This.

-PB

The mental health cost is due to gay people being vilified by the 'no' campaign, NOT from having to vote

Edited by Azzamarch: 15/3/2016 01:32:59 PM

But how do they budget or come up with that figure?

-PB

It doesn't sound like constitution ruled out SSM at all.

How about the costs of conservatives being vilified by gay marriage groups? They are a much larger group than homosexuals so the costs would be much bigger. How many billions does it cost the economy when innocent people are accused of being homophobic, racist etc?

Fuck me dead.:lol:

Sounds like we should just get it passed in parliament so noone gets vilified ;)

Conservatives who oppose gay marriage are homophobic and unreasonable people. There is no grounds to oppose the marriage of two consenting adults.

If you're a homophobe and get called out on it, you're not being vilified, you're being called out for the despicable human being that you are!

People who oppose gay marriage and have the nerve to complain about vilification need to evaluate their life.

That won't necessarily stop the vilification.

This is textbook vilification right here. Cost to the economy is enormous.

Love how everyone's glad that Abbott (when he was PM) and Turnbull are pushing for a plebiscite for same sex marriage.

Here's how that'll work.

1. Turnbull creates the plebiscite, gains some brownie points from fence sitting supporters.
2. Majority of Australia votes to legalise gay marriage.
3. Turnbull announces that the majority of the country has voted to legalise gay marriage, but the final decision will come down to parliament.
4. Parliament votes against it.
5. Turnbull tells us all to suck a fat one.

You can't be a cunt and hide behind vilification :lol:

If you don't like it, stop being a homophobe. It's not everyone else's fault the homophobes are unreasonable people.

Well, I am sure that irish constitutional lawyers understand their constitution enough to decide whether or not the constitution allowed it or not.

The point being that their referendum altered their constitution.

For the umpteenth time - our plebiscite will be legally meaningless.

Must be a troll?

Just because it doesn't have legal meaning doesn't mean it's pointless.

I'm not arguing the logic of their modelling, just pointing out what they modelled.

I agree that this whole "$500million" cost is based on not much.

But again, even the base cost of running the plebiscite is pointless in my opinion when it has no legal standing.

The key thing to remember is this:

The plebiscite has been arranged purely as a delaying mechanism, so that the Liberal Party leadership can satisfy its conservative backbench to avoid this issue for as long as possible.

Now that marriage equality is an ALP policy, if the Libs allow a conscious vote for their MPs, the bill would pass in parliament because the whole ALP, as well as the Greens, will be voting for it.

C.u.nt? Despicable human being? Homophobe? The vilification is strong in this one.

At the end of the day though even if it shows that Australians are in favour of homosexual unions they still can't legally get married.

:lol: Once again, stop complaining because your prejudices are exposed.

How do you know it was done as a delaying mechanism? They have tried a conscious vote a few times and it failed to get through. Now the liberals are proposing a national vote, which sounds like a step towards ssm. If I was strong against ssm I would not even want a conscience vote, I would be against anything that is likely to work in its favour. The best way to delay the issue would be to win government and not talk about for three years.

Don’t you think the ALP are being political opportunistic, by taking this policy position now, just a couple years after they were booted out of government, and can no longer force a conscience vote? What were they doing between 07 and 13 ? Like I said, its’a ll politics.

Yours more so. I never even gave my position on SSM.

My question is why is this legislation so unique as to require a plebiscite? The only plebiscites Australia has ever had were:

1916 & 1917 during WWI - both to determine whether to have conscription into the armed forces - a life or death question. The govt already had powers to enforce conscription, but decided to bring it to the public because of the life or death nature of it.

1977 - to determine the new national anthem. A popularity contest to select the national anthem.

The proper place to determine legislation, such as marriage equality, is in the parliament.

Its been openly stated by some backbenchers within the coalition. In fact, a few months back some openly came out and said the plebiscite results won't be binding. If you had even been vaguely keeping track of the issue you would know this.



That is exactly what the goal of the plebiscite is - there is no set date for the vote. And no set date for a parliamentary sitting after.



No - the ALP has a lot of unions (like the SDA) who are socially conservative, mainly catholic. They have been strongly opposed to marriage equality.

Through the negotiating skills of Penny Wong they managed to get the ALP at the last National Convention to institute marriage equality as party policy. The carrot she had to dangle to get it voted was to allow the parliamentary party to not be bound by the policy for a period of time.

So it wasn't policy up until relatively recently.

So no - it wasn't political opportunism. It has been something that has built up over a long time.

Can you find me the direct quotes where coalition MPs have said the plebiscite was decided on so as to delay gay marriage legislation?



Why does is the holding of the vote after the election is a deliberate tactic to stall gay marriage for three years? They could stall it just as easily stall it by not holding a plebiscite. That there is no set date yet doesn't mean there will be no set date in the future. I assume they will wait for the results of the vote first before discussing the next steps in parliament, it would be unusual to decide the joint sitting date before the vote date.



Perhaps that carrot is just a stalling tactic to push the legislation out to 2019.

But parliament has failed to pass the legislation. The public rightly want this issue settled, they aren't prepared to wait until 2019 when Labor MPs are forced to vote against their consciences. A plebiscite now sets a strong mandate for the next government to pass the legislation, whether they are personally against it or not. Many Australians also feel the issue has not been properly debated, that their side has not been fairly represented by politicians or sections of the media, and a vote is the only way to allow both sides to equally pitch their arguments and allow all participants an equal say at the ballot box.
If the yes vote got up (51% of higher) I would support the passing of the legislation and encourage my local member to respect the mandate of the public. Many people consider same sex marriage a drastic change to the social fabric, so for them a plebiscite is not overkill. It's just takes a couple of minutes to vote on a lazy Saturday or Sunday and it isn't going to destroy the economy.

No, the direct quotes are from the libs stating that no MPs will be bound to vote in favour of marriage equality even if the plebiscite is passed. If the MPs aren't bound by the plebiscite result, why have the plebiscite? It's clearly a delaying tactic.

They had to offer something for those in favour of marriage equality because the issue was ripping the lib party apart. The plebiscite is a compromise - delays the issue for conservatives, gives some hope for moderates. But the conservatives are dominant within the libs.

Mate the ALP national convention was multiple years ago. It obviously stalled the issue. What is your point? I'm not being pro-ALP on this. They should have passed out when they were in govt. I was just explaining why they didn't.

The point is that a plebiscite is a pointless expensive sham.

Because we are a parliamentary democracy, not a direct democracy. You want to change our system? Fine, put forward your preference. The simple fact is we pass laws thru parliament.

If the govt allowed a conscious vote tomorrow the bill would pass. The ALP has bound their MPs to vote in favour since the last vote. That is why that ALP senator resigned - he wouldn't vote in favour of that policy.

Gay marriage could be legal tomorrow if the govt allowed a vote. You clearly don't understand the facts in this situation.

In a time of budget cuts why are we wasting $150mill on a plebiscite when its results are not binding?

I'm no legal expert but to me the only logical solution is to repeal the Marriage ACT and leave it all to private contract law

As badly as you want it to be delaying tactic doesn't make it so. Before you saying it was only a delaying tactic and now you're backtracking and saying it's a compromise between the moderates and the conservatives. Regardless of what one or two MPs have said in regards to their application of the plebiscite, if the yes vote does win it will get passed by the next parliament. It would be undemocratic, embarrassing and politcally stupid not to honour the mandate of the Australian public, and even those personally against SSM would need to put aside their marriage prejudice and do want the Australian public have voted in favour of. Even Abbott has come out and said the result of the vote should be enacted, and this guy is staunch Catholic as they come, I suspect most of the conservative MP's feel the same. If the conservatives were truly against SSM they would reject the plebiscite, they would not give ammo to the gay marriage lobby and a vote for change would definitely be a strategic bad move. Whether you can admit it or not a plebiscite is a significant step forwards towards gay marriage. Previous attempts have failed in parliament and the ALP will not be bound by the party line until 2019, so a plebiscite puts the agenda in the hands of the public who according to polls would overwhelmingly support reform. I can't honestly see why people are against a vote, a legislative change orchestrated by politicians is a kind of hollow victory, the economic arguments against it are kind of irritating given we pay $500,000 million in debt interest in two weeks and the pleb is a one off event.

Nope, MPs arent bound to the vote until 2019. A conscience vote means MPs can vote according to their consciences, not official party policy, that was the "carrot" you were talking about before.

However Kevin Rudd, back in the office of Prime Minister, has reignited the debate by saying that if the Coalition fails to allow a conscience vote he would support a plebiscite on election day.

Penny Wong, who was appointed by Rudd to lead the Senate and is in a long-term same-sex relationship, is in strong opposition to a public vote. ‘While an increasing majority of the public support marriage equality, a referendum would not be without risk,’ she said.

Wong used the vote to make Australia a republic as an example of a referendum that initially had the support of the public, but ended up losing in every state after the Coalition ran ‘a very good fear campaign.’

Ah I see, it is not the cost of the plebiscite that worries progressives, it's the fear that the public might choose to retain the original definition of marriage. So we can deduce from this those opposed to the plebiscite just want to deny ordinary Australians a say.