Should this be on top of Malcolm Turnbull’s list?

Tasmania allows same-sex couples to formally register their relationships, the ACT has a civil partnership scheme, and this week Queensland

Tasmania allows same-sex couples to formally register their relationships, the ACT has a civil partnership scheme, and this week Queensland restored civil partnership ceremonies for same-sex couples. Yet the issue of same-sex marriage seems to be dragging its feet.

“Let’s hope these laws are here to stay,” said Queensland Attorney-General Yvette D’ath, after state parliament voted on civil partnerships for the third time in recent years.

“Whether this is about changes in the laws, or whether members are responding to shifts in public attitudes, perhaps today can be the line in the sand that demonstrates that Queensland has finally moved forward,” Ms D’ath added.

When Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister, many people believed gay marriage was just around the corner for all Australians. “Mr Turnbull has long been seen as a champion of marriage equality,” wrote Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten. 

“Sadly now, in one of his first acts as the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull has renounced his support for marriage equality legislation, abandoned his commitment to a free vote in the Parliament and embraced Tony Abbott’s plan for a plebiscite,” Shorten added.

The Prime Minister has described a plebiscite regarding same-sex marriage as a “people’s vote,” but will not commit to one until after the next election: “(A plebiscite) I grant you is more expensive, but nonetheless, it is a very legitimate and democratic way of dealing with (the same-sex marriage debate,)” Mr Turnbull said during Question Time recently.  

It certainly seems like the issue is stalling. Though legislation on a state level is some development, supporters of gay marriage are calling for nationwide action and equal rights.

“Prejudice towards sexuality remains more acceptable than racial prejudice,” lobby group Australian Marriage Equality surmised yesterday. 

What do you think? Is legislation relating to same-sex marriage sufficient on a state level? Or does Australia need to be embrace nationwide marriage equality?  








  1. Turnbull has turned his back on his beliefs to get the top job , but you might find things change if he wins an election in his own right

  2. With McFarlain defecting to the National Party and Mal Brough telling lies in Parliament and being investigated by the Federal Police and Abbott coming out sniping, Turnbull has enough to worry about at the moment

    • The separation of church and state means that citizens should not have been denied marriage in the first place.

  3. What do I think? Yes get on with it. We must embrace everyone so that they too can join the stats on separation, divorce, remarriage, broken homes etc. B|

    • All it takes is a simple parliamentary vote. They are already sitting there sniping at each other at our expense.

  4. Qld Labor Parliament voted civil partnerships in – LNP under dictator CandoanythingIplease Newman voted it out – Now Labor has voted it in again. Hokey Pokey anyone?

    • Now the dictator is gone, elected representatives don’t have to vote as they’re told.

      • Kate  

        … and yet Tanya Plibersek demands a party-line vote from the Labor members, whilst denying the Liberal party the right to direct their members likewise; the Libs she says should be allowed a conscience vote. Does no-one see a slight hypocrisy in that attitude?

  5. I’ve never really understood the problem. Considering how many hetero couples do not marry these days and how much simpler separation is for those couples if it occurs, as it does for about 50% married or not, what are the gay couples missing out on in law? It occurs to me as a pensioner they may even have an advantage at our age as two singles instead of a couple for pension.

    • Alan, there have been situations where families who do not approve of their relative’s “lifestyle”, have completely barred the partner from Hospitals, funerals and even overturned wills when their gay relative can no longer speak for themseves.

    • Ally Morgan Most of those situations could be covered legally with civil contracts. Hospital visiting is a matter for appropriate legislation covering all types of partners of any sexual identity and I cannot see how anyone could bar me from a funeral. I can’t comment on the idiocy of some courts.

    • If someone has an accident or sudden illness, there may not be personal wishes put in place – and maybe twenty angry relatives may easily remove you from a funeral ……..

    • Ally Morgan Then put them in place. Surely, if people have the will to protest this subject, doing what they can do legally right now is the least that should be done. That includes a carefully drafted unbreakable will noting funeral arrangements as well as inheritances.

    • Alan Shanley It would be easier just to sort it out with one vote which would take five minutes.

    • Alan Shanley yes, that works for us Over 60’s who’ve had a lifetime to think about it – did you have your Advanced Directive, your Will and your Power of Attorney and your Funeral Arrangements in place in your 20’s, 30’s and 40’s? I you did, you would be one of the minority.

    • Ally Morgan At that age I wasn’t in a minority which considered itself disadvantaged. If I had been, and if it had concerned me enough, it is very likely I would have had all of those in place. I certainly had a will and life insurance in my early 20s when my carefree life disappeared with marriage and children, and I had to become more responsible.

  6. On the list absolutely,on top of the list,I’m not so sure as there are one or two other issues that perhaps would benefit
    all first, I believe gay marriage will and should happen,he’s got a tough job to keep everyone happy though.
    I agree with you too Libby.

  7. It would be a long way down towards the foot of my list with many other issues far more important: the economy, health, defence, education…

    • It educates people to respect each other regardless of differences, what has someone else’s sexuality got to do with any one else?
      There would be less deressionand suicides if people were allowed to be who they are and love who they want. Economy would benefit from more ceremonies, parties and gifts ring bought.
      I could say a lot more, it’s just academic of letting people live their lives as they want, why is that a problem to prolegomenon are not affected by it?

    • Neil Sandall It is no problem for me. I respect all regardless of their differences, whether sexual, racial, religious or anything else as long as they treat me similarly. However the question was related to the level of importance this should have in the PMs list of priorities. In that context I stand by my answer. It should be nowhere near the top of the list.

    • Heather Inglis I agree with Neil. If some of the busy bodies who want to tell people how to live their lives actually looked into it they would find the costs are horrendous both in money and lives.

    • A quick cheap option on this issue would be common sense wouldn’t it. We pay them to sit in parliament, surely in an hour or two, it could all be done for no expense at all. On the other hand, bombing Syria is very important and necessary….NOT

    • Alan it’s very important to many Aussies. Why should it be pushed to the bottom of the list.

  8. Rearing its head again! Many for, many against same sex marriage. Only fair way is a plebiscite….to sensitive an issue to be decided by a handful of politicians. I’m sure Australia has many more important issues to worry about!

  9. No I think we have more pressing issues. I think the Gov. has decided to let the people choice so leave it at that.

    • Do you understand what that people’s choice is going to cost? People run around all the time wanting the people’s choice at the cost of about $60,000,000. Wow get a few referendums going and we will be in further debt.

    • The ringmaster of this circus needs to instigate a simple vote in parliament which won’t affect the budget. We are already paying them to be sitting there.

    • I agree but they didn’t want to make that decision, Some thought is was against their Christian belief, some said they had to do what their constituents wanted. eg If they are in a Muslim, or Israel population. I guess it was easier to pass the buck. Turnbull won’t do anything to rock the boat before the election that way he can blame Abbott for the cost.

    • Since when is religion allowed to affect our parliaments? Separation of church and state does and should apply.

    • Leone O’Sullivan When it might affect someone pay packet. and if you are morally against something and your votrers knoiw of this and still voted you into Parliament.

Leave a Reply

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