Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
jbflyguy84 wrote:I hope a strong Yes vote is the result forcing parliament to allow a free vote which was the agreement the PM made before the whole ridiculous process started.
Thoughts? If this fails, Australia is well and truly out in the cold as one of the last, if not the last, western, English speaking countries to allow marriage equality.
Ozair wrote:jbflyguy84 wrote:I hope a strong Yes vote is the result forcing parliament to allow a free vote which was the agreement the PM made before the whole ridiculous process started.
Thoughts? If this fails, Australia is well and truly out in the cold as one of the last, if not the last, western, English speaking countries to allow marriage equality.
I can't see the vote not going to yes and even if the poll was ahead for yes by just one vote it would go through the parliment.
RoySFlying wrote:
Whatever happens tomorrow, those who are opposed to equality before the law won't go down without a fight. Ministers of Religion and religious organisations already enjoy wide rights to discriminate: the hard-line conservative right want to extend the right to discriminate to others.The demand that every baker, hotelier, car hire driver, dressmaker and flower seller should be allowed to discriminate against some on either "religious" or "conscientious" grounds, is just the opening shot in the next round of their campaign. Remember that to them, the survey was not just about same-sex marriage. It was about, in Tony Abbott's words, "stopping political correctness in its tracks."
Ozair wrote:If a majority vote for same sex marriage then it is right that it passes into law but religious institutions have rightly been given the understanding that they can refuse to marry a same sex couple if that is against their moral principals.
Ozair wrote:religious institutions have rightly been given the understanding that they can refuse to marry a same sex couple if that is against their moral principals.
tommy1808 wrote:Ozair wrote:If a majority vote for same sex marriage then it is right that it passes into law but religious institutions have rightly been given the understanding that they can refuse to marry a same sex couple if that is against their moral principals.
That is right, however, if you want to have tax exempt status you have to serve everyone on that society. Why would a gay couple pay for the tax exemptions that wouldn't wed them?
RoySFlying wrote:I certainly hope that the predicted majority in favour of same-sex couples being allowed to marry becomes established fact. It will prove how widespread the support is, whichever way the vote goes.
RoySFlying wrote:Results are in. Australia has voted Yes. 7.82 million or 61.6% in favour. 4.87 million or 38% voted No. The response rate was 79.5%, which is higher than both the US Presidential Election and the Brexit Referendum participation rates. All States and Territories voted Yes. The lowest result was New South Wales at 58%. Only 17 electorates voted No.
einsteinboricua wrote:Add another country to the list of places I'd move to...even though the wildlife there wants to kill you. Congrats Australia. Hoping the MPs end up approving the law.
RoySFlying wrote:Results are in.
Australia has voted Yes. 7.82 million or 61.6% in favour. 4.87 million or 38% voted No. The response rate was 79.5%, which is higher than both the US Presidential Election and the Brexit Referendum participation rates.
All States and Territories voted Yes. The lowest result was New South Wales at 58%. Only 17 electorates voted No.
Now it is up to the politicians to act to effect the popular wish. Perhaps the Prime Minister will rediscover his spine and provide some leadership.
VapourTrails wrote:With regard to the voter turnout, do you think this was partly due to the fact that we are just used to voting by law anyhow..
BobPatterson wrote:Why should renters "pay for" tax exemptions for home buyers?
Why should atheists "pay for" tax exemptions for religious institutions?
Why should individuals and businesses "pay for" tax exemptions granted to corporations to entice them into locating within a particular state, county or city?
or benefit to be realized by all the people.
Even "White Supremacy" groups can be tax exempt as "educational" institutions:
http://www.9news.com/news/local/verify/ ... /465210606
The world is a complicated place. There are lots of tax exempt groups that I wish didn't exist (or were not tax exempt).
VapourTrails wrote:Same-sex marriage (marriage equality) is now law in Australia.
RyanairGuru wrote:This was not the case, thank god. For the first time in a long time today I have to respect the Australian Parliament, a body more known for theatrics than policy. With only four no votes in the House of Representatives this is a better outcome than I could ever have imagined.
I say this as a straight person.
einsteinboricua wrote:If only the US had been this diligent when marriage equality became the law of the land.
I will be forever grateful for Justice Kennedy's opinion, but I fear his legacy could be overturned in an instant if a more conservative (possibly ideologically driven) court is ever put in place.
Having lawmakers vote for it at the federal level gives it more legitimacy. Of course, a more conservative parliament could swoop in and repeal the law, but the fact that the people weighed in beforehand means that any parliament that does that will be summarily defeated at the next election.
DIRECTFLT wrote:einsteinboricua wrote:If only the US had been this diligent when marriage equality became the law of the land.
I will be forever grateful for Justice Kennedy's opinion, but I fear his legacy could be overturned in an instant if a more conservative (possibly ideologically driven) court is ever put in place.
Having lawmakers vote for it at the federal level gives it more legitimacy. Of course, a more conservative parliament could swoop in and repeal the law, but the fact that the people weighed in beforehand means that any parliament that does that will be summarily defeated at the next election.
All future ministers receiving licenses in Australia cannot refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
Current ministers with licenses, will not be required to perform same-sex marriages.
That's the State dictating what "the church" "is". No separation there.
DIRECTFLT wrote:All future ministers receiving licenses in Australia cannot refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
Current ministers with licenses, will not be required to perform same-sex marriages.
That's the State dictating what "the church" "is". No separation there.
mariner wrote:Civil celebrants are a whole other story. They are performing a civil function, not a religious one.
mariner
tommy1808 wrote:Are church weddings recognized by the government, like in the US, or "just" ceremonies with no legal value like in secular countries? If the former, they perform the same civil function.
mariner wrote:I believe in some European countries the civil stuff can be done at different times and places, or used to be, but that the marriage is not valid until that happens. Anyone can correct me on that - I'm no expert.
DIRECTFLT wrote:All future ministers receiving licenses in Australia cannot refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
Current ministers with licenses, will not be required to perform same-sex marriages.
That's the State dictating what "the church" "is". No separation there.
RoySFlying wrote:DIRECTFLT wrote:All future ministers receiving licenses in Australia cannot refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
Current ministers with licenses, will not be required to perform same-sex marriages.
That's the State dictating what "the church" "is". No separation there.
No, this is incorrect. There are two types of authorised marriage celebrants in Australia: those who are religious celebrants (like a priest) and those who are civil celebrants. This Act to Amend the Marriage Act and the Sex Discrimination Act makes no change in that regard. Priests and so on will still be able to refuse to conduct marriages just as they were before the law was changed. For a transition period, existing civil celebrants can request to be registered as religious celebrants. Those who wish to become new civil celebrants will have to abide by the law as it now stands.
So you still have the separation between "church" and state. By definition, an individual is not a church but an individual. As a civil celebrant, an individual is authorized to conduct marriages, acts as an agent of the State. A minister of a church can also conduct marriages, in accordance with his or her religious beliefs, but that marriage is still not a marriage in law until the Registration of A Marriage has been duly recorded and signed, according to law.
DIRECTFLT wrote:einsteinboricua wrote:If only the US had been this diligent when marriage equality became the law of the land.
I will be forever grateful for Justice Kennedy's opinion, but I fear his legacy could be overturned in an instant if a more conservative (possibly ideologically driven) court is ever put in place.
Having lawmakers vote for it at the federal level gives it more legitimacy. Of course, a more conservative parliament could swoop in and repeal the law, but the fact that the people weighed in beforehand means that any parliament that does that will be summarily defeated at the next election.
All future ministers receiving licenses in Australia cannot refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
Current ministers with licenses, will not be required to perform same-sex marriages.
That's the State dictating what "the church" "is". No separation there.