What were the numbers in the Lower House in the end?
Happy that it finally happened. Not happy it cost so much when a simple vote in parliament could have done the job.
Now time for the government to concentrate on low wage growth and increasing price of living.
2 Likes
Massive over reaction based on a huge head of emotional steam. We have been free to live with whoever we wanted to for many years and make whatever mutual commitments we have wanted to. My aunt was a lesbian and lived with a woman in the 1940s. I am ok with it being formalised.
Now thats done with what is everyone going to get all emotional about now?
Someone or other made what I thought was a good point. If the libs had decided to allow a conscience vote years ago - the anti-SSM crowd would have probably managed to enshrine a bunch of these dumped amendments in the legislation, and they would have gotten closer to what they wanted than they ended up getting. ESPECIALLY if theyâd allowed a conscience vote in Gillardâs PMship, where IIRC ALP policy was that the ALP would allow a conscience vote. There would have been a lot of bargaining and in order to get the votes SSM would have been fenced in with so many restrictions that it would have practically legalised discrimination.
Of course, I fully expect Abbott and co to keep hammering the âreligious freedomâ line til doomsday, but in the current environment itâs futile. The ALP have achieved their policy goal, and too many libs would rather do ANYTHING but scrape open that running sore again now that itâs over.
Abbott didnât show for the final vote. What a gutless worm. Canât even lose like a man.
8 Likes
You canât have kept a straight face writing this. Trans people are the lowest social rung just about everywhere.
2 Likes
And, responding to the Uluru statement. It doesnât have to be a referendum.
Itâs becoming very acceptable
No.
Just because every corporationâs PR department makes sure to include the âTâ in âLGBTâ in their diversity policy these days does not mean that trans people face significantly less abuse, harrassment, and danger of violence when living their everyday lives in public.
Trans people are maybe 25-30 years behind gay people in terms of wider societal acceptance, at a guess. And I donât think thereâs any cure for that except time
3 Likes
The fight that Kristen Worely persevered with for acceptance in sport and eventually won , on human rights grounds, shows how hard it is.
And the recent Family Court decision went a long way to delivering equality . The scenes outside the Family Court showing the reactions of trans teenagers and their families were no mess emotional than that for SSM
My point was more that cultural acceptance lags a longarse way behind legal toleration.
If homosexual is 5-10% of the total population, what percentage would transexual be?
0.1%?
Are there any officialish figures?
Iâve only run across maybe 2 such people.
Definitely more open about it in parts of Asia. My guess would be 1-2%.
The law and government policy set the lead for societal tolerance. Not sure but I think the government quietly decided some time back to go beyond the M/F category in passports and those immigration landing cards. For the T&I that means a lot in terms of acceptance .
On the SSM vote the ABC reported that there were only 4 No votes, a handful of abstentions , including Abbott ( ( he can say he did not oppose it: )
I canât recall whether that was a Q in the census, which could be the most reliable indicator.
Yep, the no lobby expended their leverage in delaying tactics, starting with Howard changing the marriage act and culminating in the push to the plebiscite. Possibly wishfully thinking it would all just go away if they made it difficult. With the result coming back the way it did it left them no bargaining power at all once it came time for legislation.
I donât get this religious protections crap. so you want to protect your right to say god hates â â â â , and say no to marrying them ?
yet thatâll continue to happen no matter what laws are in place, so what exactly is the all the fuss about ?
plently of religious people wonât service gay people with law change, so why bother fighting it ? theyâll do what they do now, across any workplace. if someone runs a business, they have every right to refuse service or entry, they donât need a reason, obviously in churches and this instance we all know the reason, but still.
at the end of the day, money always talks the loudest, and we all know how much the churches love money, you know to throw at victims of sexual abuse to shut up, so their morals will no doubt quickly and easily be corrupted as soon as the gays come in and start throwing their expansive money around.
The Ruddock review cannot undo SSM, but the No lobby will be out in force campaigning for amendmentd to the Sex Discrimination and related laws , which could open up old wounds. Turnbull has already signalled his interest in regard to the amendments he suggested on the floor of the House.
You do not have the right to refuse service to anyone. It is called discrimination and there are strong laws against it.
3 Likes
I often view YouTube comments sections with the disdain they deserve but look at any Bruce or Caitlyn Jenner video and youâll see how far behind the pond life scum really are on the subject.
Even worse than a gutless worm considering Abbott promised to vote Yes in parliament if the Yes vote won in the survey.