Liberal Party Debating Policy re same sex marriage

[vox nihili]

Currently a meeting going on of the Liberal party to debate their same sex marriage policy.

Moderates on the left of the party are advocating a free vote in parliament, whereas conservatives on the right are persisting with this idea of holding a plebiscite. Some conservatives (namely Cormann, Dutton) are advocating a postal ballot as a potential compromise, as a plebiscite is likely to be knocked down by the senate but a postal ballot may not need parliamentary approval.

Just now it's been suggested that the leadership of the party wants:

1. One more crack at a plebiscite
2. If that doesn't work a postal vote
3. A free vote by the end of the year (meaning all of this would have to happen very quickly)



What are your thoughts?

[CaitlinSavins]

I'm not sure what's going to happen, because those seeking a postal vote or plebiscite are as adamant about their perspective as the free vote supporters are. I personally would support a free vote, even if it means that I have to relearn a part of the Legal Studies syllabus!

As seen by other countries legalising it, I think it's an inevitable thing that will occur sooner rather than later tbh.

[strawberries]

hate the idea of a plebiscite
it's pointless, waste of efforts/time/money
we elect our representatives - it's their duty to get the job done
if we had a plebiscite for this, why don't we have a plebiscite on basically every other legislation?

offtopic

(and also, why should I get a say on how someone else's lifestyle choice that won't affect me?)

and yes, you did go to the election with that promise but that the idea is stupid anyway

soz for my language
/out

[brenden]

I think this is a farce and an unfortunate consequence of our political system in practice.

[Microsoft Word]

Labor knows a majority of the public would vote against same-sex marriage if a plebiscite were to be undertaken. They're just stalling for time.

Regardless of the ethical connotations, same-sex marriage isn't at the top of the list for things i'd, and most people, would like to get done. Issues like terrorism and the decentralisation of infrastructure should be taking the cake for federal deliberation.

[brenden]

Labor knows a majority of the public would vote against same-sex marriage if a plebiscite were to be undertaken. They're just stalling for time.

This is inconsistent with virtually any poll on the subject. Prominent politicians from both parties have publicly said they believe the plebiscite would be carried.

[Microsoft Word]

This is inconsistent with virtually any poll on the subject. Prominent politicians from both parties have publicly said they believe the plebiscite would be carried.

This whole plebiscite dilemma was an issue months ago. If both parties had reached an agreement, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

[brenden]

This whole plebiscite dilemma was an issue months ago. If both parties had reached an agreement, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

Yep, that's true. We're having this discussion now because both parties haven't reached an agreement?

[Microsoft Word]

We're having this discussion now because both parties haven't reached an agreement?

Correct.

[brenden]

Correct.

Sorry, the question was asking your point, not clarifying a fact.

[good_stuff]

If America can do it, why can't we? Completely ridiculous that people have been fighting for this basic right to be recognised as a couple when the ONLY thing holding them back is some serious cultural lag by politicians who believe conservatism is going to last forever >:// Problematic. Australia's meant to be progressive for a reason?? 

I'm strongly for equal marriage, definitely but can't help thinking that a plebiscite would be a massive waste of money and paper, etc. Surely the Australian nation would vote in favour? But in the event that we don't (RIP faith in humanity), or some sketchy background business goes on, it would all go to waste, and the equal marriage bill might be pushed back. AGAIN.

[vox nihili]

Just an update.


The government is doing exactly what I said in the first post. Sticking with the plebiscite and going to a postal vote if that doesn't work. They're expecting this issue to be "dealt with" by the end of December.

Somewhat sadly, only seven Liberals voted for a free vote. Tellingly, they weren't given the chance to cast their votes in a secret ballot, which would likely have seen key moderates (à la Pyne, Brandis, Payne et al.) vote for a free vote.

[vox nihili]

Another update:


Plebiscite has failed to pass the senate, so now we're onto a postal plebiscite.


Some fun facts:

-the Australian Bureau of Statistics will be in charge of this one, because it makes it harder for the postal plebiscite to be challenged legally
-it is estimated to cost in excess of 100 million dollars
-if the majority votes yes, the Liberal party will have a free vote (i.e. can vote yes or no according to how they want to); whereas, if the majority votes no they won't get a free vote...in effect the results of the plebiscite are non-binding and even if we vote yes we may not get marriage equality
-Tony Abbott has come out today in opposition to marriage equality, saying "if you don't believe in political correctness, vote no"

[Joseph41]

-Tony Abbott has come out today in opposition to marriage equality, saying "if you don't believe in political correctness, vote no"

What does this even mean?

[brenden]

What does this even mean?

It means that he's a manipulative scoundrel who's smarter than the media makes him out to be.

This entire charade is a mockery of our political process  .