Same-sex marriage debate reignites as politicians get back to work

It’s an issue we haven’t heard much about in recent months. But if you thought the debate about same-sex marriage

It’s an issue we haven’t heard much about in recent months.

But if you thought the debate about same-sex marriage was over, you thought wrong.

As politicians prepare to return to parliament next week, the same-sex marriage debate has reignited.

Remember the government’s plebiscite idea?

Well, there are reports government MPs and senators are divided over whether to continue pursuing the plebiscite or abandon it and have a free vote in parliament.

The Australian reports that Liberal politicians including Warren Enstch and three openly gay politicians Tim Wilson, Trent Zimmerman and Trevor Evans, want the government to abandon the plebiscite.

If you remember, the plebiscite was defeated in the Senate last year.

Entsch reportedly said he wants to negotiate with his colleagues privately to settle the issue “once and for all”.

Meanwhile, Wilson said there will be “obviously” have to be a discussion once a senate inquiry into the issue is finished.

“Nothing to do with me pushing for anything or anybody else,” he said on ABC TV.

But, there are some who disagree.

A number of conservative MPs and several front benchers say the government should stick to the plebiscite because it made a commitment at election time.

Sydney Liberal MP Craig Kelly told AAP that having a free vote on same-sex marriage would be a “betrayal” to voters.

“To back track and reverse on such a clear election promise during this parliamentary term would be a betrayal of the voting public,” he said.

And former Prime Minister Tony Abbott agrees.

“Malcolm Turnbull made a clear election commitment that the marriage law would only change by way of people’s plebiscite, not free vote of the parliament,” he told Fairfax Media.

“I’m sure he’ll honour that commitment. This isn’t about same-sex marriage, it’s about keeping faith with the people.”

Meanwhile, Labor and several crossbenchers are still pushing for a free vote.

Whatever happens, it looks like this issue is going to keep us all talking this year.

What do you think? Are you sick of talking about it? What would you like to see the politicians do on this issue?



  1. Hi John Kalantary I am aging messages and the mace messages Police Bill Shorten comings you is likes cold work nights sold news aging times aging comings you is in likes aging messages Tomorrow Monday cold aging sold lids old ok

    • Guy Flavell  

      John, you are a complete loony if that comment is a true reflection of your thinking
      power. And boy, if they do lock you up then they need to throw the key a LONG way.

  2. Mary  

    Happy to debate this topic – including do we have to reinvent the word husband and wife/ bride and groom . Now husband can be male or female and wife can be male or female. Not only are we reinventing marriage but the whole box and dice.

  3. Robin Henry  

    Draft a bill called the “Same Sex Relationships Act 2017” and provide in it a contractual relationship that grants equal rights to either party at law should they wish to live together or separate. Run it through the House of Reps and Senate and see what happens.

    If it doesn’t pass, shack up and just get on with it.

  4. Elizabeth Pandelis.  

    Parliament changed the law in the first place so it can change it again. A plebiscite was never going to be binding, a wanton waste of money. If two people wish to commit to a legally binding relationship they should have the right to do so. Nobody is going to be forced to celebrate such commitment ceremonies. Just change the wording of the law and be done with it.

  5. There won’t be a conscience vote in parliament because the people voted for a plebiscite at the last federal election that has now been blocked by the Senate….and so the people don’t want any other way of legalizing same sex marriage this term of parliament. For the left-wing activists to try a push through a conscience vote (which, by the way, the plebiscite is a conscience vote of the electorate so they would have got their conscience vote by having a plebiscite) is totally irrelevant and contrary to what the people want – the people don’t like elitist activists forcing their arrogance and skewed version of reality on the rest of us. There is a high likelihood that the Coalition government will get re-elected as the right-wing voters stand up against the Marxist activists, thereby stopping homosexual marriage from ever happening in Australia. The homosexual activists are dead scared of a NO vote if the people ever have a say about legalizing SSM which is why they doggedly opposed a plebiscite.

    Marriage has always been a choice and it always will be. It is not a right. Even the European Union has recently acknowledged this. It is not listed as a right with the United Nations and same sex marriage was never considered necessary or desirable in the history of marriage in Australia until only the past few years after John Howard orchestrated a definition in the Marriage Act – a definition that stated the obvious and reflected the millennia-old institution of marriage (already defined under Common Law). Human Rights? Scientific facts are inherent to the material nature of the universe, but “human rights” are composed by the words of the laws which bestow those rights. There are no “human rights” out there in the universe to discover, there is only what you can get enforced in your favour in a court (a right) and those things you wish you could get enforced in your favour (an aspiration). And those aspirations are culturally and linguistically conditioned. So since when is it a human right for homosexuals to redefine the meaning of marriage to suit their relationships? Never.

    Even if homosexual marriage becomes legal in Australia, it will just be a “label” that the government gives them by issuing them a “Marriage Certificate” and nothing more – it will never be considered legitimate because it is different to heterosexual marriage in every way possible (homosexual marriage uses the word “homosexual” to describe it and is sex-oriented whereas heterosexual marriage is just “marriage” and is family-oriented)…..and the way that the homosexual lobbyists have forced the whole thing onto the public using tactics like “overwhelm the opposition” on social media, name/shame/boycott opponents in public, emotional manipulation with homosexuals in movies, music, sitcoms, studies, media, schools, universities, sporting activities and even “church” to make it look normal and pretend that it is scientifically/historically/politically/economically advantageous to humankind (when the opposite is true) will never make homosexuality acceptable. They put forward children as “human shields” to avoid criticism (after all, who will argue politics with a child?) by getting children to parrot their propaganda slogans and tug at our heartstrings, but in fact, the children are just naive pawns in their emotive game – the activists themselves are adopting the petulant childlike attitude: “I want…I want…you’re mean…give it to me”. We are not being fooled by all this…..hence, opponents to homosexual marriage will simply add the word “real” in front of heterosexual marriages and the word “fake” in front of homosexual marriages – that’s what I will do. Then we will see the homosexual lobbyists start all over again to stop people from calling their marriages “fake” and use government resources and public offices to force opponents to obey them or get punished. So their propaganda slogan: “It only affects gay people and so no one else needs to worry about it” is a farce.

  6. Of course, we can avoid the costs of same sex marriage debates in Australia by simply leaving the Marriage Act as it is – no cost there (ie. we are a fiat currency, so the government issues the money therefore it will not cost anything), plus if there is ever another plebiscite proposed, the money doesn’t just disappear – it goes into the pockets and communities of casual AEC workers. What people do in their bedrooms is their business, but marriage is a bit more than sex acts, and by historical definitions is a bit more than just the love between two people. Quite a bit more. If we need laws on marriage then we need to talk about what “legal marriage” is, who it affects and how this new marriage concept (that includes same sex couples and inevitably a multitude of other relationship options) should be defined as seeing as anyone using the new marriage definition would be describing a marriage that is different to the way that we currently use the word marriage…….this is why Parliament in 2004 voted on the Marriage Act when John Howard was Prime Minister (to reflect the Common Law) and it passed with the support of Labor politicians, so that is what we have today and the matter should be done and dusted. Labor wants a conscience vote in Parliament but they themselves have a binding “yes” policy on all Labor MPs in the coming election, so there is no conscience vote on their side….and Why cant the electorate be allowed a conscience vote?….but no, Labor, Greens, NXT and Hinch blocked the plebiscite. Plus, there have already been about 18 attempts in Parliament to pass a same sex marriage bill and ALL have failed – so it already has been put to parliament. If there is a concern that any future plebiscite is the “majority voting on the rights of the minority” (as we hear the same sex proponents claim), then a parliamentary vote is also a form of majority deciding on the rights of the minority (ie. a majority of MPs need to pass the bill to make it Law). However, the same sex marriage people want the homosexual marriage Law and are facilitating such an intense push that it requires an expensive solution to resolve. They are continually trying to game the political system (and create the allusion of public support) to get the result they want without the public supporting it….they are trying to railroad it into existence using name-calling, public name/shame/boycotting and emotive propaganda slogans. If they are so confident of public support, then why did they reject a plebiscite? They are doing the same tactics with unSafe Schools “gender fluidity”, promiscuous “disRespectful Relationships and the “Anti-male Identification” programs in schools to try and create a intermixed, gender-irrelevant society. They cause the problems and then claim to be part of the solutions. They claim that suicides and depression will occur which, by putting such ideas into people’s heads, facilitates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Their suffering that they claim to have is all self-inflicted. They are pushing for a pipe dream that smokes up the room and nothing more. Or to put it another way: they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. The multi-coloured rainbow (which is in the sky for everyone to enjoy and has been stolen by the homosexual movement to represent their cause) is really coloured green because of the lefties.

  7. Guy Flavell  

    Lots and lots (and then a lot more lots) of words on this subject. Why don’t we just
    legislate that gays can legally marry then really get stuck into the important things
    like RET, immigration constraints, debt and deficit reduction, welfare rorts and free speech.
    NOBODY is going to suffer one iota from homosexual marriages !!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *