Gay Marriage + or -?

[HH]

Ah yes. you have the right to be bigoted and to discriminate as long as you are doing it in accordance with your religious beliefs.

Edit: not directed at any one individual here, just a general comment.

Hmmmm. So what did Alex Greenwich really mean when he said the following during the yes campaign:

Alex Greenwich, co-convener of Australian Marriage Equality, said the ‘yes’ campaign had always been clear about its disinterest in impeding on religion.

“Nothing in the proposed legislation would in any way impact the religious celebration of marriage or the ways churches wish to practice it,” Mr Greenwich said.

“There are protections ranging from ensuring a minister of religion is able to marry the couples that he or she wants to, to what can happen on church grounds.

“There are clear, strong and robust religious protections in the draft legislation.”

The same-sex marriage campaign focused on civil marriage, not the religious celebration of marriage, Mr Greenwich said.

[Mr Q]

It means that churches won't be forced to perform dame seed marriages. That's it.

It does *not* mean that other people's in society will get to discriminate.

[farmer joe]

The Shoppies controlled Senators are going to vote No.....but it is only the right that has religious nut jobs in it isnt it...
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-polit ... zu6zf.html

[Mr Q]

The Shoppies controlled Senators are going to vote No.....but it is only the right that has religious nut jobs in it isnt it...
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-polit ... zu6zf.html

You know something, I don't think anyone has said that. What people *have* pointed out is that the religious right have the Liberal Party by the nuts - and denying that is to deny what's right in front of your face.

The ALP have allowed a conscience vote on this issue for a long time. The Liberals didn't or we wouldn't have just wasted $120 million on this idiotic survey (that just got back exactly the result that all the polling said it would), because the shrinking moderate wing of the Libs would have got it across the line back in 2012.

What's happening to the Liberal Party is very clever by the religious right. They realised that under their own banner, they stood no chance whatsoever of getting more than token representation in Parliament (in line with exactly how many people are really that far to the right). So instead they started infiltrating the Liberal Party, getting candidates pre-selected where moderates stand down (see Ian Goodenough replacing Mal Washer as a good example). By doing that, they can get way more power through holding a major party to ransom than they ever would standing as a Christian party.

Since politics isn't all about religion (at least to everyone outside the RR, for who religion is the main focus), there were bound to be religious people at both ends of the political spectrum.

[Fair Bump Play On]

What's happening to the Liberal Party is very clever by the religious right. They realised that under their own banner, they stood no chance whatsoever of getting more than token representation in Parliament (in line with exactly how many people are really that far to the right). So instead they started infiltrating the Liberal Party, getting candidates pre-selected where moderates stand down (see Ian Goodenough replacing Mal Washer as a good example). By doing that, they can get way more power through holding a major party to ransom than they ever would standing as a Christian party.

Not that cleaver really in my opinion; simply following the model previously used in the USA, that has allowed the religious right to gain control of the republican party, turning a party or social libertarianism into a party of social conservatives. Insert themselves in to local councils, lobby groups, other powerful groups (such as the AMA or Shoppies), the media, party branches, gain party nominations over moderates and eventually gain control of the Party. The main difference here holding them back compared to the USA is the lack of active Christian's in Australia - especially the ultra-conservative type. Thus, they can at times gain 'effective*' control of the Liberal's (Tony) or National’s (and try with the Labor Party) but their extreme ideas will simply not wash with the population as a whole. Yet, it's only just begun.

[MelbourneBased]

All I can say is $120 million spent by the Government to confirm that the poll came in inline with the majority of Australian attitudes of equality (race,religion,creed, or orientation)
But when it came to bigger issues, like losing money to the big 4 plus MacBank, then the Government play the money card.

Try and explain that to the kids

[Mr Q]

Well the world hasn't come to an end has it?

[jourgo]

Bit bored this morning huh?

[Mr Q]

Bit bored this morning huh?

Reading back through this thread, I did find a lot of the assertions that the "silent majority" would block SSM at a "referendum" extremely funny.

[jourgo]

Bit bored this morning huh?

Reading back through this thread, I did find a lot of the assertions that the "silent majority" would block SSM at a "referendum" extremely funny.

I tend to think its more an indication of how views evolve and change over time. That said, views on SSM moved much quicker than I certainly thought they would. I would've put money on it being knocked back if it went to a vote 10 years back - maybe even 5.

[Mr Q]

Bit bored this morning huh?

Reading back through this thread, I did find a lot of the assertions that the "silent majority" would block SSM at a "referendum" extremely funny.

I tend to think its more an indication of how views evolve and change over time. That said, views on SSM moved much quicker than I certainly thought they would. I would've put money on it being knocked back if it went to a vote 10 years back - maybe even 5.

The polling had been consistent at about 60-65% for years - given how closely that mapped back to the final result, I'd expect that it would have got up from the day this thread was started. Probably earlier - it started to appear in the national consciousness before 2010.

[Fat Side]

Reading back through this thread, I did find a lot of the assertions that the "silent majority" would block SSM at a "referendum" extremely funny.

I tend to think its more an indication of how views evolve and change over time. That said, views on SSM moved much quicker than I certainly thought they would. I would've put money on it being knocked back if it went to a vote 10 years back - maybe even 5.

The polling had been consistent at about 60-65% for years - given how closely that mapped back to the final result, I'd expect that it would have got up from the day this thread was started. Probably earlier - it started to appear in the national consciousness before 2010.

I reckon a republican vote would go the same way.

[jourgo]

I reckon a republican vote would go the same way.

I'd take that bet.

[MrWoollie]

I reckon a republican vote would go the same way.

I'd take that bet.

Didn't go so well last time! Many reasons, not least the inability of the republican movement to actually agree on what model of republic they wanted... and then sell it.

I think a republic vote SHOULD win. But I thought that last time as well.

When Charles becomes king it will be easier.

[jourgo]

The thing about the republic issue is - unlike the gay marriage issue - its not going to make any real difference to anybody. Australia is famous for its resistance to change - especially when its change for the sake of change. The monarchy has no real bearing on life in Australia. Its not impacting or impeding us in any measurable way, so its not a problem.

I'm 44 years old - which means I've got about another 40 in front of me touch wood. I can't see a situation in my lifetime where the republic will even come up for another vote - let alone get up. It aint broke, and it don't need fixing.