Now it's going to be a postal vote that won't count.

[Magellan]

To keep both sides happy why not just have a separate gay marriage act which is identical to the current marriage act except it's a union of 2 people of the same sex

That doesn't get around the central issue - you'd still be legislating a change to the definition of marriage, and the practical effect of expanding the definition in separate legislation would be the same as if you changed the current marriage act.

[woodublieve12]

For the people who oppose It, i am still waiting for one of them to give me a valid reason how two gay people marrying affects them?

[tipper]

I had a bloke tell me he didnt want to get hit on by another bloke so he will vote no..... apparently thats the only reason stopping them

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[MW]

For the people who oppose It, i am still waiting for one of them to give me a valid reason how two gay people marrying affects them?

For the 'no' voters, I think it mostly comes down to religious beliefs, especially Catholics.

In saying that, I'm Catholic and have no problem with gays marrying.

[Magellan]

For the people who oppose It, i am still waiting for one of them to give me a valid reason how two gay people marrying affects them?

Well, for starters all their bibles will smell of sulphur and burn uncontrollably.

[tipper]

To keep both sides happy why not just have a separate gay marriage act which is identical to the current marriage act except it's a union of 2 people of the same sex

That doesn't get around the central issue - you'd still be legislating a change to the definition of marriage, and the practical effect of expanding the definition in separate legislation would be the same as if you changed the current marriage act.

Yep. Some of the "believers" seem to think god has exclisive rights to the word marriage. They are very mistsken though. They lost that argument decades ago when they let the government in on the act. People can get married without god involved at all, but try doing it without getting the government involved....

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[cracka]

To keep both sides happy why not just have a separate gay marriage act which is identical to the current marriage act except it's a union of 2 people of the same sex

That doesn't get around the central issue - you'd still be legislating a change to the definition of marriage, and the practical effect of expanding the definition in separate legislation would be the same as if you changed the current marriage act.

Was just making a suggestion to try & appease the no gay marriage people.

[Magellan]

To keep both sides happy why not just have a separate gay marriage act which is identical to the current marriage act except it's a union of 2 people of the same sex

That doesn't get around the central issue - you'd still be legislating a change to the definition of marriage, and the practical effect of expanding the definition in separate legislation would be the same as if you changed the current marriage act.

Was just making a suggestion to try & appease the no gay marriage people.

Sure. However, I think even if you put the legislative content issue to one side, they fact that they would have their own 'marriage' law would irk them, from an inclusivity and equality perspective. They would want to be under the same 'umbrella' as everyone else.

[cracka]

To keep both sides happy why not just have a separate gay marriage act which is identical to the current marriage act except it's a union of 2 people of the same sex

That doesn't get around the central issue - you'd still be legislating a change to the definition of marriage, and the practical effect of expanding the definition in separate legislation would be the same as if you changed the current marriage act.

Was just making a suggestion to try & appease the no gay marriage people.

Sure. However, I think even if you put the legislative content issue to one side, they fact that they would have their own 'marriage' law would irk them, from an inclusivity and equality perspective. They would want to be under the same 'umbrella' as everyone else.

Will the gay & lesbian mardi gras then be changed to just the Sydney mardi gras so its inclusive & equal

[Jimmy_041]

Will the gay & lesbian mardi gras then be changed to just the Sydney mardi gras so its inclusive & equal

and use the word "gay" to express cheerfulness?

[MW]

These politicans are forgetting about the jobs growth this will create. More marriages means more celebrants, caterers, hospitality, tourism, function centre bookings, etc etc. and of course more divorce lawyers lol

[Booney]

In simple terms I can't believe it's even a debate in a country who prides itself on being at the forefront of inclusiveness, a multicultural society that opens it's arms to the world yet we can't get this done in a practical, cost effective time frame when the likes of Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,the United States and Uruguay have already passed SSM laws.

[Jimmy_041]

In simple terms I can't believe it's even a debate in a country who prides itself on being at the forefront of inclusiveness, a multicultural society that opens it's arms to the world yet we can't get this done in a practical, cost effective time frame when the likes of Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,the United States and Uruguay have already passed SSM laws.

errrr.............Ireland held a referendum and some of these other countries may have as well

So, I fail to see your point

[Booney]

In simple terms I can't believe it's even a debate in a country who prides itself on being at the forefront of inclusiveness, a multicultural society that opens it's arms to the world yet we can't get this done in a practical, cost effective time frame when the likes of Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,the United States and Uruguay have already passed SSM laws.

errrr.............Ireland held a referendum and some of these other countries may have as well

So, I fail to see your point

Regardless of the method, they've got it done, we're still faffing about with non-compulsory postal votes etc etc.

[Magellan]

In simple terms I can't believe it's even a debate in a country who prides itself on being at the forefront of inclusiveness, a multicultural society that opens it's arms to the world yet we can't get this done in a practical, cost effective time frame when the likes of Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,the United States and Uruguay have already passed SSM laws.

I think we did at one stage, but sadly I'm not sure that we do now.

[Booney]

In simple terms I can't believe it's even a debate in a country who prides itself on being at the forefront of inclusiveness, a multicultural society that opens it's arms to the world yet we can't get this done in a practical, cost effective time frame when the likes of Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,the United States and Uruguay have already passed SSM laws.

I think we did at one stage, but sadly I'm not sure that we do now.

Through the actions of others though, not ours, I would argue. ( Although waging a "war on terror" hasn't helped ).

[cracka]

While I'm for gay marriage, I'm not opposed to having a referendum on the issue. I am opposed to it being a stand alone one though. Just have it when we have the next election, could even have a couple of other topics like voluntary euthanasia.
While this is an important issue for some people, I think there are other issues that need to be dealt with first like power prices, petrol prices etc

[Jimmy_041]

In simple terms I can't believe it's even a debate in a country who prides itself on being at the forefront of inclusiveness, a multicultural society that opens it's arms to the world yet we can't get this done in a practical, cost effective time frame when the likes of Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand,Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom,the United States and Uruguay have already passed SSM laws.

errrr.............Ireland held a referendum and some of these other countries may have as well

So, I fail to see your point

Regardless of the method, they've got it done, we're still faffing about with non-compulsory postal votes etc etc.

Well, the party that won the election promised to have a referendum
Labor didn't win but you wouldn't think so
I didn't vote for either party but am happy to comply with the wishes of the majority
Apparently that doesn't matter anymore either

So, here we are. Faffing around. Democracy at work. Enjoy it

[Jimmy_041]

While I'm for gay marriage, I'm not opposed to having a referendum on the issue. I am opposed to it being a stand alone one though. Just have it when we have the next election, could even have a couple of other topics like voluntary euthanasia.
While this is an important issue for some people, I think there are other issues that need to be dealt with first like power prices, petrol prices etc

I agree with all of this ................^

Then we can avoid being subjected to religious freaks like Michael Atkinson
Maybe Atkinson needs to have a Daniel Andrews life experience
Funny how these supercilious prix have to experience what us normal people do before they get out of their ivory towers

[Magellan]

Jimmy's right, the plebiscite was liberal policy at the last election, so fair enough that as the party in power they sought to implement it. The reason its not going ahead is the senate, and the reason that's a cluster **** is Turnbull made a miscalculation and called the election at the wrong time. With a majority in both houses, and bada-bing, you get your plebiscite (for better or worse).