Gay Marriage

[SirRumpole]

it is much easier for a small group to nail down the facts and make a decision than it is to try and get the entire population to sit down and make a rational decision.

No it isn't.

As I've pointed out before (repeatedly), the politicians have the problem of retaining their seat at the next election. If there are a lot of churchgoers in their electorate, which way do you think they are more likely to vote ? No pressure there right ?

The general voter does not have that problem.

 

[drsmith]

That childhood song comes to mind "One of these things is not like the other", lol

replace gay marriage in the list of those three things with, slavery or women's right to vote or or equal pay for women etc and you will see its not the same as the other two you listed.

the majority should not be able to vote to deny equal rights to a minority.

The distinction between the three things you list above and gay marriage is that of equality of economic and political participation and labelling of a union between two people.

 

[Value Collector]

If there are a lot of churchgoers in their electorate, which way do you think they are more likely to vote ? No pressure there right ?

.

Yes and this is the only reason the want a referendum, as I said its political cowardice, at the end of the day a good politician needs to be able to make the right decision even if its the unpopular one.

I actually think we would win a referendum, I am just pointing out that it shouldn't have to come to that, and if we lost it wouldn't mean a thing.

 

[Value Collector]

The distinction between the three things you list above and gay marriage is that of equality of economic and political participation and labelling of a union between two people.

discrimination comes in all types, not just economic and political, think of the blacks that were banned from sitting at the front of the bus, you could argue that they don't suffer an economic or political disadvantage, but the discrimination was real and needed to change.

 

[drsmith]

discrimination comes in all types, not just economic and political, think of the blacks that were banned from sitting at the front of the bus, you could argue that they don't suffer an economic or political disadvantage, but the discrimination was real and needed to change.

We're not talking here about where people can or cannot sit on a bus but if we want to take the discrimination argument to an irrational conclusion, it could be argued that providing seating for the disabled near the entries and exits of a bus is a form of discrimination against everybody else that uses the bus.

 

[awg]

I feel spending ~$150m on an out-of-cycle plebiscite is a waste of taxpayer (my) money

It seems to me the most likely, and pragmatic outcome, now that Mr Abbott is "out of the way"
and his religious right colleagues on the decline somewhat, would be for Turnbull
to allow an open vote in the party room, should he win the next election.

He is a politician after all, and if it proves the polls are in favor of gay marriage, why wouldnt he do that,
as he is a known supporter? ( I expect an early election)

That is what I would do anyway...watch him start hedging his bets for that option, he is sure to get wedged from all sides

Were he to do that, I have little doubt the measure would pass parliament.

 

[drsmith]

I feel spending ~$150m on an out-of-cycle plebiscite is a waste of taxpayer (my) money.

In QT last week, Bill Shorten questioned the plebiscite on the basis of responses from radical end of the political spectrum (specifically the radical right). Malcolm as part of his response suggested that Bill could have raised the question on the basis of cost.

The most practical option would be to have the plebiscite at the next election however that's politically difficult. Malcolm may do as you suggest but that politically will likely depend on the capital he has within his own party at that time.

As for an early election,

In the wide-ranging interview, Turnbull:

Said he was assuming the parliament would run full term. “I am certainly assuming the next election will be in September or October 2016.”

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...erview-if-something-isnt-working-chuck-it-out

 

[awg]

No it isn't.

As I've pointed out before (repeatedly), the politicians have the problem of retaining their seat at the next election. If there are a lot of churchgoers in their electorate, which way do you think they are more likely to vote ? No pressure there right ?

The general voter does not have that problem.

There could be concern for them, but if the majority of major parties are in favor, then the voter has no viable alternative, and so the concern is reduced...(pre-selection may be another issue)

After all, who are the conservative "Turnbull haters" in the Liberal Party going to vote for in the next election ?

An open vote allows each candidate to express (their constituents) views?..or NOT get elected

I suspect many Nationals, and Labor if they had a high Muslim vote, might also be nervous.

nevertheless, if polling indicates a substantial majority support, as a pollie, opposing would probably lose more than win.

I suspect that even among "churchgoers" there would be a substantial percentage, that would silently support

 

[SirRumpole]

There could be concern for them, but if the majority of major parties are in favor, then the voter has no viable alternative, and so the concern is reduced...(pre-selection may be another issue)

After all, who are the conservative "Turnbull haters" in the Liberal Party going to vote for in the next election ?

An open vote allows each candidate to express (their constituents) views?..or NOT get elected

I suspect many Nationals, and Labor if they had a high Muslim vote, might also be nervous.

nevertheless, if polling indicates a substantial majority support, as a pollie, opposing would probably lose more than win.

I suspect that even among "churchgoers" there would be a substantial percentage, that would silently support

Valid points, I suspect that since Turnbull has spoken out fairly vociferously in Parliament in favour of a plebiscite it might be hard for him to turn back now and say that the public should be denied a voice in the decision.


He doesn't really have a valid argument to put it off until after the election imo.

 

[Value Collector]

The wording in the marriage act which we seek to change, was only altered to its current form in 2004 by the howard government.

In 2004 John Howard added the "One man One Women" phrase, he did this without requiring a plebiscite.

So why would we need a plebiscite just to return the marriage act back to its original wording of "between two people"

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461875956.html

 

[poverty]

As a voter and taxpayer I think it would annoy me if the plebescite was tacked onto a federal election. Basically there wouldn't be a federal election as the gay marriage issue would dominate all aspects of debate. There are more important matters at hand such as urgently needed tax reform and budget repair.

 

[SirRumpole]

So why would we need a plebiscite just to return the marriage act back to its original wording of "between two people"

If those on both sides of the debate decided to accept the decision of Parliament, then we wouldn't need a plebiscite.

Change in favour of SSM has been knocked back on several occasions, but the gay lobby is going to pursue it until they get what they want.

Why don't they just accept the result of previous votes ?

 

[Value Collector]

Why don't they just accept the result of previous votes ?

Because banning same sex marriage is immoral.

And places like the ACT have already legalised gay marriage, but due to the Howard government redefining marriage without a plebiscite, it means the ACT laws are voided.

It doesn't require a plebiscite, the only reason for the plebiscite would be to allow politicians to be gutless and hide behind public opinion.

 

[Craton]

SSM along with Voluntary Euthanasia are not only political hot potatoes but are huge moral issues particularly on religious grounds.

The only issue I have is that our govt. officials don't have the guts to do what the public want without, as has been noted, hiding behind a vote by the people.

Public opinion caused the pollies to act quickly against the "bikies" and now the "ice" epidemic so why not act decisively on these two very public issues also?

Ah, for the votes of course! Silly me.

 

[SirRumpole]

Because banning same sex marriage is immoral.

That's a matter of opinion.

It should be up to all of society to judge what is immoral, the politicians are no more capable of making that decision than the rest of us.

 

[Tisme]

That's a matter of opinion.

It should be up to all of society to judge what is immoral, the politicians are no more capable of making that decision than the rest of us.

It's as you said all those years ago Rumpole, ....put it to a popular (compulsory) vote and all of a sudden the 65% in favour isn't such a sure bet after all.

 

[Value Collector]

That's a matter of opinion.

It should be up to all of society to judge what is immoral, the politicians are no more capable of making that decision than the rest of us.

Nope, morality is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact, offcourse people can have an opinion on what is moral, just as they can have an opinion on what is healthy, but at the end of the day, their opinion doesn't change what is moral or what is healthy, only a non emotional weighing of the facts gets you to the correct answer.

 

[SirRumpole]

only a non emotional weighing of the facts gets you to the correct answer.

Ah yes, so how do we explain the fact that multiple judges on the High Court often come to different opinions based on the same set of facts ?

And what gives you the right to say that only your power of reasoning will lead to the "most moral" decision ?

 

[Value Collector]

Ah yes, so how do we explain the fact that multiple judges on the High Court often come to different opinions based on the same set of facts ?

And what gives you the right to say that only your power of reasoning will lead to the "most moral" decision ?

Various outside personal influences can effect decisions,but also its much like two doctors might have different opinions on what the best treatment for the patient is even though they have the same set of facts, but this in no way changes the fact that there would exist a treatment that is the optimal treatment, but either way at the end of a debate Where each doctor gives their opinions and the other doctors list the pros and cons and weed out logical fallacies and irrelevant personal emotions, I believe the doctors will have a better treatment plan than would come from a plebiscite.

I don't say only my reasoning will lead to the most moral decision, I am constantly asking people to give their reasoning, it just so happens on this topic all they seem to give is logical fallacies or claims of harm of personal harm which they can never seem to explain or show.

 

[Logique]

The anti-referendum, 'equality' crowd - have already lost the argument once they start advocating the abandonment of democratic principles to get their own way.

Here's the inconvenient thing about a plebiscite: it forces full ventilation of all the arguments on each side. Yet our morally superior betters in the same sex marriage lobby shrink away from that.

So many of those lecturing us on the cost of a $150 mill plebiscite - were the same ones who sat idly by while Rudd-Gillard-Rudd drove the national accounts to the brink, billions into deficit.

If the same-sex marriage case is so strong, what is there to fear from everyday Australian exercising their democratic right to have a say?

Gays will have to wait a little longer to hop aboard the Jenny Macklin cadged hand outs gravy train.