One step forward for Australia.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caitlin Black

Caitlin Black

Wild one
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
44,834
Reaction score
2,928
Age
39
Location
The exact centre of all of existence
I've been meaning to link to this issue for the past week or so, but kept forgetting whenever I was online. But it's something I've been thinking about on public transport to and from work, and occasionally at work when talking to someone who I overheard talking about his boyfriend... But it wasn't something I was supposed to hear, so I haven't spoken about this with him.

Anyway, just wanted to share.

If my understanding is correct, then the current leading political party over here is supporting gay marriage, but the vote to legalise it will happen next year.

Also, Prime Minister Julia Gillard, someone who I admire for the most part (a strong atheist woman, the first female PM, supportive of the common worker - things I can relate to) has been quoted as saying she doesn't support gay marriage... So that decreases my respect for her.

I think the quote went along the lines of giving people rights, though she doesn't "get" gay marriage... Whatever. As long as we have rights, that's fine by me.

Thoughts?
 
_Sian_

_Sian_

Ooooh, pretty lights and sirens :D
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
5,867
Reaction score
909
Location
Victoria, Aus
Website
antagonistsneeded.wordpress.com
I'd love it to actually happen. But Australian politics is a bit screwed up at the moment.

The major problem is that the party in government decided to allow a conscience vote - so that means that even if the official party line says that yes, we're all for legalising gay marriage, everyone member of the party is allowed to vote as they please, rather than on the party lines, like it normally is around here. Which means that the opposition party, which currently has it's official platform against gay marriage, would have to also allow their party members to have an individual say for it to get through.

Otherwise, the opposition will vote no as a block, and three quarters of labour will vote yes, one quarter no, and it still won't get through.

The joys of hung parliaments. (And I hope that made one iota of sense)

On the other hand, I was delighted to see this picture in the major newspapers - Penny Wong, a frontbench minister and her female partner with their new baby.



free image hosting

It must have been a nice week for her - getting her party's official platform of gay marriage changed, and then having a happy and healthy baby with her partner. I say congrats to her :)
5m9zizmrd
 
Caitlin Black

Caitlin Black

Wild one
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
44,834
Reaction score
2,928
Age
39
Location
The exact centre of all of existence
I know little of the politics involved, but what sian said made sense to me.

Basically, when we had our last election, Gillard got through by the skin of her nose - the other party had just as many seats in parliament (or thereabouts) so Labor had to ally themselves with some independents.

The end result is that a lot of votes will be very close-run things. If Labor and their allies vote Yes, and Liberal vote No, the numbers are about equal...

So given that Liberal will vote No on gay marriage, but Labor has given each of their members their own vote, instead of Labor slightly having the edge, if a few Labor people also vote No then Liberal will win, sort of thing.

Which sucks. Despite some failings, I think Labor has the right idea. (And confusingly, the Liberal party down here are not liberal in their ideals - they're very conservative.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.