So, after a long, arduous and completely unnecessary vote disguised as a Survey, the Australian Bureau of Statistics will announce the results at 10am Canberra time on 15NOV17 (2300 GMT).

All the polls are showing a victory for the Yes campaign, but it is not as strong as was hoped, so there is still chances for the No campaign and their MPs to use this a mandate to block legislation passing.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/yes-campaign-increases-majority-new-poll-finds/news-story/78a4f476f417eeb3874cc028cbdbd4b7

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.

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.

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.

This is what I hope, but I just can't see it being so easy... The Nationals and some of the Liberals will do what they can to prevent this. I feel this could even cause an early election if Malcolm Turnbull fails here.

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.

While the Prime Minister has stated that the Government will facilitate (note that does not mean support) debate of a bill if there is a Yes vote, the matter will be dropped if there is a No majority. Labor has come around to the position that you don't vote on human rights, so will introduce legislation within 100 days if returned at the next election. It remains to be seen whether it becomes necessary that Labor win for a bill to be introduced at a future date, or, based on the outcome, they change tack once more.

That the opponents continue to seek to either block it or allow "protected" discrimination was predictable. While the Attorney General in his interview mentioned that a plebiscite was blocked by Labor, the plebiscite would have had exactly the same outcome as the voluntary postal survey: Parliament would still have had to debate enabling legislation in a free vote. The plebiscite and the poll were simply attempts to delay.

The attempts to delay continue, with not one but three bills possibly being debated. While the Government might wish to legislate by Christmas, faction fighting within the LNP coalition might see the process extended into the new year. Senator Barnardi has gone further and called for any vote to be deferred until the "citizenship crisis" has been resolved, arguing that it is improper to vote on such an important matter when there might be strangers in the house.

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."

That's a really good analysis - much better than I could articulate - thank you!

As you mentioned, I also feel a done deal before Christmas is very long shot, every possible way to stop this will be thrown at the process by only a few people, but those people hold power in the way they are creating the majority for the Turnbull government, if that support was to change, then we can say goodbye to SSM for a while and hello to another election - at least that would give Shorten a chance rather than waiting to 2018/9 for the next federal election

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."

I agree with the second part of your statement, the baker cake thing is absurd but I do not agree that there is religious discrimination. Whether you are for same sex marriage or not does not give anyone the right to force their beliefs on others. 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:

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?

Best regards
Thomas

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.

Existing rights to discriminate extend beyond refusing to marry someone. Under the current Marriage Act, a minister, for example, may refuse to marry a divorcee or participate in multi-faith marriages. Religious organisations also have exemptions from anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws. These vary by State but include such things as provision of housing, employment and education. So there is no need to extend "protection" to Ministers of Religion or religious organisations, as these protections are retained in Senator Smith's Bill.

The weakness of the religious conviction argument, as I see it, is that while those who object to treating same sex couples the same way and wish to refuse service on so-called moral grounds, they would be appalled at any suggestion that others should discriminate against them on the same grounds.

And where do you draw the line? If one can refuse service or employment to people on the grounds that they wish to marry in a manner that one personally finds distasteful, why can't one refuse service or employment to women because a religion says a woman should be at home and not mixing with men who are unrelated? Could I put up a sign saying that I refuse to sell goods to or employ someone who is a Muslim or Jew because they worship a false god? If not, why not? Isn't that violating the principal of religious freedom?

In Western Australia we already have the absurd situation where a private religious organisation dictates to the State Government what services it will provide in a State-owned, taxpayer-funded hospital. Due to a sloppy contract, St John of God not only dictates what services it will provide, it prevents others from providing the services within the hospital that it doesn't wish to provide. Quite clearly, SJOG believe that they have "the right to force their beliefs on others."

While I accept that people should be free from persecution on the grounds of their religion, I don't believe that people who profess to be religious should be exempt from laws that apply to the rest of the community.

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?

There are many kinds of tax exemptions.

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?

When governments (the people) decide to exclude from the tax base certain groups or activities they do so because there is an implied "public good" or benefit to be realized by all the people.

In reality, the expected benefits might not be realized, but that is another matter.

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).

Fingers crossed, avgays.

Never got this, why would you be against this? If you are against guy marriage, simple solution, don't marry someone of the same sex, problem solved.

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.

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:

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.

Really happy for the result today. Although it does not effect me personally, I voted YES as I strongly believe in equal rights - and it is about time we caught up and got with the program on this issue. Was thinking about the social change, just in my lifetime - and growing up in Tasmania, and this is a memorable and historic day moving forward for sure. 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..

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.

Yeah, me too. By the end of 2017.

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.

Good luck with that. The vote was intended to derail the issue and get a "no" result. But this didn't happen. Instead, a resounding "yes" happened. Even with that, you are still getting some MPs who are bitterly against the result. What happened to democracy?

Yeah, me too. By the end of 2017.

I'd vote for that myself.

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..

In part yes. But I also think that for many it was an important decision in which they wanted a say. The turnout was high partly for that reason. There is always a minority who don't vote in elections, for various reasons.

In this non-compulsory survey, the non- participation rate was a little more than twice as high as at the last election. In Western Australia, we have had postal voting in local authority elections for a few years. At those, the response rate is usually lower. I guess a lot of people rate the right to marry higher than what colour lids the recycling bins have.

This was wonderful news to wake up to in the Middle East... I haven't read broadly the commentary yet but I am surprised that the Yes vote was not higher, I was expecting ca.70%.

i did have to laugh at the point that one of the highest 'yes' electorates was former PM Tony Abbott's who has been one of the loudest faces of the No side.

BobPatterson wrote:

Why should renters "pay for" tax exemptions for home buyers?

All tax payers can in principle buy homes.

Why should atheists "pay for" tax exemptions for religious institutions?

I haven´t met a religious institution yet i wasn´t welcome in, in fact i like to go to churches, temples and alike, even it is just for architecture, art and music. The moment they put an "No Athesist/Whateverreligiontheydontlike" sign on the door, they should lose it too.

Why should individuals and businesses "pay for" tax exemptions granted to corporations to entice them into locating within a particular state, county or city?

They shouldn´t, and in most countries that is considered an illegal subsidy anyways

or benefit to be realized by all the people.

emphasis mine. Because those benefit are in principle available to all people

Even "White Supremacy" groups can be tax exempt as "educational" institutions:

http://www.9news.com/news/local/verify/ ... /465210606

As long as they operate within the confines of the law, i don´t see why they could not, in principle, be tax exempt. Of course if they start turning people down because they are black or jews or whoever else they have an inferiority complex towards, they should of course lose that status if it is in any way systematical.

The world is a complicated place. There are lots of tax exempt groups that I wish didn't exist (or were not tax exempt).

I guess it is well established that i think Religion, and therefore churches, are evil regardless of how well they may mean to be, so i certainly wish they didn´t exist. I still don´t want them to lose their tax exempt status on whatever charitable work they do just because i don´t like them.

best regards
Thomas

How absolutely wonderful, it's a glorious day here in Australia. So much love and colour everywhere.
Qantas had been an advocate for many years, and with CEO Alan Joyce personally donating $1m to the Yes campaign. A glimpse of the nation we're becoming.

Well, Sydney Mardi Gras in 2018 is going to be a lot more fun than before.

I will either end up a) bleeding in a few places, b) having major burns when i take a leak, c) married, d) in rehab, e) all of the above.

Same-sex marriage (marriage equality) is now law in Australia.

VapourTrails wrote:

Same-sex marriage (marriage equality) is now law in Australia.

Great news!

Fantastic! I cheered, I cried.

After all the attempts to block, delay, and amendments designed to water it down to meaningless, the Bill has passed with just 4 members voting no on the third reading. All that is now required is for the Governor General to give the assent for the Bill to become an Act. That should happen in the next day or two.

While I have no immediate plans for marriage, I am delighted that others now have the option if they wish. It has taken a long time, but at last our relationships are finally recognised as being of equal value in law, even if some sections of society still don't like it.

Congrats Australia! It was a long process in Finland too..

Congratulations Australia, giving equal rights to all.

I can finally relax. I deliberately stayed away from commentary (and celebration) when the survey results were handed down as I thought that the extreme factions in Parliament would find a way to either drag this out for months and months, or would dilute the bill so much as to be worthless.

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.

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.

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.

Well - yeh, but it wasn't a case of the politicians leading. It was more a matter of the electorate telling the politicians what to do - the closest we've had in a while to genuine democracy as opposed to representative democracy.

I'm thrilled to have seen it, although part of me wonders what took Australia so long. And I am scratching my head about those curmudgeons predicting - metaphorically - the end of civilisation as we know it. All they had to do is look across the Tasman where the sky has not fallen.

But above everything - good one, Australia.

mariner

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:

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.

Actually that is separation of state and church. The state offers a contractual construct called "marriage", churches just offer ceremonies with zero legal value. The government very damn well gets to decide who can certify that contract, just like they get to pick who can be a notary public.

A Church can perform marriage ceremonies with whomever they chose to, but if they want to be allowed to certify that marriage, they have to offer that service indiscriminatory. No one is telling them "you are not a church/religion anymore". They are actually accommodating way beyond reason, same sex marriage is now the law of the land, and only law abiding people should get to perform government functions in its place. Current ministers refusing to follow the law should simply lose the marriage license.

But you are right in a sense, it isn´t really a separation between Church and State unless Churches are completely banned from certifying that contract period, which is exactly how it is done in secular nations. Churches can do ceremonies, but their legal value is zero.

best regards
Thomas

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.

"Ministers" - or "celebrants"?

I don't think that under the new law a Catholic priest would be required to perform a same-sex marriage, nor any ordained minister of any religion:

https://theconversation.com/if-australi ... ples-84271

"If Australia says ‘yes’, churches are still free to say ‘no’ to marrying same-sex couples

...what exactly would change for Christian churches should the federal government revise the definition of marriage? In short, nothing. Religious organisations have freedom under Australian law to practice their own doctrines and marriage rituals for weddings held in their buildings and by their celebrants. This applies to all religions, although the focus in this piece will be on Christianity.

I haven't read the Act in great detail, but I would be shocked if things had changed since that was written a couple of months ago, and I - queer - would not support any provision that forced priests/vicars/rabbis/imams/etc to marry two people against their religious views. I don't believe it would have passed into law iff it had that provision.

Civil celebrants are a whole other story. They are performing a civil function, not a religious one.

mariner

mariner wrote:

Civil celebrants are a whole other story. They are performing a civil function, not a religious one.

mariner

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.

best regards
Thomas

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.

No marriage in Australia is valid unless and until it is recognised by the state. A church wedding is to satisfy the religious and spiritual needs of those who believe.

Within my experience, the "civil" part happens during the church ceremony - the wedding party goes to the vestry to sign the civil documents while the congregation twiddles its thumbs. 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.

A civil celebrant is exactly that - civil. A person authorised to conduct the state requirements, with whatever frills and furbelows anyone wants (confetti?) or none at all. We used to call it the registry office.

mariner

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.

In Germany Churches are not allowed to perform weddings, everyone stepping in front of the alter is already married at that point. Some people do both in the same day, sometimes there may be month or years between the two. Until 2009 it was actually illegal for a Church to perform the wedding without civil union being done first, but since wedding ceremonies are legally irrelevant that statute has been removed.

best regards
Thomas

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 authorised 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.

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.

Thank you for that clarification.

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.

I see it the reverse way. It's churches wanting to perform a government function they shouldn't be involved in.

In France things are separated, you have the civil marriage, performed by a mayor, that gets you state recognition, certain rights, tax advantages, etc. Then there is the religious marriage, that is optional and doesn't give you anything. Usually if you do both they're done in succession, with the wedding party going from the town hall to the religious institution.

The only restriction, borne out of the catholic church trying to undermine this principle, is that a religious minister cannot marry religiously people that are not married civilly beforehand. Nowadays it's muslims that are more likely to try and get around this, probably because they want to follow the old school rule of "no sex before marriage" and because you can get married by an imam or even by yourselves in a couple minutes.