Possibile Gay Marriage Consensus?

Remove this Banner Ad

Jul 1, 2013
21,876
18,264
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fulham, 76ers, Cubs, Bills
I think it needs to be considered who of the two groups will be more likley to use the ABC website.

The ABC site would attract more left leaning people than conservatives without a doubt. Just as the Herald Sun site would attract a majority conservative viewers.

Looking at respondants to ABC stories there's a definite left leaning in the tones of the bulk of the responses.

So the ABC political compass will have a bias that I'm not sure how they can "factor" in to get an accurate view of the nations views.

Yes, but given that its result is largely in keeping with the other surveys, it can't simply be dismissed on that basis IMO.

Also, it clearly acknowledges a lack of support amongst those that consider themselves "Right" ideologically, and that a large minority (over 10%) are "neutral". But that overall, there is still >50% support (which would be added to be some of the neutrals, presumably).
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
There is such a thing as left wing conservative.

Again, to me , gay marriage is Ok as a construct, with equality equal to traditional marriage

Its just not marriage in the true sense. Never will be, it fails the definition. I think the hight court judgement referred along those lines
 
Jul 1, 2013
21,876
18,264
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fulham, 76ers, Cubs, Bills
There is such a thing as left wing conservative.

Again, to me , gay marriage is Ok as a construct, with equality equal to traditional marriage

Its just not marriage in the true sense. Never will be, it fails the definition. I think the hight court judgement referred along those lines

Without being too blunt, that was actually the complete opposite of what the High Court judgment found:

The Court held that "marriage" in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution refers to a consensual union formed between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirements which is not only a union the law recognises as intended to endure and be terminable only in accordance with law but also a union to which the law accords a status affecting and defining mutual rights and obligations. "Marriage" in s 51(xxi) includes a marriage between persons of the same sex.

Furthermore, in light of this, and because the ACT was trying to achieve MARRIAGE equality, i.e. equivalent marriage for same-sex couples as for heterosexual couples, that was why the law was struck down. If the relationships were intended to be seen differently, they might not have struck it down:

The Court held that the object of the ACT Act is to provide for marriage equality for same sex couples and not for some form of legally recognised relationship which is relevantly different from the relationship of marriage which federal law provides for and recognises. Accordingly, the ACT Act cannot operate concurrently with the federal Act.

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca55-2013-12-12.pdf
 

Log in to remove this ad.

dymot

Premiership Player
Dec 4, 2012
4,816
2,627
AFL Club
Geelong
Please refer to the polls I posted. Despite what you say about their size or who commissioned some of them, they help to demonstrate my claim of 65%.

In particular, I refer you to:
Nielsen poll (August 2013): 65% support from 2545 respondents (which is far more than used in most Nielsen/Newspoll/Galaxy/etc. for monthly vote intention analysis)

Galaxy poll (May 2012), commissioned by Sunday Herald Sun: "only a third of voters against the reform".

Survey in Teresa Gambaro (LNP) seat of Brisbane (2011): 1500 voters, 73% support.

Now, could you please show me ANY reasonably valid survey that demonstrates that the majority of Australians do not support Same-Sex Marriage?

Galaxy Poll - X number support a conciense vote. Nowhere does it actually equate to whether they support the issue personally or not as an individual.

Survey in Gambaro's seat - Small distored count much like the same sort of result you would get in Melbourne or sydney seats. No way is it able to be used as relevant for this fact. It is the equivalent of saying the results in a seat in North Queensland which has a heavy farming basis indicate overwhelming suupport for the question or issue of whethern farmers should pay less taxation.

GalaxyPoll - Woopty Doo. No information about who was surveyed where (but apparently conducted mainly in inner city areas and some where there is a high homosexual living if the rumours which were coming out were to be believed) . Further the question can easily be raised is whether people actually support it enough when you get not even 1 in 5 saying it is incredibly important in effecting their vote. Legitimacy really has to be questioned here.
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Without being too blunt, that was actually the complete opposite of what the High Court judgment found:



Furthermore, in light of this, and because the ACT was trying to achieve MARRIAGE equality, i.e. equivalent marriage for same-sex couples as for heterosexual couples, that was why the law was struck down. If the relationships were intended to be seen differently, they might not have struck it down:



http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca55-2013-12-12.pdf


I wasnt too specific so I wasnt wrong. Even if the finding was opposite to my opinion, it stil referred to the smame thing whether to extend the marriage act or create a new legal construct eg gay marriage
 

dymot

Premiership Player
Dec 4, 2012
4,816
2,627
AFL Club
Geelong
I wasnt too specific so I wasnt wrong. Even if the finding was opposite to my opinion, it stil referred to the smame thing whether to extend the marriage act or create a new legal construct eg gay marriage
Ssorry being almost right with logic or right in principle will never appease these peoples like the one that is quoted pessimistic.
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Ssorry being almost right with logic or right in principle will never appease these peoples like the one that is quoted pessimistic.

It seems to be if the proponents could accept a seperate legal construct from traditional marriage the way would be much easier.
My pov is why push for amendment to the traditional marriage act ? They may achieve that but in soceity, a gay marriage will be referred to by others as a gay marriage. It will always be seen as something different in common perception, whether the act has been amended or not.

This is against a background where the public accepts and describes de facto traditional marriage as a legit legal construct, and every church or soceity has its own interpretation of marriage
 
Jul 1, 2013
21,876
18,264
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fulham, 76ers, Cubs, Bills
Galaxy Poll - X number support a conciense vote. Nowhere does it actually equate to whether they support the issue personally or not as an individual.

Survey in Gambaro's seat - Small distored count much like the same sort of result you would get in Melbourne or sydney seats. No way is it able to be used as relevant for this fact. It is the equivalent of saying the results in a seat in North Queensland which has a heavy farming basis indicate overwhelming suupport for the question or issue of whethern farmers should pay less taxation.

GalaxyPoll - Woopty Doo. No information about who was surveyed where (but apparently conducted mainly in inner city areas and some where there is a high homosexual living if the rumours which were coming out were to be believed) . Further the question can easily be raised is whether people actually support it enough when you get not even 1 in 5 saying it is incredibly important in effecting their vote. Legitimacy really has to be questioned here.

Again, I refer to the ABC Vote Compass. And again, I please ask you to show me ANY reasonably valid survey that demonstrates that the majority of Australians do not support Same-Sex Marriage?

Thanks.
 
Jul 1, 2013
21,876
18,264
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fulham, 76ers, Cubs, Bills
It seems to be if the proponents could accept a seperate legal construct from traditional marriage the way would be much easier.
My pov is why push for amendment to the traditional marriage act ? They may achieve that but in soceity, a gay marriage will be referred to by others as a gay marriage. It will always be seen as something different in common perception, whether the act has been amended or not.

This is against a background where the public accepts and describes de facto traditional marriage as a legit legal construct, and every church or soceity has its own interpretation of marriage

It would be easier if there was a separate legal construct for same-sex couples. In fact, there already exist Civil Partnerships in some states, for instance.

But why are we about achieving the "easier", and not the "right"?

It would be very easy for me to substitute "gay" for "interracial" into your quote, and it may have been a pretty widely-held view 50 years ago. But how would you look back on that quote today, for example:

"It seems to be if the proponents could accept a seperate legal construct from traditional marriage the way would be much easier.
My pov is why push for amendment to the traditional marriage act ? They may achieve that but in soceity, an interracial marriage will be referred to by others as an interracial marriage. It will always be seen as something different in common perception, whether the act has been amended or not."

Do you support that? If so, at least you are consistent. If not, I ask, why not? Interracial marriage was abhorrent to many, many years ago, perhaps it still is for some. That doesn't mean that breaking down this barrier was not a good thing, just because it was "easier" to create a "separate legal construct" and label all interracial marriages as that, instead of just marriage, as we do now.
 
Jul 1, 2013
21,876
18,264
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fulham, 76ers, Cubs, Bills
We are straying off topic fairly quickly here.

I'm tipping, much like Malcolm Turnbull has done, that next year, there will be a private member's bill introduced by the 3 senators I mentioned initially and that there will be a conscience vote.

Agreed - and it will be a great day! Do you reckon before or after the new Senate sits on July 1 2014?
 
Feb 18, 2003
32,695
6,814
Hoppers Crossing
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
Agreed - and it will be a great day! Do you reckon before or after the new Senate sits on July 1 2014?

I think it will take time for the 3 Senators to build a consensus view across all the parties and all the members and senators.

But with Senator Boyce retiring before July, she would want this out of the way as her legacy.
 

dymot

Premiership Player
Dec 4, 2012
4,816
2,627
AFL Club
Geelong
Again, I refer to the ABC Vote Compass. And again, I please ask you to show me ANY reasonably valid survey that demonstrates that the majority of Australians do not support Same-Sex Marriage?

Thanks.
Like the polls that claim support of homosexuals can't be proven to be reliable and reflective either. Stirton the dickhead got exposed and had his history of polling bought into question and laughed at after the last Abbot v Shorten debarcle admitted freely to by the poll conductor himself. As for the others one had huge exposure as being fraudulent when the area it was conducted in was released and qand a have a history of being unreliable with polls based on perceived problems and strategy conducted by abc and producers for the abc.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jul 1, 2013
21,876
18,264
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fulham, 76ers, Cubs, Bills
I think it will take time for the 3 Senators to build a consensus view across all the parties and all the members and senators.

But with Senator Boyce retiring before July, she would want this out of the way as her legacy.

Good point. Perhaps just before July then. Should easily pass the Senate, the lower house is what remains to be seen. Will be relatively touch and go, would be interested in someone with a bit more knowhow compiling a list of Coalition members that have announced their support for SSM previously. From the top of my head there would be:
  • Malcolm Turnbull
  • Teresa Gambaro
  • Wyatt Roy
  • Chris Pyne
  • Kelly O'Dwyer
  • Possible Michael Keenan, Sharman Stone
Also Andrew Wilkie, Cathy McGowan?

Labor/Greens have 55+1 seats, and I'd assume around 75% would vote for (42 votes). Needs another 34.
 

dymot

Premiership Player
Dec 4, 2012
4,816
2,627
AFL Club
Geelong
Good point. Perhaps just before July then. Should easily pass the Senate, the lower house is what remains to be seen. Will be relatively touch and go, would be interested in someone with a bit more knowhow compiling a list of Coalition members that have announced their support for SSM previously. From the top of my head there would be:
  • Malcolm Turnbull
  • Teresa Gambaro
  • Wyatt Roy
  • Chris Pyne
  • Kelly O'Dwyer
  • Possible Michael Keenan, Sharman Stone
Also Andrew Wilkie, Cathy McGowan?


Labor/Greens have 55+1 seats, and I'd assume around 75% would vote for (42 votes). Needs another 34.

Mostly delusion if you think there's 75% in the ALP for it. 42 voted fore it last time total.
 
Jul 1, 2013
21,876
18,264
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fulham, 76ers, Cubs, Bills
Mostly delusion if you think there's 75% in the ALP for it. 42 voted fore it last time total.

True, but in the meantime, we had Rudd come out in support, and others "re-consider". The ALP now has an SSM supporter as leader, and another as Deputy Leader (Plibersek). Then leader in the HoR (Albanese) and leader in the Senate (Wong) are also supporters. It's a different dynamic to that in which the vote was taken last time.
 

dymot

Premiership Player
Dec 4, 2012
4,816
2,627
AFL Club
Geelong
True, but in the meantime, we had Rudd come out in support, and others "re-consider". The ALP now has an SSM supporter as leader, and another as Deputy Leader (Plibersek). Then leader in the HoR (Albanese) and leader in the Senate (Wong) are also supporters. It's a different dynamic to that in which the vote was taken last time.

Rudd support was due to the debate and spill at the alp national conference. Have been told this at the time and again now when last saw him two weeks ago. The fact these leaders like Plibersek and Wong suddenly make it different to their new found positions is irrelevant as the other faction(s) who don't support it will go against it. Not bursting the bubble but the reconsideration was a tactic at the last election and in part is now because of rying to win back votes and seats from people who might vote greens or abstain.
 
Jul 1, 2013
21,876
18,264
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fulham, 76ers, Cubs, Bills
Rudd support was due to the debate and spill at the alp national conference. Have been told this at the time and again now when last saw him two weeks ago. The fact these leaders like Plibersek and Wong suddenly make it different to their new found positions is irrelevant as the other faction(s) who don't support it will go against it. Not bursting the bubble but the reconsideration was a tactic at the last election and in part is now because of rying to win back votes and seats from people who might vote greens or abstain.

Aware of this, but that doesn't mean the tactic won't continue into this Parliament. For better or worse, people expect less than half of the Coalition vote for SSM. But they expect to Labor to vote strongly for it. So that's why I say the 75% figure. Give or take, but I wouldn't have thought the number would be too far off.
 

AM

The standard you walk past is the one you accept
Aug 18, 2006
24,579
23,475
Here there and everywhere
AFL Club
Geelong
We are straying off topic fairly quickly here.

I'm tipping, much like Malcolm Turnbull has done, that next year, there will be a private member's bill introduced by the 3 senators I mentioned initially and that there will be a conscience vote.
Maybe. But Tone gets his marching orders from Pell and I doubt he'll let him off the leash on this one.
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
It would be easier if there was a separate legal construct for same-sex couples. In fact, there already exist Civil Partnerships in some states, for instance.

But why are we about achieving the "easier", and not the "right"?

It would be very easy for me to substitute "gay" for "interracial" into your quote, and it may have been a pretty widely-held view 50 years ago. But how would you look back on that quote today, for example:

"It seems to be if the proponents could accept a seperate legal construct from traditional marriage the way would be much easier.
My pov is why push for amendment to the traditional marriage act ? They may achieve that but in soceity, an interracial marriage will be referred to by others as an interracial marriage. It will always be seen as something different in common perception, whether the act has been amended or not."

Do you support that? If so, at least you are consistent. If not, I ask, why not? Interracial marriage was abhorrent to many, many years ago, perhaps it still is for some. That doesn't mean that breaking down this barrier was not a good thing, just because it was "easier" to create a "separate legal construct" and label all interracial marriages as that, instead of just marriage, as we do now.

I actually take your point, except going even further back, there was common marriages which required no paperwork, they were a village to village thing, and dna studies have found plenty of interracial breeding occurred going back to the ... Well wayyyy back


Incidentally many religions dont have any racial barriers to marriage, but may have religious constraints

I am reminded of the salvation army, where you both need to be members, or indeed LDS where they already teach polygamy is appropiate
 
Jul 1, 2013
21,876
18,264
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Fulham, 76ers, Cubs, Bills

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
The gays could probably get their wish tomorrow so long as they accept a partnership definition whch isnt "marriage" but amounts to the same thing.

The high coult ruling on the ACT legislation said as such.

Not sure why its a problem to the pro lobby, even if they did get it defined as a "marriage" , people would still use the term gay marriage. Common usage would never use the term marriage interchangeabley between different and ame sexed marriages
 
The gays could probably get their wish tomorrow so long as they accept a partnership definition whch isnt "marriage" but amounts to the same thing.
I'm pretty sure "the gays" as you so elegantly put it just want to be considered by the same laws, given any lesser arrangement implies lesser relationship status.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back