As he's said, the Coalition went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. Labor went in with that exact same promise, but have compromised that with the granting of a conscience vote for its members being allowed to break yet another promise, and vote in favour of changing the act from exclusively man-woman, to man-man and woman-woman marriages.

has gillard actually spelt out why she is against it??.. we know she doesnt believe in religion.. so what is her reason??..as for Abboitt no he doesnt have to do anything... if the libs are so in favour of it they cn still cross the floor..when it comes up.. it will be interesting to see if anyone does..I am wondering what will happen to her if the vote goes against her..she is very much dependent on the libs NOT crossing the floor..mmmmmm

Maybe a few Libs will cross the floor, but the vote still won't pass.

This is all about saving face. As an issue, it's a bit like the republic. People might feel one way or another, but they know changing the marriage act won't change anything.

Why should Mr Abbott allow a conscience vote?

It would infer that he has one?

Why should Mr Abbott allow a conscience vote?

You think he should stick to his normal no conscience position?

In my view every vote should be a conscience vote - any other type should be illegal.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 10:30pm:

Why should Mr Abbott allow a conscience vote? You think he should stick to his normal no conscience position? In my view every vote should be a conscience vote - any other type should be illegal.

Why are you a lefty then?  :o

Why, because of History and what is ahead of us :

"In recent conferences of the party, Herr Hitler emphasised a determination to stamp out sex perversion among all Nazi organisations. It was recalled that after his 'purge' of June 30, he made a pledge 'to German mothers that their sons would never be contaminated if they joined his Storm Troopers'."

This was the beginning of the Nazi purge against gays. In the following ten years, some 50,000 gays were branded as "criminals and degenerates" by the Third Reich, with between 10,000 and 15,000 being sent to concentration camps. Few survived.

Last week, the German "parliament" has decided to spend €500,000 ($613.00, £350,000) for a building in central Berlin that will be a memorial to Nazism's gay victims.

"Homosexual victims of the Nazi regime were mostly shut out of Germany's culture of remembrance in the past. That is now over,'" commented Volker Beck of Germany's Green party.

The memorial will be built along the Tiergarten Park in Berlin, close to the site of a planned Holocaust memorial.

Unlike the millions of Jews killed on the orders of Hitler's government, the gay victims of the Nazi regime have long struggled for recognition.

It was not until December 2000 that the German parliament officially apologised to gays and lesbians who were persecuted under the Nazi regime. Parliament also expressed regret for the "harm done to homosexual citizens up to 1969", the year when the notorious Paragraph 175 which outlawed homosexuality was repealed after almost 100 years on the statute books.

Most gays were sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Oranienburg, north of Berlin. At the end of the war, the few that survived Sachsenhausen war were then imprisoned for the remainder of their "Paragraph 175" sentence.

One survivor of Sachsenhausen, L.D. von Classen-Neudegg, told of life in the camp:

"We learned that we were to be segregated in a penal command and the next morning would be transferred as a unit to the Klinkerwerk [the "Brickworks", a notorious part of the Sachsenhausen camp]... We shuddered because these bone mills were more dreaded than any other work detail," he wrote.

"Guarded by staff sergeants with machine guns, we had to sprint in lines of five until we arrived... They kept beating us with rifle butts and bullwhips... Forced to drag along twenty corpses, the rest of us encrusted with blood, entered the cement quarry...Within two months, the special operation had lost two-thirds... To shoot someone "trying to escape" was a profitable business for the guards. For everyone they killed, they received five marks and three days' special furlough... When I weighed less than 40 kilos, one of the sergeants told me one morning, "Well, that's it. You want to go to the other side? It won't hurt. I'm a crack shot."



http://tinyurl.com/7usgtx2


Their lives were not in vain,
2012,
no where in the world could this be replicated.

Imagine if your family published a newspaper story saying you were evil, and that the story made some neighbours feel obligated to smash your skull with rocks. There are thousands of stories like this in Africa. This one is horrific but has a happy ending.

We know there’s a crisis facing lesbian, gay and transgender people around the globe.

Homosexuality is criminal in about 77 countries, including five with the death penalty, and numbers are growing. Particularly in Africa, queer people are being terrorized into the closet, prison cells or the club-wielding hands of lynch mobs. Many religious groups exacerbate this terror to mobilize against wicked Western morals and the ‘previously unknown’ foreign import – homosexuality.

Laws against homosexuality did not exist in Africa until the late 19th Century under British colonization. Nowadays, African leaders who promote gay hatred maintain the colonialist mentality. Governments cracked down on homosexuals as a way to unite Christians and Muslims in Africa.

This could seem comical, except that modern queer Africans are fleeing homelands where they’ve been imprisoned, blackmailed or tortured because of their sexuality or gender identity. Many are physically or sexually assaulted by police or religious officials.

In 2011, the Canadian Government amended the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and other legislation claimed to improve Canada’s asylum system for refugees.

Vancouver lawyer Rob Hughes, well-known for representing gay and lesbian refugees over the past 20 years, says Canadian law allows refugee protection for those who can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. They must also prove they cannot be safe in another part of their country and that their own state government is unable or unwilling to protect them.

In Vancouver, Hughes represented newcomer Sombede Korak at a refugee hearing in 2011. Korak is a gay man who recently fled West Africa. He’s from Ghana’s second largest city, Kumasi, in the centre of the country’s Ashanti Region.

Korak’s story Although Korak is now safely in Canada, he prefers to remain anonymous and his name here is a pseudonym. This is his story.

Kumasi is the capital of Ghana’s kente cloth and gold-producing Ashanti Region. Much of Ghana’s wealth and many of its leaders come from this area. The Ashanti ethnic group is estimated to comprise 19 percent of the population, making it the largest cultural group in Ghana.

As a young Ashanti boy, Korak knew he was different. One day, after he wore his sister’s clothes on the street, his father beat him so severely it took several weeks to recover.

His adolescence was difficult, but at age 20, he met his first boyfriend. “We stole time together,” says Korak in an interview in Vancouver.

“That same year, 2001, a male relative demanded that I date a woman and have sex to prove I was a man, not a homosexual. My family forced me into a heterosexual relationship. ”

Because his 18-year-old girlfriend insisted they live together after she had twins, Korak rented two rooms. He attended the Catholic Church, hoping a Christian god might trump African traditions. “Secretly I kept seeing my boyfriend,” said Korak. His traditionalist family was happy he sired children, but after a couple of years, one of the twins died.

“Twins are a good omen, so according to Ashanti tradition, I had to perform a ceremony to make the dead child’s spirit return in the next baby. Our Ashanti religion, a mix of spiritual and supernatural powers, includes ancestor worship. Shaming the ancestors is an unforgivable sin,” he explains.

By 2008, he and his girlfriend produced another child. “Everyone agreed the baby had the same face and spirit as one that died,” he says. “Spiritual beliefs, customary practices and fetish rituals are part of everyday life in Ghana. ”

Korak was rarely home with the babies and their mother. He had a successful business and claimed his trading operation kept him absent, but all along, between 2000 and 2009, he and his boyfriend continued their relationship.

“One afternoon, my boyfriend and I were at a hotel that rented rooms by the hour. Suddenly, my boyfriend’s family broke the door and barged into the room, catching us in bed. The mother and sisters screamed and made a loud scene. There was lots of shouting."

“I ran away. Later, I tried to call my boyfriend several times, but his mobile phone was dead. That was the last time we saw each other. We’d been together nine years. ” Of course, the boyfriend’s family made sure Korak’s relatives found out he’d been caught red-handed as a homosexual.

“Oh, it was bad. In reaction, my family ordered I go to an Ashanti bush shrine to be cleansed of evil spirits. I tried to remind them I was Roman Catholic, but it did not help. They insisted I go for the shrine ritual. ”

Exorcism It is important to note these cleansing rituals are not confined just to African traditionalist religions. For the past several years in Ghana, the fastest growing evangelical and other Christian churches embrace the notion of the Devil, spirit possession and witch demonology. African leaders know that a church without exorcism or so-called deliverance sessions means empty pews.

“A different religion like being Roman Catholic made no difference,” he says. “My family insisted I be cleansed. The shrine priest would perform painful rituals to drive out the Devil and make me straight. ”

When I show Korak my photos of an Ashanti shrine 20 kilometres outside Kumasi, he shakes his head, saying that a painted shrine, a town shrine, does not hold the horror of a bush shrine.

“You have to pay money to be beaten. The priest takes you far into the bush, chains you to a large rock at the shrine, throws stones and clubs you. They would shave my head and poison me – or likely kill me in the bush shrine. Acid could be forced down my throat as part of cleansing the evil, being homosexual. Because I broke a serious taboo, they could treat me the same as a witch."

“When people die in a bush shrine there is rarely a police investigation or autopsy,” he says. Rather than undergo a cleansing ritual that was likely to kill him, Korak ran away. His family searched for him. Relatives gave a story to Ghana’s National Democrat newspaper, announcing they were hunting him for a cleansing ceremony.

The article was as good as signing a death warrant. Ashanti beliefs – that being homosexuality shamed the ancestors – meant anyone could beat him to death on sight. He was known to have an evil spirit. Some religions teach some Africans that killing a homosexual is like beating the Devil.

Realizing he could not stay hidden in Ghana, Korak applied for a visa and came to Canada as a tourist. In Vancouver, the LGBT activist group, the Rainbow Refugee Committee, helped him make an application to be accepted in Canada.

Korak must keep details of his Canadian refugee claim private for his own safety and to protect those Ghanaians who helped him, but he does reveal that after he’d arrived in Canada, a Kumasi friend mailed him a copy of the newspaper story about his family’s hunt. In a strange twist, the news story’s open invitation to violently cleanse the devil saved his life.

Rob Hughes explains: “The Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board member who heard the case said she ruled in favour because of the proven death threat [Korak] faced at home. The newspaper clipping corroborated details given earlier in the refugee application about the danger he faced. ”

Fear Despite being safely in Vancouver, Korak is still in the closet. Old beliefs die hard. He is afraid of being discovered as a homosexual by fellow Ghanaians at his Vancouver church. In a strange new land, he needs continued contact with his own culture. However, many newcomers are still socially conservative. Many still hate gays as a God-given right. He does not feel safe.

Perhaps this can be a reminder for us. Hatred and exorcisms are not confined to African traditional religions. With rapid growth of Pentecostal, charismatic and evangelical churches on that continent, they are harnessing Africans’ fear of witchcraft and supernatural powers. Both religions and governments gain power by demonizing gays and lesbians, denouncing low Western morals. It is cheaper for African governments to look engaged by passing anti-gay laws than to deliver clean water, sewage systems or education.

Media reports such as The Rachel Maddow Show document US fundamentalist churches that finance African pastors who preach against gay rights and women’s rights. African congregations see their hate-speaking pastors quoted internationally by conservative media outlets, getting publicity for outlandish pronouncements that North American pastors would be laughed at or arrested for here – and thus attracting US dollars. African pastors who say the right thing become rich and famous with American Christian help.

American money shaping African morals and African souls – another colonization of the spirit.

Meanwhile, rising immigration from conservative nations into Canada and all of North America and Europe is creating new pressures. Local fundamentalists promote homosexual hatred with evangelical fervor. For Canadian queer people, protecting the right to live safely, be treated with dignity, overcome internalized homophobia, come out and fight back against hate-mongering religious messages must remain a never-ending process.

Human rights workers and queer activists need our continued support both in Canada and around the world.

http://tinyurl.com/88y2tvy


By Abbott trying to make Heterosexuals superior to the Queer Community, via excluding from marriage by denying a conscious vote, Mr Abbott is undermining our wider community's desire to find love, peace and security in everyone's life.

Once marriage equality is achieved here, the queer community can then repair and then be a beacon to the world. We require Mr Abbott's assistance to achieve this.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 10:30pm:

Why should Mr Abbott allow a conscience vote? You think he should stick to his normal no conscience position? In my view every vote should be a conscience vote - any other type should be illegal.

then there would be no need for a party they would all be independents.. is that preferable?

____ wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 4:25am:

Why, because of History and what is ahead of us : "In recent conferences of the party, Herr Hitler emphasised a determination to stamp out sex perversion among all Nazi organisations. It was recalled that after his 'purge' of June 30, he made a pledge 'to German mothers that their sons would never be contaminated if they joined his Storm Troopers'." This was the beginning of the Nazi purge against gays. In the following ten years, some 50,000 gays were branded as "criminals and degenerates" by the Third Reich, with between 10,000 and 15,000 being sent to concentration camps. Few survived. Last week, the German "parliament" has decided to spend €500,000 ($613.00, £350,000) for a building in central Berlin that will be a memorial to Nazism's gay victims. "Homosexual victims of the Nazi regime were mostly shut out of Germany's culture of remembrance in the past. That is now over,'" commented Volker Beck of Germany's Green party. The memorial will be built along the Tiergarten Park in Berlin, close to the site of a planned Holocaust memorial. Unlike the millions of Jews killed on the orders of Hitler's government, the gay victims of the Nazi regime have long struggled for recognition. It was not until December 2000 that the German parliament officially apologised to gays and lesbians who were persecuted under the Nazi regime. Parliament also expressed regret for the "harm done to homosexual citizens up to 1969", the year when the notorious Paragraph 175 which outlawed homosexuality was repealed after almost 100 years on the statute books. Most gays were sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp in Oranienburg, north of Berlin. At the end of the war, the few that survived Sachsenhausen war were then imprisoned for the remainder of their "Paragraph 175" sentence. One survivor of Sachsenhausen, L.D. von Classen-Neudegg, told of life in the camp: "We learned that we were to be segregated in a penal command and the next morning would be transferred as a unit to the Klinkerwerk [the "Brickworks", a notorious part of the Sachsenhausen camp]... We shuddered because these bone mills were more dreaded than any other work detail," he wrote. "Guarded by staff sergeants with machine guns, we had to sprint in lines of five until we arrived... They kept beating us with rifle butts and bullwhips... Forced to drag along twenty corpses, the rest of us encrusted with blood, entered the cement quarry...Within two months, the special operation had lost two-thirds... To shoot someone "trying to escape" was a profitable business for the guards. For everyone they killed, they received five marks and three days' special furlough... When I weighed less than 40 kilos, one of the sergeants told me one morning, "Well, that's it. You want to go to the other side? It won't hurt. I'm a crack shot." http://tinyurl.com/7usgtx2 Their lives were not in vain, 2012, no where in the world could this be replicated.

hello woody where have you been??.. dont tell exile..

look I think most are horrified by the past and persecution for being gay..I think we have come a long way at least I havent heard of any regime in recent times persecuting gays. I for one am appalled by any persecution of any group not just gays..

its time to move on woody living in the past doesnt change the past... and to bring up this because of a vote that may go against gay marriage is a wee bit over the top I think..and takes away from the real nature of what happened then.

I think we have come a long way at least I havent heard of any regime in recent times persecuting gays.
...............................................................

I'm sure there is at least one African country that has the death penalty if a person is proven to be homosexual......still in 2011.

We, in Australia have come a little way, we have a long way to go until we have equality.

I can't imagine the Libs ever passing an act to allow gay marriage, they are too affiliated with the church and that means loss of donations to the party.

You never know, we might get a liberal Liberal leader one day.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 6:19am:

I think we have come a long way at least I havent heard of any regime in recent times persecuting gays. ............................................................... I'm sure there is at least one African country that has the death penalty if a person is proven to be homosexual......still in 2011. We, in Australia have come a little way, we have a long way to go until we have equality. I can't imagine the Libs ever passing an act to allow gay marriage, they are too affiliated with the church and that means loss of donations to the party. You never know, we might get a liberal Liberal leader one day.

oh come on pansi.. I believ muslims also have a dim view....slightly less than what was happening in NAZI Germany for gods sakes..they still stone woen to death and chop off hands as well..but we are working on it..geees..the Libs can cross the floor without being expelled pansi... they are not all religious zealots.

and whats gillards excuse for being against it then?

cods wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 6:24am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 6:19am: I think we have come a long way at least I havent heard of any regime in recent times persecuting gays. ............................................................... I'm sure there is at least one African country that has the death penalty if a person is proven to be homosexual......still in 2011. We, in Australia have come a little way, we have a long way to go until we have equality. I can't imagine the Libs ever passing an act to allow gay marriage, they are too affiliated with the church and that means loss of donations to the party. You never know, we might get a liberal Liberal leader one day. oh come on pansi.. I believ muslims also have a dim view....slightly less than what was happening in NAZI Germany for gods sakes..they still stone woen to death and chop off hands as well..but we are working on it..geees..the Libs can cross the floor without being expelled pansi... they are not all religious zealots. and whats gillards excuse for being against it then?

Probably wouldn't have liked to have been begotten
by two women and a cold syringe.

cods wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 6:24am:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 6:19am: I think we have come a long way at least I havent heard of any regime in recent times persecuting gays. ............................................................... I'm sure there is at least one African country that has the death penalty if a person is proven to be homosexual......still in 2011. We, in Australia have come a little way, we have a long way to go until we have equality. I can't imagine the Libs ever passing an act to allow gay marriage, they are too affiliated with the church and that means loss of donations to the party. You never know, we might get a liberal Liberal leader one day. oh come on pansi.. I believ muslims also have a dim view....slightly less than what was happening in NAZI Germany for gods sakes..they still stone woen to death and chop off hands as well..but we are working on it..geees..the Libs can cross the floor without being expelled pansi... they are not all religious zealots. and whats gillards excuse for being against it then?

Maybe she wouldn't have liked to have been begotten by two women and a cold syringe.

cods wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 8:55pm:

has gillard actually spelt out why she is against it??.. we know she doesnt believe in religion.. so what is her reason??..as for Abboitt no he doesnt have to do anything... if the libs are so in favour of it they cn still cross the floor..when it comes up.. it will be interesting to see if anyone does..I am wondering what will happen to her if the vote goes against her..she is very much dependent on the libs NOT crossing the floor..mmmmmm

Her reason is political - she thinks the majority of voting Australians are against it, so she's decided to jump on that side of the fence. Abbott's stance on the other hand is both religious and personal - but not political. Like him or not, at least he talks on this particular subject from the heart, Gillard from the head (and a rather cavernous one, at that).

Why do people think that he should defy democracy, like Labor have done?

matty wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 9:21am:

Why do people think that he should defy democracy, like Labor have done?

Because we can think, matty. Because we can.

Gist wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 9:29am:

matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:21am: Why do people think that he should defy democracy, like Labor have done? Because we can think, matty. Because we can.

I'm asking WHY you think that he should defy democracy, though?

matty wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 9:38am:

Gist wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:29am: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:21am: Why do people think that he should defy democracy, like Labor have done? Because we can think, matty. Because we can. I'm asking WHY you think that he should defy democracy, though?

I would think that allowing people to vote for what they believe and what the people who voted for them expect is democratic.

Being locked into a party position which may or may not be supported by the electorate is the less democratic option.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 9:49am:

matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:38am: Gist wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:29am: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:21am: Why do people think that he should defy democracy, like Labor have done? Because we can think, matty. Because we can. I'm asking WHY you think that he should defy democracy, though? I would think that allowing people to vote for what they believe and what the people who voted for them expect is democratic. Being locked into a party position which may or may not be supported by the electorate is the less democratic option.

ALL Coalition members went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. ALL Labor members went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. ALL Green members went to the last election with a promise of changing the marriage act. 72 Coalition members were voted in, 72 ALP members were voted in, 1 Greens was voted in. In a democracy, majority rules, 144/150 = OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.

cods wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 5:37am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 17th, 2011 at 10:30pm: Why should Mr Abbott allow a conscience vote? You think he should stick to his normal no conscience position? In my view every vote should be a conscience vote - any other type should be illegal. then there would be no need for a party they would all be independents.. is that preferable?

People with similar beliefs would still vote the same way on most occasions, the current position locks people on either side into supporting policy they know is bad.

Why should Mr Abbott allow a conscience vote? (matty)

Because he leads(?) a party that claims to be run along democratic lines??

;)

matty wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 9:21am:

Why do people think that he should defy democracy?

Actually, matty, that is EXACTLY what he is doing.

:)

matty wrote on Dec 17^th, 2011 at 8:49pm:

As he's said, the Coalition went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. Labor went in with that exact same promise, but have compromised that with the granting of a conscience vote for its members being allowed to break yet another promise, and vote in favour of changing the act from exclusively man-woman, to man-man and woman-woman marriages.

Because it is a social conscience issue and one of human rights and equality . All areas Abbott struggles with i know but still no excuse for his fears to rise to the top. Abbott is scared that if opposition to his decisions are allowed to surface his house of cards will come tumbling down.

Lobo wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 12:31pm:

matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:21am: Why do people think that he should defy democracy? Actually, matty, that is EXACTLY what he is doing. :)

he has said thats what they took to the last election..they would not change the act...I presume he also means it could come up at the next election then they decide again...are they against it or for it..

as it is so did the labor party.

maybe it is something that should come up at the next election... are they for or against...this to my mind is not nearly as significant as CARBON TAX... where we didnt get asked.. and there was no conscience vote.

I think its strange that we have a special vote for gay marriage to be honest.

Being locked into a party position which may or may not be supported by the electorate is the less democratic option.


Does the same apply to  Oakshot and Windsor? Their electorate thought they were voting for conservative candidates, instead they got liars and bumbling idiots.

matty wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 9:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:49am: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:38am: Gist wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:29am: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:21am: Why do people think that he should defy democracy, like Labor have done? Because we can think, matty. Because we can. I'm asking WHY you think that he should defy democracy, though? I would think that allowing people to vote for what they believe and what the people who voted for them expect is democratic. Being locked into a party position which may or may not be supported by the electorate is the less democratic option. ALL Coalition members went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. ALL Labor members went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. ALL Green members went to the last election with a promise of changing the marriage act. 72 Coalition members were voted in, 72 ALP members were voted in, 1 Greens was voted in. In a democracy, majority rules, 144/150 = OVERWHELMING MAJORITY.

Actually, matty, they all went to the election parroting Party propaganda.
Perhaps they knew if they didn't they'd be taking the long jump.

Proof, matty??
They went to that election with a Carbon Tax policy.
With Turnbull at the helm approx 50% of Coalition MPs supported the policy.

When the Mad Monk took over they were 100% opposed.

:D

matty wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 9:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:49am: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:38am: Gist wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:29am: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:21am: Why do people think that he should defy democracy, like Labor have done? Because we can think, matty. Because we can. I'm asking WHY you think that he should defy democracy, though? I would think that allowing people to vote for what they believe and what the people who voted for them expect is democratic. Being locked into a party position which may or may not be supported by the electorate is the less democratic option. ALL Coalition members went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. ALL Labor members went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. ALL Green members went to the last election with a promise of changing the marriage act.

Did you ask them all? Many have publicly stated differently many times.

This was hardly a major policy position of either group.

Lobo wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 3:15pm:

matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:52am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:49am: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:38am: Gist wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:29am: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:21am: Why do people think that he should defy democracy, like Labor have done? Because we can think, matty. Because we can. I'm asking WHY you think that he should defy democracy, though? I would think that allowing people to vote for what they believe and what the people who voted for them expect is democratic. Being locked into a party position which may or may not be supported by the electorate is the less democratic option. ALL Coalition members went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. ALL Labor members went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. ALL Green members went to the last election with a promise of changing the marriage act. 72 Coalition members were voted in, 72 ALP members were voted in, 1 Greens was voted in. In a democracy, majority rules, 144/150 = OVERWHELMING MAJORITY. Actually, matty, they all went to the election parroting Party propaganda. Perhaps they knew if they didn't they'd be taking the long jump. Proof, matty?? They went to that election with a Carbon Tax policy. With Turnbull at the helm approx 50% of Coalition MPs supported the policy. When the Mad Monk took over they were 100% opposed. :D

Both leaders made it crystal clear that there would be no change to the marriage act, were they elected.

nairbe wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 12:40pm:

matty wrote on Dec 17th, 2011 at 8:49pm: As he's said, the Coalition went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. Labor went in with that exact same promise, but have compromised that with the granting of a conscience vote for its members being allowed to break yet another promise, and vote in favour of changing the act from exclusively man-woman, to man-man and woman-woman marriages. Because it is a social conscience issue and one of human rights and equality . All areas Abbott struggles with i know but still no excuse for his fears to rise to the top. Abbott is scared that if opposition to his decisions are allowed to surface his house of cards will come tumbling down.

72 seats still went to an Abbott led Coalition.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 4:18pm:

matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:52am: Dnarever wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:49am: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:38am: Gist wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:29am: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 9:21am: Why do people think that he should defy democracy, like Labor have done? Because we can think, matty. Because we can. I'm asking WHY you think that he should defy democracy, though? I would think that allowing people to vote for what they believe and what the people who voted for them expect is democratic. Being locked into a party position which may or may not be supported by the electorate is the less democratic option. ALL Coalition members went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. ALL Labor members went to the last election with a promise of not changing the marriage act. ALL Green members went to the last election with a promise of changing the marriage act. Did you ask them all? Many have publicly stated differently many times. This was hardly a major policy position of either group.

Did any of them take it to the last election? As far as I am aware, of thr 150 members in the House of Reps, only 1 did.

matty wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 4:30pm:

Both leaders made it crystal clear that there would be no change to the marriage act, were they elected.

To be honest I do not remember anyone making any big deal about this during the election campaign.

Do we have a link you know Tony isn't well known for honesty?

Both leaders stated that they believe that marrage is between a man and a woman, (I also agree) but this was never a policy position of either group.

Matty, we don't have to worry about a thing. The youth pastor said homosexuals ask you out before they try to marry you.

If they do try, he said we shouldn't resist in any way as they might be carrying a knife or a gun.

Remember, if two people lie together and don't get married, they're living in sin.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 4:43pm:

matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 4:30pm: Both leaders made it crystal clear that there would be no change to the marriage act, were they elected. To be honest I do not remember anyone making any big deal about this during the election campaign. Do we have a link you know Tony isn't well known for honesty? Both leaders stated that they believe that marrage is between a man and a woman, (I also agree) but this was never a policy position of either group.

"It was the clear policy of the coalition at the election that marriage was between a man and a woman," Mr Abbott told Sky News.

"Every single member of the coalition was elected on that position and I don't think we can break faith with the electorate."

Mr Abbott said although shadow cabinet will not finalise its decision until after the issue goes before the party room early in 2012, he does not see any reason for the coalition party to change it stance.

"I don't see any fundamental differences in objective reality today that would justify any change of a fundamental commitment like that," he said.

"I know that in their heart of hearts there would be a few of my members who would prefer it to be otherwise, but that was the commitment that every single one of us took to the election."



- You might need to prove your statement? :-X

Its a conscious matter and one of individuals personal beliefs, thats why it shouldnt be a party policy, rather a conscious vote are strong consulation with their electorate.

Anything short of that is just BS.

Verge wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 10:22am:

Its a conscious matter and one of individuals personal beliefs, thats why it shouldn't be a party policy, rather a conscious vote are strong consulation with their electorate. Anything short of that is just BS.

I agree verge. Its about time politicians started representing the views of their electorates instead of the party they belong to.
That said, the majority of Australians support gay marriage, just like we support a lot of things the politicians tell us are not good for us, they treat us like children by pandering to the minority groups .

skippy. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 10:28am:

Verge wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 10:22am: Its a conscious matter and one of individuals personal beliefs, thats why it shouldn't be a party policy, rather a conscious vote are strong consulation with their electorate. Anything short of that is just BS. I agree verge. Its about time politicians started representing the views of their electorates instead of the party they belong to. That said, the majority of Australians support gay marriage, just like we support a lot of things the politicians tell us are not good for us, they treat us like children by pandering to the minority groups .

So we need a conscience vote.

The conscience of the MP or the conscience of the people? It’s a bit murky working out who’s conscience is considered in the vote…?

I’m not sure if the majority “really” support gay marriage.

I know a lot are sick of hearing about something that effects so few…..more of a “FFS let ‘em get married so we can concentrate on important issues that effect the majority”

As for the highlighted, i'd say this is a minority group being pandered to??

So we need a conscience vote.


I think so.

It’s a bit murky working out who’s conscience is considered in the vote…?


I think the people they represent.
I’m not sure if the majority “really” support gay marriage
EVERY poll taken says they do.
i'd say this is a minority group being pandered to??


Thats true, about ten % of the population, but we pander to other minority groups, why should gays be different?

FriYAY wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 9:23am:

Dnarever wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 4:43pm: matty wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 4:30pm: Both leaders made it crystal clear that there would be no change to the marriage act, were they elected. To be honest I do not remember anyone making any big deal about this during the election campaign. Do we have a link you know Tony isn't well known for honesty? Both leaders stated that they believe that marrage is between a man and a woman, (I also agree) but this was never a policy position of either group. "It was the clear policy of the coalition at the election that marriage was between a man and a woman," Mr Abbott told Sky News. "Every single member of the coalition was elected on that position and I don't think we can break faith with the electorate." Mr Abbott said although shadow cabinet will not finalise its decision until after the issue goes before the party room early in 2012, he does not see any reason for the coalition party to change it stance. "I don't see any fundamental differences in objective reality today that would justify any change of a fundamental commitment like that," he said. "I know that in their heart of hearts there would be a few of my members who would prefer it to be otherwise, but that was the commitment that every single one of us took to the election." - You might need to prove your statement? :-X

Got a link to this supposed policy?

Remember you are quoting a self confessed liar, don't believe me if its not in writing?

I could not find their policy on this, he may be right but he can't be taken on trust.

skippy. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 11:15am:

So we need a conscience vote. I think so. Good for you. It’s a bit murky working out who’s conscience is considered in the vote…? I think the people they represent. But can't be sure? I’m not sure if the majority “really” support gay marriage EVERY poll taken says they do. I tried to qualify my statement. i'd say this is a minority group being pandered to?? Thats true, about ten % of the population, but we pander to other minority groups, why should gays be different? you were the one complaining about pandering to minorities, it seems that is OK if you agree...strange ideals

FriYAY wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 11:38am:

skippy. wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 11:15am: So we need a conscience vote. I think so. Good for you. It’s a bit murky working out who’s conscience is considered in the vote…? I think the people they represent. But can't be sure? I’m not sure if the majority “really” support gay marriage EVERY poll taken says they do. I tried to qualify my statement. i'd say this is a minority group being pandered to?? Thats true, about ten % of the population, but we pander to other minority groups, why should gays be different? you were the one complaining about pandering to minorities, it seems that is OK if you agree...strange ideals

So because you dont agree you disregard all the evidence that suggests the majority do agree, typical of you. ::)
dont bother trying to troll me in future, I'm over interacting with morons, so that rules you out of interaction.

skippy. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 11:41am:

FriYAY wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 11:38am: skippy. wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 11:15am: So we need a conscience vote. I think so. Good for you. It’s a bit murky working out who’s conscience is considered in the vote…? I think the people they represent. But can't be sure? I’m not sure if the majority “really” support gay marriage EVERY poll taken says they do. I tried to qualify my statement. i'd say this is a minority group being pandered to?? Thats true, about ten % of the population, but we pander to other minority groups, why should gays be different? you were the one complaining about pandering to minorities, it seems that is OK if you agree...strange ideals So because you dont agree you disregard all the evidence that suggests the majority do agree, typical of you. ::)

LOL, and typical of you to put so much weight in polls that support your beliefs. ::)

And let's not forget how you hate pandering to minorities - unless it's minorities you agree with!! ::)

::)

skippy. wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 11:41am:

FriYAY wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 11:38am: skippy. wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 11:15am: So we need a conscience vote. I think so. Good for you. It’s a bit murky working out who’s conscience is considered in the vote…? I think the people they represent. But can't be sure? I’m not sure if the majority “really” support gay marriage EVERY poll taken says they do. I tried to qualify my statement. i'd say this is a minority group being pandered to?? Thats true, about ten % of the population, but we pander to other minority groups, why should gays be different? you were the one complaining about pandering to minorities, it seems that is OK if you agree...strange ideals So because you dont agree you disregard all the evidence that suggests the majority do agree, typical of you. ::) dont bother trying to troll me in future, I'm over interacting with morons, so that rules you out of interaction.

Nice edit.

White flag accepted.

I'll need a bigger wall to hang them all from.

(poor skippy realised it had a go at minorities, only to then realise it loves minorities - OOPS time to start the abuse!!!)

::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 7:00am:

cods wrote on Dec 17th, 2011 at 8:55pm: has gillard actually spelt out why she is against it??.. we know she doesnt believe in religion.. so what is her reason??..as for Abboitt no he doesnt have to do anything... if the libs are so in favour of it they cn still cross the floor..when it comes up.. it will be interesting to see if anyone does..I am wondering what will happen to her if the vote goes against her..she is very much dependent on the libs NOT crossing the floor..mmmmmm Her reason is political - she thinks the majority of voting Australians are against it, so she's decided to jump on that side of the fence.

NOT QUITE
Th majority of Australians overwhelmingly SUPPORT the equality measure
It's the MARGINALS that are the worry



Quote:

Union leader Joe de Bruyn says the move towards same-sex marriage will cost votes. "Particularly in some of the traditional Labor electorates in suburban Australia," he said.

Joe "*the Dutchman who hates dykes" de Bruyn - right on this one

THAT'S POLITICS



It's not something that should have ever gone political

*qoute, Gough Whitlam