Australia will hold postal vote on same-sex marriage

[haiducii]

IT COULD go down in Australian history as our longest debate.

Will we, or won’t we legalise same-sex marriage?

After years of debate, the Liberals held an emergency party room meeting yesterday, and overwhelmingly agreed to try to secure a plebiscite on marriage equality.

It's the second time they've tried this tactic, with their initial attempt voted down by Labor and crossbench senators last November.

The government will put the legislation before Parliament this week, Turnbull Government Minister Mathias Cormann confirmed last night.

If they fail to get it through, the government believes it will be able to conduct a voluntary postal plebiscite through the Australian Electoral Commission, and then a free vote in Parliament.

Labor and crossbench senators have already slammed the new plan, which appears doomed before it’s even attempted.

But as politicians talk up the idea of a plebiscite, do we really know what’s involved?

HERE is everything you need to know.

UPDATE: Senate vote confirms Australia will hold postal vote on same-sex marriage

Australia will hold a postal vote on whether to legalize same-sex marriage after a proposal to convene a referendum on the matter was rejected in the Senate on Wednesday.

READ MORE

 

[Stonecold]

it's hard not to see Australia as a backwards nation at times, despite being established as a democratic and modern country

 

[naughty_gam]

If any LGBTIQ readers from Australia are seeing this, please take the trouble to vote "YES" in the postal vote.

I'm writing to you to make an impassioned plea not to chuck this by the wayside and ignore that mailout when it's sent out by the Bureau of Statistics very soon. Unless the High Court challenge is successful and stops the postal vote in its tracks, the mailout is likely to happen.

You may or may not want marriage equality personally, but this is being turned by the right and so-called Evangelicals into their culture wars. New battlelines have been drawn up, courtesy of Mr Abbott and co. They're trying to conflate granting marriage equality with political correctness, adoption of children (calling them a new "stolen generation"), religious freedom, civil liberties, bestiality, paedophilia etc.

The right will do anything to try and lump this with other non-related issues to cast doubts in the minds of those undecided, that it's better to hold the status quo rather than bring Australia in line with other progressive democracies.

Don't fall for their trap! Remember, their strategy is "divide and conquer". They would love to create a wedge - using provocateurs if necessary - in the pro-LGBTIQ camp, hoping to return a "NO" vote. If the "NO" vote succeeds, this will embolden them to turn back the clock on even more hard-won civil freedoms that the community have fought so hard for.

If we vote "YES", we will help repudiate their vitriol, dirty tricks, false and deceitful language, vulgar low blows, where the hard right keep trying to muddle same-sex marriage with everything that's wrong in society that leads to a rapid slide into moral decay and social ills.

I admit, this postal vote IS a humiliating process and brings a feeling of almost "being beneath our dignity" to have to ask the wider community to grant us equality, when so many previous opinion polls have already shown widespread support for marriage equality. But if we snub this poll and even sabotage it, we will indeed cut off our own noses to spite our faces, giving permission to the toxic conservative politicians to inflict even more clawbacks on our freedoms, use even more inflamatory language and coalesce disperate political figures looking for an issue to galvanise their ultra-conservative vote.

As a wise, grandmotherly lady who had lived through wars, family tragedies, migration across the world and back, death of a spouse etc. - a gem of a soul, really - once advised me, "every coin has two sides". That has always stuck with me; despite this stupid, money-wasting, divisive action by our Australian government that's paralysed in decision-making, let's use this to send a loud and clear message that will put a big circuit-breaker in the hard-right's pushback against the LGBTIQ community.

Let's be the best ambassadors of our LGBTIQ community - remember, some of us have a voice and platform to speak out, whilst others do not. Let's use our voices to raise a positive platform, to speak about our aspirations, our dreams, our hopes for equality, how our love is no different to any other of our members of our wider society.

Keep reminding and campaigning our family, friends, colleagues and acquaintences that they would show gracious understanding, compassion and espouse the typical Aussie value of "giving everyone a fair go" by granting equality.

This equality would not take away anyone's rights, but just make more people "equal". We all can do our part to help convince everyone that our message is one of "love", whilst those who oppose us strictly work from "fear and prejudice". Let's make that very clear!

And most importantly, stay focused on the end goal - I encourage everyone to visualise the day in November when the results come in. I believe if we do our part, we'll take a majority of the Australian public with us, who will also vote resoundingly that "equality IS for everyone"!

Peace and love to all.

 

[ritsuka]

 

[topdog]

It's a YES for Australia!

Australia says yes to same-sex marriage in historic postal survey
The Guardian

Australia has taken a decisive step towards legislating marriage equality by Christmas after 61.6% of voters in an unprecedented national postal survey approved a change to the law to allow couples of the same sex to marry.

The result, announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Wednesday, will lead to consideration of a same-sex marriage bill in parliament with the prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, promising marriage equality should be law by Christmas.

Live Australia's same-sex marriage postal survey: 61.6% yes, 38.4% no – live
More than 12.7 million people voted in huge 79.5% turnout • All states and territories recorded vote in favour of change • Melbourne saw highest yes vote of 83.7% • Follow all the news and reaction live
Read more
With a turnout of 79.5% the result in the voluntary survey is considered a highly credible reflection of Australian opinion and gives marriage equality advocates enormous momentum to achieve the historic social reform. Australia’s chief statistician, David Kalisch, announced the results at a press conference in Canberra at 10am on Wednesday, revealing 7,817,247 people voted in favour and 4,873,987 voted against.

At a press conference in Canberra, Turnbull said that Australians had “spoken in their millions and they have voted overwhelmingly yes for marriage equality”.

Turnbull said the result was “unequivocal and overwhelming”, implicitly warning conservatives including in his own government that the public are “our masters” and the parliament must now deliver on the result.

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

The YES vote was expected, but neverthelessit's a huge relief.

Now the message to the governmentis clear, and can be summed up in four words: "Get on with it!"

 

[Stonecold]

Ellen DeGeneres‏Verified account @TheEllenShow

It’s a g’day. Way to go Australia. #MarriageEquality

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

The Prime Minister is patting himself on the back over this result. The fact is however that this was an unnecessary $122 million spent holding a SURVEY (note the wording; not a referendum, nor a plebiscite, either of which would have been conducted by the Electoral Commission, but a glorified opinion poll run by the Bureau of Statistics). Voting was entirely voluntary; voting forms were sent to people's letterboxes, with all the risks that that entails; conversations about it in the media were extremely stressful for many gay or bisexual people, leading to an increase in the numbers of those seeking help with mental health issues. And for what? The result? Same as every other survey in recent years, i.e. 60-something per cent in favour of same sex marriage. A massively expensive and disruptive public exercise, to tell us what we already knew.

Now the government is going to debate the legislation and hopefully get it through parliament. Which they could have done already - should have done - months ago.

We did not have a postal survey to decide whether to impose new taxes, change the rules around superannuation, how much to spend on defence, etc... and neither should we. We elect a government to make those decisions, and if we don't like the decisions we have the option of voting them out next time. Meanwhile they are in parliament getting paid a salary - not a princely salary, by business standards, but a comfortable salary - and most people I know are relieved by the results of the survey but not exactly jubilant, rather they are saying to the politicians "For Fuck's Sake, how clear do we have to make it, now get on with doing the job you are paid to do". How hard can it be to have a vote in parliament? Lord, it's like pulling teeth.

Sorry to rant, but there is white-hot fury within the gay community over this issue. The politicians have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, and when the SSM legislation is finally passed they needn't think we are going to be all smiles and say Hey, guys, well done. We'll remember all the procrastination, all the unnecessary vitriolic public debates. Australia is one of the last developed countries in the English-speaking world to get this reform, and that's not something to celebrate, it's a national embarrassment.

 

[Stonecold]

Be happy that SSM is happening, Australia will be seen in a better light now around the world. Your prime minister from what I have seen on the news here is promising the Australian Gay community that he will do all in his power to see the Gay community has this passed by Christmas.

 

[W!nston]

At least Australia will codify Gay Equality with legislation rather than the we have a piece-meal approach in America. We had to push the Supreme Court into action to FORCE the STATES to ALLOW Gay Marriage not a Federal Law mandating it. With the Australian legislation Gay Equality and all the protections of the law will be granted to you. No discrimination will be legal. You will have the full backing of your federal government. In the USA we are still at risk with no federal protection. We have a court ruling that could be overturned on a whim by the next court.

So for what it's worth be thankful you guys are well on your way to being in a much better position than we here in America. Neither of our political parties have stepped up to pass legislation codifying our right to exist. None of them. So be happy my friend.

 

[Stonecold]

I would disagree with you on much of what you said W!nston but I won't because that would be getting into politics.

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

^^ Yes I take your point.

It has taken some time for this issue to take root in the public consciousness. My initial thoughts about SSM were that the concept was a joke, a kind of fantasy. Later on I decided it was not a joke, but was rather apathetic about it, thinking I have no wish to get married and why would I. Eventually though I came to realise that, for whatever reason, getting married is important to many people, and it was not about whether I myself wanted to marry, but rather that I and others should be able to marry if they chose to.

I suspect that many others, gay and straight, had the same experience. Former PM Julia Gillard is vilified by many as being the Labor PM who could have brought about change when she was in power, but opposed it (though I doubt it would have got through the parliament at that time anyway). She opposed it because she is not a believer in marriage at all. She has since changed her mind and says people should be allowed to marry if they wish to. Barack Obama was originally of the opinion that marriage is a religious institution, and that the state should stay out of it. He also changed his mind later on. The fact is that marriage is a legal thing as well as a religious ceremony, and carries with it all kinds of legal trappings such as property co-ownership, inheritance and superannuation benefits. Most importantly, it's about equal rights.

There has been a lot of talk from the conservatives, who oppose SSM, about "protecting religious freedom." Well, I agree with that, and one aspect of that is the freedom to have no religion, and to not have others impose their religion on you. So-called religious freedom has limits - everyone understands that it's OK to be a Christian or a Jew or Muslim or a Buddhist, but if your religion was one that said you had the right to lop people's heads off if they had blue eyes, the state would step in and say no you can't do that, we call that murder and we don't allow it.

There are also Christian churches who are willing to perform same sex marriages and are waiting to be told they are allowed to, so it could be said that the current law is impeding religious freedom rather than promoting it.

 

[Stonecold]

jeansGuyOZ I have read that in Australia all rights are up to Parliment. I am wondering if that is true and does your high court have no say in matters like these? I also wonder how does your federal system make voting compulsory?

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

jeansGuyOZ I have read that in Australia all rights are up to Parliment. I am wondering if that is true and does your high court have no say in matters like these? I also wonder how does your federal system make voting compulsory?

You see, this is why I would like to see members' country of origin under their avatar - if they want that, of course - so that I can compare my situation with theirs.

Answering your first question: the courts, including the High Court, have no power to make laws. Their role is to interpret the law and the constitution. I believe this is the situation in most or all countries that have a parliamentary democracy. The constitution comes first, so the High Court can strike down an existing law that is found to be in breach of the constitution. Sometimes the wording of the law, or of the constitution, leaves room for ambiguity, hence the HC may need to make a ruling on what is the spirit of the law. A good example of what the High Court does happened in 1983 when the Tasmanian state government planned to build the Franklin dam, which was strongly opposed by environmentalists, and the newly elected federal government declared that they would not permit the dam to be built. The court had to rule whether the federal government had the power to over-rule the state government. In this case, they decided that they did. This was not a matter of the judges deciding they did not want a dam; they were deciding how the rights of state and federal governments, as outlined in the constitution, applied in this particular case.

As for the second question, I'm not sure what you mean by " how does your federal system make voting compulsory?". It's compulsory because that's the law. It's a bit like asking how does it make murder illegal - they do it by legislation. As for my opinion of compulsory voting, I fully support it. I can give a litany of reasons for supporting it if you wish, but one reason is this: because it's compulsory, nearly everyone votes. This means that during election campaigns, the candidates have to try and get their message to everybody, not just to special interest groups like Far Right and Far Left, who are rabidly wedded to their particular cause and will always make sure to cast their vote. That means you have to try and convince the people who only take an interest in politics once every three or four years that your policies are better than those of the other candidates.

 

[naughty_gam]

I don't know how many others on this bulletin board are from Australia, but this little black duck will be planning a wedding next year! My partner and I have been together for 24 years and we've had "registered relationship" certificates etc. but that's as far as the state can confer. Now that marriage equality is so close, I'm looking forward to it.

To be married puts beyond doubt the relationship and brings a legal status to it. For example, I've seen the heartache and problems when one partner of a gay relationship passes on, the extra paperwork and having to prove all over again that the relationship even existed to even change over multiple names to a single name for a utility account.

BTW, voting is compulsory because it's both sides of the coin of rights and responsibilities. For example, being an Australian citizen gives the right for someone to stand for public office, but also brings the responsiblity to vote in every election.

Given that this marriage equality (same sex marriage) postal vote was NOT compulsory, it was amazing to see close to 80% showing their opinion. While it was a somewhat humiliating thing to have to ask fellow citizens to extend equal rights to all, one good thing about this is the positive result - close to 62% voted yes - has put the opinion almost beyond doubt.

Even the "no" campaigners have all but conceded that the horse has indeed bolted on this, or as one journo wrote, "the dog wont' hunt" anymore. Once this is put into law, naysaying politicians know that they'll have to burn almost all their political capital if they want to reverse this, and the public would have moved on and fully accepted this decision.

 

[Stonecold]

jeansGuyOZ

As for the second question, I'm not sure what you mean by " how does your federal system make voting compulsory?".

I meant to ask how do they enforce it?

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

jeansGuyOZ


I meant to ask how do they enforce it?

When you go to the polling station they cross your name off the list as they hand you your ballot papers. If you are on the electoral roll and you didn't turn up to any polling station, then they MAY chase after you. I don't know how zealous they are about this though. It's a fine, it's not like you go to gaol or anything.

I was once sent a letter saying I was fined for not having voted in a NSW state election. I replied and told them to check their absentee vote records, as I had been in Melbourne at the time and had done an absentee vote. Red faces department.

Polling officers visit hospitals and the like to try and ensure everyone gets the chance to vote, but they don't harass and fine people who are seriously ill. It's not compulsory if you're out of the country on election day, but if you're keen you can still go along to an Australian embassy or consulate and cast your vote.

 

[haiducii]

Regardless, I’m very proud of you Australia!

 

[jeansGuyOZ]

^^ If those colours represented our states, in some ways they would make more sense than the existing state boundaries we currently have.

Thanks for the praise, but maybe save the celebrations until the legislation is actually passed. That's the elephant in the room. The nation has voted for it but we haven't got it yet because the governing party is still trying to do deals with the conservatives who are saying "Yes, we will have same sex marriage but we still need to include amendments in the bill to do this and ensure that...' some of which amendments are actually winding back anti-discrimination laws. Unbelievably, there are some of them who did not realise that when people voted Yes, they were saying "Yes, we want same sex couples to be allowed to marry", rather than saying "Yes we're happy for the government to form a committee and do a feasibility study and produce a White Paper and spend a year debating amendments so as to appease everyone who didn't vote YES." As I write, the Attorney General is still having discussions with the conservatives about the amendments they would like.

You can understand why so many in the gay community are frothing at the mouth. The government "went to the people" at a cost of $122 million for a glorified opinion poll; the results are in; the nation resoundingly voted YES; and IT IS STILL NOT HAPPENING. I don't think I have ever seen a more pathetic performance from a federal parliament, and that's saying a lot. Time for a new campaign: "Yes means yes." And not "yes, maybe next year sometime if we can sort out the details." Yes, NOW.

 

[Stonecold]

Your fundie Christians are as bad as the ones in the USA, they will go down fighting to have the freedom of religion right to hate and discriminate.