Marriage Change not a decision for pollies to make

[Rorschach]

Same-sex marriage bill with cross-party support to go before Parliament
The Australian | July 01, 2015 6:05PM
Jared Owens

A cross-party band of MPs have jointly drafted a marriage equality bill that will specifically exempt “ministers” and “chaplains” of religion from being forced to conduct same-sex wedding ceremonies.

The bill, to be co-sponsored by Liberal MP Warren Entsch and Labor MP Terri Butler, is expected to be introduced into the House of Representatives as early as August 11.

Supporters of the bill expect its introduction will precipitate a debate among government MPs about granting a conscience vote to its members and senators, possibly on August 18.

It is understood the draft law is supported by a cross-party group of lower-house MPs including Mr Entsch, Ms Butler, Liberal Teresa Gambaro, Labor’s Laurie Ferguson, Greens MP Adam Bandt and independents Andrew Wilkie and Cathy McGowan.

Mr Wilkie said in a statement: “There is indeed a cross-party marriage equality Bill and I am one of the co-sponsors.

“I applaud Warren Entsch for coordinating the bill, and support his position that this matter should now be debated in parliament in a respectful and democratic way.”

The Australian understands the bill will repeal the 11-year-old legal definition of marriage as between “a man and a woman” and replace it with “two people”.

It will include an exemption for “ministers” and “chaplains” of religion, so they will not be required to conduct same-sex weddings, in an effort to rally as many right-of-centre MPs as possible.

It was unclear whether civil celebrants who philosophically object to same-sex marriage will also be exempt.

Ms Butler told The Australian: “The prospects of success depend on what Tony Abbott does. If Tony Abbott offers his party room a free vote, then it has good prospects. If he doesn’t, it doesn’t.”

Greens senator Janet Rice said she had been in “productive talks” with MPs across the political spectrum and it is “clear that support for marriage equality across the parliament is growing”.

“I’m more and more confident that with support growing, the bill will pass,” Senator Rice said.

Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome said the cross-party bill represents “the strongest opportunity we’ve ever had” of recognition for same-sex marriage.

“We aim to win majority support in parliament with grassroots mobilisation, rallies and advertising campaigns throughout July and across the nation,” he said.

“Because this bill will be signed by two Liberals it will have the best chance of achieving a Coalition free vote, and because it has cross-party support it has the best chance of passing.

“It is untenable for Coalition MPs to introduce legislation they can’t vote on.”

Bill Shorten, whose own draft marriage equality law will be supplanted by the cross-party bill, welcomed the news as a “sign of progress”.

“As I’ve consistently said, it’s the outcome that is important here, not whose name is on the bill,” the Opposition Leader said.

Ms McGowan, who campaigned on same-sex marriage at the 2013 election, said she discussed the issue with Mr Entsch before parliament rose for its winter break.

“The legal and institutional framework that governs Australia should treat all people equally, and when this bill is put to parliament I will be voting in favour,” she said.

Honestly what makes these mental giants think they have the right to change marriage and therefore society on a whim, without it being decided by the majority of society via a referendum/plebiscite?

[AiA in Atlanta]

Segregationists here in Georgia said the same thing in the 1950's Roach. And in the 1910's pollies said the same thing about Women's Suffrage.

[boxy]

Segregationists here in Georgia said the same thing in the 1950's Roach. And in the 1910's pollies said the same thing about Women's Suffrage.

At least the gays would get a vote, this time, I guess

[IQS.RLOW]

Equating gays with skin colour does a disservice to both factions...and its notably done by white non-gay leftists of course.

[boxy]

Found the gay black man

[IQS.RLOW]

Don't you know? I Chinese you stupid round eye.

You look for date somewhere else's.

[Rorschach]

Segregationists here in Georgia said the same thing in the 1950's Roach. And in the 1910's pollies said the same thing about Women's Suffrage.

Wassup frightened of freedom of choice and democracy.

[Rorschach]

Global western media reporting has a LW prog gay bias...

The fight for same-sex marriage in Australia is far from over
Date July 1, 2015 - 9:14PM
eric abetz

In a democracy social policy should be decided by the people, not by the judiciary, as has happened in the United States this week.

It is disappointingly predictable that the media in Australia is obsessed by a slim majority activist US Supreme Court decision. At the same time there have been no reports of an elected representative vote in another country of 110-26 against same-sex marriage.

While we have heard much about the US Supreme Court's extraordinary ruling that a right to marry someone of the same sex has – somehow – always been constitutional, there's been hardly any mention about last week's overwhelming vote against gay marriage in the Austrian legislature.

Most people in a democracy believe social policy should be determined by the people, not by dubious interpretation by an activist judiciary.

The US Supreme Court majority has set a dangerous precedent for the US by asserting that the American people have, since inception, somehow misunderstood their own constitution.

As dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia put it: "And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation."

Scalia's deep concern is sound.

Chief Justice John Roberts also put it succinctly: "But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening."

Roberts aptly said that the majority of judges "seizes for itself a question the Constitution leaves for the people, at a time when the people are engaged in a vibrant debate on that question".

He went on: "Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers."

Prior to Obergefell v Hodges, 31 US states had amended their constitutions to define marriage between a man and a woman. This came about through referendums.

Of the 31 states, 28 subsequently had their democratically determined amendments overturned by activist courts.

Such decisions should not be made by unelected judges, but by the people. Why should the people be completely sidelined by a ruling that has the power to drastically transform society?

Elsewhere around the globe, in Rome last week more than 300,000 people took to the San Giovanni square to express their opposition to a proposed civil union bill, which was being considered by the Italian senate. In February, Italy's Supreme Court of Cassation ruled same-sex marriage was not constitutional. But why didn't we see these events similarly reported?

Because it simply doesn't fit the media agenda.

The Italian mass movement demonstrations follow the huge public reaction by the French people against such a move in their country. This also went virtually unreported.

However, one prominent Australian news website rejoiced that tiny Pitcairn Island, with a population of 48, recently legalised gay marriage. The headline even screaming that Australia "sits on its hands".

It's regrettable that the media has lost its objectivity on this issue.

With the recent one-sided reporting of the Supreme Court ruling in the US, same-sex propaganda is hitting new heights.

But I would advise caution. The debate here isn't over.

The undeniable truth is that the nature of marriage is exclusionary by design. It has always existed for just one man and one woman.

Even the petitioners in the US case conceded they were not aware of any society that permitted same-sex marriage before 2001. Just 14 years ago.

So what we have here is a wrong-headed decision by a bare majority that an institution that is acknowledged to have existed in a union between one man and one woman for "millennia and across civilisations" (to use the Supreme Court majority's own words) is actually something quite different.

Study after study, time and time again, shows that children benefit from having a father and mother.

That is the foundation that marriage provides, and has provided for millennia.

The institution of marriage has stood the test of time.

For our children's sake it needs to continue to do so.

And that is why I have no hesitation in supporting the long-established Liberal Party policy to preserve and protect the institution of marriage, just as we did at the last election.

Eric Abetz is government leader in the Senate.

[Black Orchid]

This morning on the radio they were saying that the politicians need to listen to the people and support the Gay Marriage Bill. How can the 'people' be heard without a Referendum? They haven't asked for my opinion.

[Neferti]

The whole thing about Same Sex Marriage is ridiculous. Federal Family Law on marriage, etc. already considers people of either sexes or both sexes the same as couples who actually marry, i.e. get a Marriage certificate are EQUAL IN THE NAME OF THE LAW.

Do the gays and lesbians want a MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE that states that they are same sex couples?

Here is a (blank) Aussie Marriage Certificate.