gets blocked, as far as I'm concerned the issue is dead until the next election."

Australian Marriage Equality chairman Alex Greenwich said that no single party had the numbers to achieve either marriage equality or a plebiscite, and called for a cross-party approach.

"Australians have had to wait far too long for this simple reform and should not have to wait any longer," he said.

Coalition frontbencher Christopher Pyne accused Labor of "quite dishonestly holding up false hope to people" because it could not guarantee a vote on same-sex marriage if the plebiscite were blocked.

Labor and the Greens have flagged intentions to introduce bills for same-sex marriage shortly after Parliament resumes in late August, although neither has a realistic chance of passing before the Coalition attempts to legislate for the plebiscite.

That is despite recent analysis showing that a majority of MPs in both chambers now support same-sex marriage and could enact the law without the $160 million plebiscite.

"We want to see that free vote brought on as soon as possible," Greens LGBTI spokeswoman Janet Rice said on Friday. "The numbers are there. We could have wedding bells in spring."

LGBTI community advocacy group Just Equal called on Labor and the crossbench to follow the Greens' lead.

"A key concern of LGBTI Australians is that a plebiscite will be a platform for hate and that it will not actually lead directly to marriage equality," spokesman Ivan Hinton-Teoh said. "We would be over the moon if the Coalition government allowed a free vote and marriage equality was achieved under its watch."

So as we all know and as Shorten, Di Natale and the rest have stated, they want to bring this on via a MINORITY vote of just 150 politicians when all Australians should have a vote on the future of their society.

[Black Orchid]

“A plebiscite will be harmful, it’ll be divisive, it’ll be expensive and we should never put questions of human rights to an opinion poll".

I don't see it as a human rights issue.

“We know that if a plebiscite is to go ahead that young people are at risk. We’ve heard loudly and clearly from people within the LGBTIQ community, from parents, from people within the health sphere, from the Australian Psychological Society – all of whom have said to us a plebiscite has the potential to harm young people and that we will most likely see young people take their lives if this plebiscite goes ahead and the hate that will come with that is unleashed."

Di Natale is a complete moron. Why is he claiming that we will see mass suicides if we have a plebiscite? The more I hear this man speak the more I feel that we should be demanding to have our say. Trying to lay down guilt trips just won't work.

I will be ok with whatever the result is and the government should be made to abide by it. At least we will have had our say.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016 ... plebiscite

[Rorschach]

As the UN defines human rights the right to marry is one of them.

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

This is what the LGBTIQ people now misconstrue to say they have a right.
They don't.... it says men and women. The original intent is clear.
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

[Rio]

Given that the Greens are opposed to this plebiscite and that the numbers are not there on the cross benches to see the legislation through even the Lower House, how will Turnbull be able to proceed?

[IQS.RLOW]

Given that the Greens are opposed to this plebiscite and that the numbers are not there on the cross benches to see the legislation through even the Lower House, how will Turnbull be able to proceed?

He has no choice but the dump it and blame the greens for blocking democracy and being against gay marriage.