Same Sex Marriage is now legal in Australia,

 
  lsrailfan Chief Commissioner

Location: Somewhere you're not
Whether you like it or not, the bill was officially passed in the lower house of Parliament about an hour or so ago - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-07/same-sex-marriage-bill-passes-house-of-representatives/9235560

This has come after hours of emotional debate in both houses , I myself really don't care about it, I am happy for those that wanted it, but it doesn't affect me in the slightest

Kind Regards

Sponsored advertisement

  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Well not quite yet. First it has to be approved by the Governor-General and then it has to be published in the Government Gazette.

But yes, parliament has finished with it, the GG only has the power to question ultra dodgy legislation, so his approval of an act like this is just rubber-stamping it. Then, the minute it appears in the Gazette, that is when it becomes law and Tim Wilson et. al. can get married.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

Only after lodging their Notice of Intended Marriage and waiting the one month, making the first possible date Tuesday 9 January.
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE
Anyway,

Its done, the world didn't end and I suspect in a years time this change will have almost no impact on 90% of us who are not in a SS relationship. Good luck to all those entering the marriage domain with all its highs and lows who previously couldn't.
  mikesyd Chief Commissioner

Location: no longer in Sydney
Pity that they had to waste $120M to clear the conscience of those who were worried about a backlash if they has just Legislated earlier. Anyway, its done.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
I think the postal survey was a good thing. It resolved an issue that had been in political deadlock (or in the "too hard basket") for both political teams for almost a decade. It had degenerated to silly political point scoring with both parties using the issue to slag off the other side, while overlooking the human suffering that leaving things unresolved caused.

Regardless of which political team you barrack for, this survey has decisively resolved an important and controversial issue. Who knows how much longer it would have remained unresolved if not for the postal survey?

I reckon this semi-formal postal survey approach should also be used in the future for other important things that are stuck in indefinite political limbo (not just social issues like euthanasia, but other policy areas too). After all, no politician would dare to be so high handed as to snub the clearly expressed will of ordinary people. So anything that passed a similar postal survey would get through parliament.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Does this now mean that we must search for another splinter cause to use as a distraction from actually doing something in government for the overall good and future of the country?

No hurry though as the Section 44 Dual Citizenship business will do for a while yet.  But after that we will need a new distraction.Sad
  Showtime Chief Train Controller

I was annoyed to see those smarmy maggots standing and cheering whilst simultaneously staring up at the gallery to receive their accolades from the peasants above.
What greatness they have achieved while simply enacting an act that should have just been passed months/years ago and not cost us millions of taxpayer dollars, a source that is just a bottomless pit and of no real concern to these grubs!
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
I was annoyed to see those smarmy maggots standing and cheering whilst simultaneously staring up at the gallery to receive their accolades from the peasants above.
What greatness they have achieved while simply enacting an act that should have just been passed months/years ago and not cost us millions of taxpayer dollars, a source that is just a bottomless pit and of no real concern to these grubs!
Showtime
Agreed. Just a cover up for not doing what we pay the bastards to do.
They should have done this long ago in many people's minds.
But when are they going to do something mainstream for the overall good of Australia?
  michaelgm Chief Train Controller

If a postal survey is how we decide on major policy, please continue down this path, and pi$$ off 75% of the spineless bastards in Canberra.

I did not participate in the survey on principle, polies should have made that call. Make a heap of federal MPs redundant, that will put a rocket into the remaining.
  michaelgm Chief Train Controller

Tony Abbott abstained from voting. Like or loathe him, appears his morals take second place to politics.

Will someone please remove the splinters from his backside acquired from sitting on the fence.
  justapassenger Chief Commissioner

The GG has now assented to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017.

All of the changes (bar one curious little amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 regarding official records of a person's sex which takes place on 9 December 2018) come into effect tomorrow. In addition to the Marriage Act 1961 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, a total of 20 other Acts have had amended for mostly small technical changes such as replacing "husband or wife" with "husband, wife or spouse" and so on.

Well not quite yet. First it has to be approved by the Governor-General and then it has to be published in the Government Gazette.

But yes, parliament has finished with it, the GG only has the power to question ultra dodgy legislation, so his approval of an act like this is just rubber-stamping it. Then, the minute it appears in the Gazette, that is when it becomes law and Tim Wilson et. al. can get married.
Bogong
This is technically incorrect. An Act becomes law from the moment it is signed by the Governor-General and takes effect from the date/s specified in the Act, and does not need to wait for the time when it is published in the Government Gazette.

The unmodified period of notice means same sex civil marriages (it is unknown whether the internal regulations of any religious bodies have been modified to allow for SSM as yet) can take place from Tuesday 9 January or Thursday 11 January - I'm not sure whether it is possible to give notice on a weekend?
  Dangersdan707 Train Controller

Location: On a Thing with Internet
all sam sex couple that have married overseas have 'apparently' been instantly recognised according to 774 this morning.
  billybaxter Deputy Commissioner

Location: Bosnia Park, Fairfield
Why have you put inverted commas around apparently? What do you want to say?
  Dangersdan707 Train Controller

Location: On a Thing with Internet
@billybaxter I am not sure if it is true, though I hope it is
  gordon_s1942 Deputy Commissioner

Location: Central Tablelands of NSW
This should be a bountiful time for those prepared to conduct ceremonies once they know what the Law requires and the wishes of the participants.
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE
Pity that they had to waste $120M to clear the conscience of those who were worried about a backlash if they has just Legislated earlier. Anyway, its done.
mikesyd
2 years ago when a vote was first proposed, the electorate was still close to 50:50. Support has been growing at the rate of 2-3% PA if you go back through the history of surveys. Remember the opposition ran away from introducing legislation in 2012 for fear of voter backlash.

Then because it took so long to work out what sort of vote it would be and get past the opposers in govt, by the time the actual vote took place, the outcome was clear. So yes it just a matter of waiting and eventually the public support was going to be very strong. However 61% is not a land slide or 6 in 10 people, just majority.  In 2015, it probably would have been around 55-56%.
  Dangersdan707 Train Controller

Location: On a Thing with Internet
What are we going to wast money on next? A survey on if Tim tams are delicious?
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
What are we going to wast money on next? A survey on if Tim tams are delicious?
Dangersdan707
No, but this postal survey method would be a great way to resolve other important issues that have been stuck in political limbo by our bickering politicians. I mentioned euthanasia and "social policy" issues earlier, but it could also be used for other things that are too controversial for pollies to touch.

This gay marriage survey has shown that 95% of politicians will drop their petty bickering, point scoring, etc. and be bound by the clearly expressed will of the people on a particular issue.
  Valvegear The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Norda Fittazroy
This gay marriage survey has shown that 95% of politicians will drop their petty bickering, point scoring, etc. and be bound by the clearly expressed will of the people on a particular issue.
"Bogong"
The figure of 95% is telling. Abbott's constituents voted overwhelmingly in favour of the YES decision, but despite his pious words about the will of the people, Abbott abstained from voting. Instead, he was doing his utmost, right up until the final vote in the House, to delay the issue by whatever means he could. I hope that his electorate party officials preselect a better candidate for the next election.
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE
This gay marriage survey has shown that 95% of politicians will drop their petty bickering, point scoring, etc. and be bound by the clearly expressed will of the people on a particular issue.
The figure of 95% is telling. Abbott's constituents voted overwhelmingly in favour of the YES decision, but despite his pious words about the will of the people, Abbott abstained from voting. Instead, he was doing his utmost, right up until the final vote in the House, to delay the issue by whatever means he could. I hope that his electorate party officials preselect a better candidate for the next election.
Valvegear
Abbott like about 10 or so other MP's said right along, they are personally opposed to SSM, however most also said they would not vote against the will of the people so if their electorate said YES and they don't support, then they will not get in the way and abstain.

There is nothing wrong with this, the vote was a conscience vote and hence there was no requirement to follow party lines. An MP is there to represent the people, but the MP is also a person and entitled to a vote and entitled to stand up for what they believe in and one issue doesn't make or break an MP.

Abbott and the rest will not have an issue with pre-selection because there is far more to life than SSM.
  Valvegear The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Norda Fittazroy
An MP is there to represent the people, but the MP is also a person and entitled to a vote and entitled to stand up for what they believe in and one issue doesn't make or break an MP.
"RTT_Rules"
Well, for God's sake make your mind up. According to your statement he's there to represent the people unless what they want doesn't suit him.

What I will say, RTT, is that you were not here listening to Abbott on TV news or anywhere else he could get a grab.
Yes; there's more to life than SSM, and there's also a lot more to life than politicians telling porkies in public. Abbott publicly said he would vote with the wish of the vast majority of his electorate who answered, "Yes". When the chips were down; he failed his electorate miserably. It's time dishonesty was punished.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
I agree with you Valvegear, but only if you agree that all MPs who disregarded the votes of their constituents should be punished (with some leeway if the vote in their electorate was fairly close).

So I'll agree to punishing Tony Abbott, if you agree to punishing at least three posh inner city professionals who represent migrant seats in western Sydney. They voted YES in parliament, despite two thirds of their constituents voting NO in the postal survey.

Any other punishment regime would be a shocking double standard.

BTW. Personally I voted yes in the survey and I'm NOT a fan of Tony Abbott. But nor am I a fan of MPs from privileged backgrounds ignoring the clear wishes of battlers they pretend to represent. That sort of behaviour gets close to condescending snobbery.
  RTT_Rules The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Dubai UAE
An MP is there to represent the people, but the MP is also a person and entitled to a vote and entitled to stand up for what they believe in and one issue doesn't make or break an MP.
Well, for God's sake make your mind up. According to your statement he's there to represent the people unless what they want doesn't suit him.

What I will say, RTT, is that you were not here listening to Abbott on TV news or anywhere else he could get a grab.
Yes; there's more to life than SSM, and there's also a lot more to life than politicians telling porkies in public. Abbott publicly said he would vote with the wish of the vast majority of his electorate who answered, "Yes". When the chips were down; he failed his electorate miserably. It's time dishonesty was punished.
Valvegear
What I meant was, for a conscious vote MP's were allowed to vote person preference. Now if personal preference is against the will of the people from their electorate and they DIDN'T previously state they would follow the will of the people, regardless of the outcome, then abstaining is the best answer and I don't have a problem with it.

The MP's who voted the opposite of the electorate are to me far more an issue and at risk of voter backlash at next election. If Abbott did this then he answers to his voters, but as there is far more to life than SSM, then I guess people need to weigh up what is really more important to them. If my local MP did this, mmm, I doubt I'd seek revenge if I was happy with their performance otherwise.

No I didn't listen to Abbott, nor would I had I been there and nor did I on pod cast or the media here or almost any MP on this topic.
  Valvegear The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: Norda Fittazroy
I agree with you Valvegear, but only if you agree that all MPs who disregarded the votes of their constituents should be punished (with some leeway if the vote in their electorate was fairly close).

So I'll agree to punishing Tony Abbott, if you agree to punishing at least three posh inner city professionals who represent migrant seats in western Sydney. They voted YES in parliament, despite two thirds of their constituents voting NO in the postal survey.
Bogong
I'm punishing the lie; not the vote. It's not the way Abbott voted (or failed to) that annoyed me so much. I picked on him as a horrible example because of his high profile mouthing off and subsequent failure. He promised and lied.  The others you mentioned failed to represent their constituents, but at least they didn't lie. And, yes; I'd be perfectly happy to see each and every lying politician punished. Once elected, they seem to believe that they then have a God-given right to lie whenever they like.


What I meant was, for a conscious vote MP's were allowed to vote person preference. Now if personal preference is against the will of the people from their electorate and they DIDN'T previously state they would follow the will of the people, regardless of the outcome, then abstaining is the best answer and I don't have a problem with it.
RTT_Rules
A conscience vote ( not conscious vote) simply means not having to toe the party line.  As I have said in reply to Bogong, after the plebiscite, Abbott was all piss and wind like the barber's cat - he said he would and he didn't. Simple.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: Brianr, RTT_Rules

Display from: