Same sex marriage public vote Yes majority in Australia

[grexly75]

Who cares? Gay people should just be able to marry. Period. All this hubhub by conservatives over something so trivial is pathetic.

I think that to some they see this as the corruption of the institution of marriage.. Also there are going to be laws that will allow certain areas of society, such as priests/deacons/churches, marriage celebrants, and businesses such as bakeries and wedding clothing to deny services to same sex couples if it is against their religion without fear of being sued..

- - - Updated - - -

False. Sexual orientation is already covered under Australian discrimination laws, meaning that you can already go to jail for refusing to bake a cake for gay people. Just like you can for refusing to bake a cake for Asians, etc.

There will soon be a law to allow services/businesses to deny services to same sex couples if it against that service/businesses owners religion..

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsl...les/ar-BBEVAV5

https://twitter.com/i/moments/929845720525389824

[Raelbo]

No no I totally agree, don't condone damage of property. I usually laugh at shit and then realise it's messed up. Lol

I can't say that I condone damage to property, but I do have to smile at the Karma.

As far as I am concerned, voting no is pretty much a dick move because it's essentially trying to dictate how someone else is supposed to live their life without any objectively valid justification.

Saying "No, I don't want to get married to someone of the same sex" is fine. Telling someone else that they can't is just asinine. It's actually pretty shocking to me that so many Aussies elected to vote "no" and serves as a grim reminder of how many people still have shitty attitudes in a world which should, by now, be better

[skitzin]

Turnbull has publicly committed to doing it by Christmas so his ass is now on the line over it. And he's been savaged in the polls so that's a pretty real threat.

Not to mention Bill Shorten is backing the change so I doubt it will be an issue. The conservatives that try will probably get trampled pretty quickly based on the comments of both parties and the overall mood of the Australia People.

What I guess saddens me is that this whole thing about banning it was done in parliament in the course of 5 mins. To undo the changes would take them another 5 mins. The really didn't need this survey to do this.

-----

As for 62% voting in favour this number is quite high for most democracies. But to put it another way 133 of 150 federal electorates voted "Yes". How many elections have you seen that have a win of 133 seats out of 150?

[Hugnomo]

These tactics by conservative leaders are shameful but I'm glad the australian people showed them that they are progressive and open minded, and that they care about equal rights under the law. It's a matter of time until they are forced to deal with the topic.
65% is great in politics, and the voter turnout was huge. Here we barely get 50% turnout in our elections.

I'm rooting for my fellow lgbtq australians, may you join the rest of us in marriage equality.

[grexly75]

I can't say that I condone damage to property, but I do have to smile at the Karma.

As far as I am concerned, voting no is pretty much a dick move because it's essentially trying to dictate how someone else is supposed to live their life without any objectively valid justification.

Saying "No, I don't want to get married to someone of the same sex" is fine. Telling someone else that they can't is just asinine. It's actually pretty shocking to me that so many Aussies elected to vote "no" and serves as a grim reminder of how many people still have shitty attitudes in a world which should, by now, be better

Well it is a persons right to vote how they feel, that is what democracy is all about, when you take that away you end up even worse off.. And there are plenty of places in the world that heavily frown upon same sex couples to the point of out and out violence..

[schwarzkopf]

60% is anything but "overwhelming".

62.6% is statistically huge.

[Super Kami Dende]

It's about time really. now we are only a few years behind nearly every other western country. But hey... finally. right guys?

[KevyB]

That's cute, and utterly worthless.

[schwarzkopf]

It's about time really. now we are only a few years behind nearly every other western country. But hey... finally. right guys?

We were only able to start working on the problem in 2013 due to a constitutional messup made 120 years ago.

[Mormolyce]

There will soon be a law to allow services/businesses to deny services to same sex couples if it against that service/businesses owners religion..

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsl...les/ar-BBEVAV5

https://twitter.com/i/moments/929845720525389824

That's a draft of the modification to the law, which of course still has to make it through Parliament. Those passages were already highly controversial several months back so they probably won't have an easier time of it now that the Yes camp has a truckload of ammunition. So we'll see.

Though I will point out that if that does pass in its current form, that would be the opposite of what soulcrusher said - ie, it was illegal to refuse service to gay couples UNTIL gay marriage came in...

What I guess saddens me is that this whole thing about banning it was done in parliament in the course of 5 mins. To undo the changes would take them another 5 mins. The really didn't need this survey to do this.

It was a delaying tactic. Nothing but cheap politics... well except for the "cheap" part. This little pointless stunt cost $122m.

Good thing the Liberal Party are such fiscal conservatives.

[Super Kami Dende]

We were only able to start working on the problem in 2013 due to a constitutional messup made 120 years ago.

The fact it was ever seen as a problem around 2013 pretty much says all that needs to be said.

[Mormolyce]

They have to be careful though as Labor are in an awkward position where 9 of their 10 seats are in No Vote heavy electorates..

By the same token the chief cheerleader for the No campaign is in an electorate that voted 75% for Yes.

[Super Kami Dende]

By the same token the chief cheerleader for the No campaign is in an electorate that voted 75% for Yes.

That's gotta sting. :3

[Deleted]

I'm torn, I want people to be able to have a voice, but then I think it's shitty if you vote no for something like this. It's shitty to try deny someones happiness and allowing them equal rights in such a way, especially since it that won't hurt you at all. But yeah, the karma was just a little funny haha

Voting 'No' on something like that might not be the nicest thing to do, but it's valid if that's someone's opinion. That's how democracies work.
Going around and smashing the property of those who hold a different view, on the other hand, isn't.

That's my point.

only 80% voted apparently

Might not be directly comparable (if indeed compulsory) - but compared to the voter turnout most other countries have in their referendums/elections, 80% is a LOT.

[Raelbo]

Well it is a persons right to vote how they feel, that is what democracy is all about, when you take that away you end up even worse off..

Of course. It's everyone's democratic right to act like a douchebag and I am not suggesting that these democratic rights should be taken away. What I am saying is that it's kinda sad that some people choose to use their rights in such a way and that the rest of us shouldn't be expected to feel sympathy for them when they become the victims of other douchebaggery.

Like I said, it's karma. Act like a dick and don't be surprised when people react to that.

[Mormolyce]

That's gotta sting. :3

IMO the funniest part of all of this is that guy who headbutted Tony Abbott, and Abbott tried to spin it as "those evil YES people", to which he replied that it was a complete coincidence that someone had put a YES sticker on his jacket, and that in fact his logic was:

->There's Tony Abbott
->I'm going to headbutt him

[schwarzkopf]

The fact it was ever seen as a problem around 2013 pretty much says all that needs to be said.

It was a problem until 2013 - not just seen as one. They literally couldn't do anything until after the high court sorted out the constitutional mess.

The constitution didn't just have an ambiguity, it had a recursive error

[Super Kami Dende]

IMO the funniest part of all of this is that guy who headbutted Tony Abbott, and Abbott tried to spin it as "those evil YES people", to which he replied that it was a complete coincidence that someone had put a YES sticker on his jacket, and that in fact his logic was:

->There's Tony Abbott
->I'm going to headbutt him

Yeah at the same time, I'm never for that kind of dickhead behaviour. Headbutting anyone is just a dog act. That being said, if he was going to do it, he should've swung a bit harder.

[Najnaj]

It means that 38% of Australia believes they have the right to tell people what to do in matters of no consequence to them. That is a bit scary.

It still baffles me why anyone would be against gay marriage. It will have ZERO effect on anyone who is not gay and wants to get married.

[Raelbo]

Voting 'No' on something like that might not be the nicest thing to do, but it's valid if that's someone's opinion. That's how democracies work.

I would argue that, ironically, choosing to vote 'No' is an inherently undemocratic act.

Taken from Wikipedia (you can find the actual citation there):

According to political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens

A 'No' vote is pretty much an attempt to abuse (b) to subvert (c). So I personally find it ironic that people turn to 'democratic rights' when defending their freedom of expression. Hence my karma comment.