Marriage is totally Gay


Preselection might have something to do with it too.

In general, people vote for the party, not the person.


Australians are pretty accomodating people. some of us are afraid of change. Some of us are afraid of other people changing things. A lot of us aren’t very informed. That isn’t their fault. It’s the fault of bad education and a bad system of information. We can’t blame people for that. It’s groomed. You go into a bad suburb as a friend and you get treated like one. This country uses fear for politics. We aren’t a bad people. It gets used against us to divide us,then you get the flotsam of society projecting this back onto anyone trying to make guidelines around it. Slippery ■■■■■. 'oh, you’re an inner suburb idiot who is trying to hurt the average person". Go jump off a clif you snake. You don’t care about them.


Release of the High Court’s reasoning on the ruling on the ABS survey includes a determination that it would be statistical survey within ABS powers. However, it will sit outside the norms of ABS methodological surveys as the outcome will be based on raw numbers and, as it is based on the electoral roll, excludes input from an estimated 1.5 m permanent residents ( let alone those with residency status)


This is the song that is upsetting Tony and will be played at the NRL Grand Final.

Worth a look and a listen if you haven’t before. Definitely not the message Tony wants out there, it’s actually on topic.


Though even with preselection carry-on for all Parties, you find that most politicians are “normal” and even the few wackos are a reflection of our society.

My sources tell me, if you did a poll of all Federal MPs , then the YES vote is just over 60% which in my estimation is where the survey will end.

From my experience in local government, and even as it is not Party driven like the rest, communities are mostly polarised 50/50, or 60/40 over most issues. The 80/20 principle rarely applies !

It always seemed to me that if you had a group campaigning on an issue, there would always be an opposing view that banded together to fight. Mostly we are not mature enough to debate respectfully and without rancour, and the SSM debate brings out the worst in many.

The fear for me is that while both sides are passionate and noisy, the NO campaigners have no long term personal repercussions, while the effects of their actions may have serious effects on Gay people’s well-being.


No doubt in my mind yes should and will get up. What annoys me is this whole campaign is unnecessary. I don’t like either side getting in my face over this. All they had to do was their job and vote in the parliament.
Just watch what the liberals do after the vote. They will go completely over the top with religious freedom. They will structure the law so over the top to allow prejudice it will be unpaassable.
They are complete fools


Sadly this is very likely.


LOL, the free speech and religious freedom team © have sent same love to #1 on the iTunes charts.

Can you imagine having so little shame that you would force a debate against the wishes of the other side, and then complain when they try to win? Just incredible.


I love how you took the statement that there are a lot of homophobic, racist, and bigoted Australians, extrapolated that to “leftist elites hate hard working average Aussies,” and then had the balls to whine about people trying to make themselves out to be victims.
Kudos to you, Sir.


You’re more optimistic than me that the law will even get written. Abbott & his fellow swivel-eyed loonies have already made it clear that they’ll only respect the result if it’s the result they like, and the swivel-eyed looney faction of the liberal party has Turnbull by the short & curlies, and Turnbull believes in nothing but himself so he won’t push them too hard.

Possible outcomes:

  • No gets more votes, regardless of margin, voter turnout, etc: “The people have spoken, any attempt to legislate SSM from now until forever is antidemocratic and literally Hitler”
  • Yes gets more votes but <50% of the total electorate vote Yes: “It’s clearly a divisive issue and there’s no decisive outcome, so we should not rush into precipitate change, because clearly the silent majority who would otherwise have voted No were intimidated into silence by latte-sipping inner-city media elites and the extreme left”
  • Yes gets more votes and Yes wins a clear majority of the total electoral roll: “The alleged result of the non-binding opinion poll conducted outside the supervision of the Australian Electoral Commission and amid many voting irregularities is one thing, but I have a sworn duty to my constituents to defend religious liberty and protect children from mandatory buttsex sessions at kindergarten so I will be opposing this bill (regardless of what the bill actually says), and that’s a nice leadership you have there Malcolm, it’d be a terrible shame if something happened to it…”


I thought I read that the Libs have stated that if the Yes vote gets above 60% they will have the issue brought up in Parliament?


I’m with HM on this one. You don’t organise a non-binding plebiscite unless you’re planning to ignore one of the outcomes.


…but when you do, you throw the toys out of the cot


Analysis: The same sex marriage amendment draft bill

This is the bill circulated to all federal Liberal MPs in early August when they met to agree on the postal vote.

The Australian1:07PM September 21, 2017

Political correspondentCanberra

A key concern in the debate over same sex marriage is the uncertainty about the bill that will be put to parliament if Australians vote Yes in the postal ballot now underway.

A common refrain from readers of The Australian is this: “show us the bill.”

This is central to the argument over whether the changes will threaten religious freedom, parental rights and freedom of speech. Australians with an interest in this debate want to be able to see the letter of the law.

That is why The Australian has posted a draft bill online.

This is the bill circulated to all federal Liberal MPs in early August when they met to agree on the postal vote. It is not a government bill. Even so, it is the leading option for debate if the Yes vote prevails.

This private member’s bill was prepared by Western Australian Liberal Senator Dean Smith and has the support of four of his colleagues in the lower house: Warren Entsch, Trent Zimmerman, Tim Wilson and Trevor Evans.

This draft has not been introduced into parliament. For that reason it cannot be found on the Parliament House website. It was distributed to MPs and the media instead. Of course, this goes to the reason for the postal survey in the first place. The government’s position is that it will only allow a bill to be introduced into parliament if Australians say Yes in the ballot.

The key religious safeguards are in Section 47 of the draft bill. These measures are the starting point for the debate. If and when this goes to parliament, it will be up to MPs to decide whether to replace this bill or amend it with further safeguards.

So far, no side has proposed any alternative approach with the same level of detail and legal drafting set out in the Smith bill.

The rights of ministers of religion

A key exemption in Section 47 (1) gives a minister of religion the right to refuse to solemnise a marriage on the following grounds:
(a) the refusal conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the minister’s religious body or religious organisation;
(b) the refusal is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion;
© the minister’s religious beliefs do not allow the minister to solemnise the marriage.

The following part makes it clear these rights do not restrict a minister of religion’s ability to refuse to solemnise a marriage on other grounds. It says: “This section does not limit the grounds on which a minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage.”

Section 47A includes similar exemptions for religious marriage celebrants.

The rights of religious organisations

Section 47B extends exemptions to religious organisations. The draft bill is written in a way that applies a wide definition to these organisations, so it is not restricted to traditional churches. It says these bodies can refuse to make goods or services or facilities available for the purpose of a marriage if the refusal:
(a) conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the body; or
(b) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

This is not just about hiring out church halls for wedding receptions. It covers all goods and services. The right to claim “injury to religious susceptibilities” is broad.

The bill also says this section does not limit the grounds on which a religious body may refuse to provide goods or services for the purposes of a marriage. It also covers purposes that are “reasonably incidental” to a marriage. In theory, this might include any function and not just a formal wedding reception.

Next: the postal ballot

These are the key religious exemptions already proposed. They go further than anything Labor, the Greens and some cross-benchers put forward the last time this question went to parliament. There is now a live debate on whether to amend these protections.

First, however, comes the people’s vote on whether the bill should be put to the parliament


Honestly it’s a pretty boring song, regardless of how you feel about the message. If that were the AFL pre game/ half time entertainment I’d flick the channel. Id rather half the meatloaf half time extravaganza again, at least that had some entertainment value


Angry tattooed leftie racist girls are so hot.


As long as same-sex couples can marry in the eyes of the law, that should be all that counts.

In my view, the legal certification should be 100% in the hands of civil authorities and not religious ones.


If you like being whipped


And if we’re being totally honest, who doesn’t?


I tried it, but it turns out I was allergic to it. Kept coming out in cuts and bruises.