No Gay Marriage in Australia - for now

[Korto]

The gay marriage bill has been solidly defeated, and liberal senator celebrates victory by committing suicide (metaphorically).
Bill defeated 98 to 42

JULIA Gillard and Tony Abbott sat on the same side of Parliament today as they voted against a House of Representatives bill to allow same sex marriages.

The bill was defeated by 98 votes to 42, with Labor MPs allowed a conscience vote but Liberals ordered to oppose the legislation.

Senator Bernadi quits after "Bestiality" comments

During a Senate debate last night Senator Bernardi said the push for same-sex marriage was coming from "radicals" who were determined to overturn the social fabric of Australian society.

And he questioned where the campaign would end, if society was prepared to redefine marriage based on the "latest criterion" that it should be allowed irrespective of gender.

"The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society - or any other type of relationship," Senator Bernardi said.

"There are even some creepy people out there... [who] say it is OK to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals.

"Will that be a future step? In the future will we say, 'These two creatures love each other and maybe they should be able to be joined in a union'.

"I think that these things are the next step."

Looking at what Bernadi said; indeed, I see nothing wrong with polygamy, assuming it's between freely consenting adults. More power to them. However, gay marriage supporters would run a mile before talking about that, or accepting assistance from such groups. Their help would not be helpful in terms of public opinion.
Of course, any suggestion of marriage between humans and other animals is ridiculous, on the simple grounds that other animals cannot reach the benchmark understanding to be considered "consenting". Ignoring how icky and stupid I may personally find the concept.

How a couple of members on his own party reacted is interesting.
Malcolm Turnbull:

"Senator Bernardi is entitled to say what he likes, but the fact is that his views are extreme, they are hysterical, they're not the views of the mainstream Australian society - let alone of the Liberal Party," Liberal frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull told ABC News 24.

"[The argument that] if that gay couple that have been living together for 30 years are allowed to term their relationship a marriage, that will lead to people having sex with animals and wanting that to be described as a marriage - that is so bizarre.

"I want my constituents to know that I disassociate myself from those views."

Tony Abbott:

Mr Abbott has described the comments as "ill-disciplined" and has accepted Senator Bernardi's resignation.

"They're views I don't share," the Opposition Leader told reporters in Canberra.

Ill-disciplined? Really? That's the big issue here?

Obviously, marriage equality supporters plan to fight on. They'll get there in the end, the only question is how long it'll take.

And by the by, a similar senate bill for gay marriage was later also defeated by 41 to 26

The Australian Senate has joined the House of Representatives in voting down legislation aimed at allowing same-sex couples to marry.

The final vote on the bill introduced by Labor senators was 26 in favour and 41 against.

Labor senator Penny Wong, who is openly gay, described the result as disappointing and a failure of the Parliament to remove discrimination.

New plans ready to go.

Liberal MP Warren Entsch says he has a private members bill ready to go and is now considering whether to introduce it.

"What I've drafted is actually a civil partnerships bill," Mr Entsch told ABC Radio.

"It's two persons who are in a relationship as a couple regardless of their sex and who meet the eligibility criteria."

Mr Entsch believes the legislation would have a better chance of success than changes to marriage laws.

He has the support of Liberal frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull, who has previously argued that supporters of same-sex marriage should not allow "the perfect to be the enemy of the good".

But other gay marriage advocates disagree, arguing the move would just entrench discrimination.

"I will not support continuing discrimination against same-sex couples in this country and I will not support a civil unions bill," Greens MP Adam Bandt said.

"To put in civil unions would in fact be a step backwards."

I would worry that a small placating step could rob the movement of the public pressure needed for full marriage rights; a large section of the public going "Well, they have civil unions now, so stop bugging me about it!".
Conversely, the public could say "Well, we gave them civil unions and that didn't cause the general downfall of civilization, I hardly see how making it properly official will kill us all."

[weemadando]

There was no way they were going to pass it. They rely too much on the easy vote buying the bigotry gives them.

Why risk pissing off easily delivered church votes?

[Grumman]

I'd say I'd never vote for any of these people ever again... but I already don't.

[weemadando]

Bingo. So they don't give a fuck.

Also, if a prospective MP said: "I will support gay marriage in parliament, but..."

1) "...I am a member of a party who's policies you oppose."
2) "...I am a member of a party that opposes it and will never allow a conscience vote."
3) "...I am going to make sure none of those fucking brown people/muslims/jews/whoever else can come into our country."

What are you going to do?

The overwhelming majority of pro-gay marriage people aren't going to vote on a single issue like that. And even other "lefty" platforms like climate change, taxation, social security are heavily divisive and prevent packaging up nice bundles of vote delivering policy.

However, you can neatly package up some Ye Olde conservative religious goodness - sanctity of marriage, islamophobia, won't somebody think of the children and ban vidja games, no more brown people on boats - sell it off to the ACL, Cardinal Pell, Hillsong and every other religious group and have the pastors singing your party's praises from the pulpit.

[mr friendly guy]

Thats it. I am voting for the Australian sex party again. Now if only I can find a party in the lower house which aren't total douches.

[Grumman]

Also, if a prospective MP said: "I will support gay marriage in parliament, but..."

1) "...I am a member of a party who's policies you oppose."
2) "...I am a member of a party that opposes it and will never allow a conscience vote."

Then my question would be "Will you vote with your conscience anyway?" If they say they can't they aren't much use to me as a politician, are they?

3) "...I am going to make sure none of those fucking brown people/muslims/jews/whoever else can come into our country."

That would be a deal breaker.

Like Mr. Friendly Guy, I'll continue to vote for libertarian parties like the Australian Sex Party first, then the Greens. The big two will still come before the theocrats, but that's as high as they go.

[Zaune]

Then my question would be "Will you vote with your conscience anyway?" If they say they can't they aren't much use to me as a politician, are they?

They're not a lot of use to you as a politician if they do, at least in this context. As I understand it, Australia uses a similar party whip system to the UK, in which it's wholly possible to be expelled from the party altogether for voting against your leader's wishes; they can't force you out of your seat in Parliament directly, but they can run a candidate against you at the next election, outspend you by a factor of several dozen and play every dirty trick they know to make sure you lose.

This isn't done very often, in fact I don't think it's happened at all in my lifetime. Just the threat of it is enough.

[Aaron MkII]

Its the same in Canada, on occasion they may be allowed a conscience vote but its usually whipped.

This whole gay marriage thing though, its solidified my position that rights should not be left to the whims of elected officials. All that should be done is to ensure that it fits with the current laws, which the court can check. If so then it should be automatic. Cause this shit is a travesty.

[Rogue 9]

Then my question would be "Will you vote with your conscience anyway?" If they say they can't they aren't much use to me as a politician, are they?

They're not a lot of use to you as a politician if they do, at least in this context. As I understand it, Australia uses a similar party whip system to the UK, in which it's wholly possible to be expelled from the party altogether for voting against your leader's wishes; they can't force you out of your seat in Parliament directly, but they can run a candidate against you at the next election, outspend you by a factor of several dozen and play every dirty trick they know to make sure you lose.

This isn't done very often, in fact I don't think it's happened at all in my lifetime. Just the threat of it is enough.

This can be done in the United States too, through the party's national committee funding someone else in the next primary election, but it rarely actually happens and doesn't seem to stop anybody from voting how they want anyway.

[mr friendly guy]

The Chaser sums it up nicely

[UnderAGreySky]

That was spectacular, mr friendly guy. I'm off to share that around. Love The Chaser!