Legal action launched to halt Australia same-sex marriage vote

But hey marriage was not designed, and everyone knows it, for love only. Marriage is all about family in fact.

I want more rights for same sex couple everywhere, even in Australia. But not when family is in question.

Let's start with your statement about marriage being all about family. I would agree with this assertion. When I married my wife, she became my family, and I became hers. We are not connected by blood. Later we added to that family with our children, but many couples don't have children.

When a heterosexual couple gets married, governments offer them various rights and protections based on the fact that they have become family with each other. That's all marriage means as a legal status.

There is no difference with two homosexual people who choose to get married. They have chosen to become family with each other, literally for the exact same reasons that heterosexual people choose to get married - they have found someone they believe they want to spend the rest of their life with.

Family is not in question here. Homosexuals who marry are just as much family with each other as heterosexuals are.

Why should the fact that they share the same genitalia mean that they are not offered the same rights and protections as couples of the opposing sex?

If it is only about love, then let me marry as many persons I wish and loves me (my father perhaps). You won't deny me what is not making you any harm, as those of your type says.

That's a separate discussion, and not related to this one. It can hardly be used as an opposition to homosexual marriage.

gay couple should be granted the right to buy kids (because that is what it is, natural impossibility to procreate).

Adoption is not a purchase, whether it be for heterosexuals or homosexuals. Your usage of the word 'buy' here is simply an attempt at creating an emotional trigger associated with the idea of homosexuals adopting children, creating a subconscious bias. It's obvious someone did that with you and it caught, since you are now trying to do the same with others.

Then imagine in a few generations some family lines where you would find for instance only males. Boys with 4 male grand parents...

Let's just imagine that this would happen. First, it's not like this would be the norm, the very odds mean that it's going to be a pretty rare occurrence. You'd also have to consider that a similar number of kids would end up with two male and two female grandparents, but both sets of grandparents would be homosexuals (gay couple and lesbian couple). And there would be some kids who would have four female grandparents.

So you have a small number of kids with an irregular situation... So? You act as if that's a problem. What exactly is the problem supposed to be? It's not self-evident from your comment.

@NZ2011

Sorry you can't understand well English perhaps, but where on earth did I mention that I don't accept 2 persons of same sex can't love each other. I am all for love.

But hey marriage was not designed, and everyone knows it, for love only. Marriage is all about family in fact.

I want more rights for same sex couple everywhere, even in Australia. But not when family is in question.

To prove it, let's do some absurd reasoning :

If it is only about love, then let me marry as many persons I wish and loves me (my father perhaps). You won't deny me what is not making you any harm, as those of your type says.

(worse for me) gay couple should be granted the right to buy kids (because that is what it is, natural impossibility to procreate). Then imagine in a few generations some family lines where you would find for instance only males. Boys with 4 male grand parents...

I will accept it if the majority wants it anyway.

But I stand for my reasoned opinion not to to do more harm in the long term to children than please now adults.

It is very well to fight if it remains for ideas.

Petty is a word that springs to mind.

Indeed. Why on earth would anyone have issues with two people who love each other getting married?

Under same sex partnership laws in Australia any adult, identifying as any gender or rejecting all gender labels as they like, is entitled to join in civil partnership with any other like minded adult. The two individuals will be entitled to the same rights, privileges and benefits afforded married male/female couples in the following areas; taxation, superannuation, health insurance, social security, aged care and child support, immigration, citizenship. veteran's affairs and so on.

Seems clear to me that the hullabaloo over the word 'marriage' has nothing to do with people being denied their rights and freedoms and everything to do with social engineering and hijacking the English language. I suspect, based on the tone of many comments here at jt, that there also is a strong desire to undermine religious groups and ultimately force them to officiate 'marriages' for the gay community in direct contradiction to what their scriptures teach.

Petty is a word that springs to mind.

@Kestrel

Correlation, as they say, isn't causation.

But there's a link....

lucabrasi, so anyone who disagrees with your view is a reprobate?

@ mmwkdw

The current situation is two consenting adults, could it be more, possibly, but that brings with it significant legal difficulties as to how property and belongings are accounted for as well as the general concept of equal and relative positions of power and control in relationships. Morally if all parties are open to multiple partners then thats up to them, but it would be difficult to define legally.

@domtoidi

I have no issue with some degree of democratic socialism, and likely neither do you, its a shame that word has been smeared with the kind of nonsense that is prevalent in misinformed politics.

Water, roads, schools, hospitals etc..

This has nothing to do with this issue however, in-fact its the opposite, don't want to be married to someone of the same gender then don't, and the government sure isn't going to make you, but if you want to why should the government stop you.. right? If we really believe in maximal freedom for as many people as we can then this is a non-issue, do if you want, don't if you don't.

It's interesting that four people think government should be interfering in everyone's lives. Are you folks communists or socialists?

And if the latter isnt palitable, then surely the former isnt.

Definitely a waste of time and money. Plus the ultra conservatives are running ridiculous propaganda on TV which one of the main reasons way the LGBTIQ and friends community didn't want a plebiscite. Because this nut jobs spread vicious lies to target young people.

These ads not only attack marriage equality but also a school program we have here called safe schools which runs on top on heath/sex education. It's a LGBTIQ awareness, anti bullying and suicide prevention.

@Andrew..

Didnt realise that a fertility test was part of the marriage process..

Spot on Toasted Heretic

It takes a man and woman to reproduce so a vote to change this law should go before the people.

Gay couples can adopt. Or if they are gay women, they can have a baby by IVF or surrogate.

Also, many heterosexual couples chose not to reproduce or some couples are unable to.

It takes a man and woman to reproduce so a vote to change this law should go before the people.

I also find what the gay lobby groups claim strange in that the general public is on their side so why go to the High Court to stop a Postal vote - wouldnt the common sense thing to do would allow the vote to happen.

unfortunately the Same-sex marriage advocates cant lobby & play the PC card on the voting population quiet as effectively as politicians wanting to be re-elected.

So what should same sex marriage advocates do, to make it more fair on voters?

Dango Bong: the government is the people. The government is elected. If people want it to change, people change it.

So, there's a lot more going on in this situation than the article covers.

Originally, this was an election promise made by the current Australian PM (Malcolm Turnbull) when he was campaigning for election. He promised to hold a plebiscite on the issue of SSM. I won't bore you with the details, but it's been an issue in the Australian parliament for quite a while now. (It's also interesting to note - every other election 'promise' made by Malcolm Turnbull has been broken. Why he's sticking so firmly to this one is beyond me)

The reason this has been challenged in the High Court is due to 2 issues: government mishandling of the cash needed to conduct a plebiscite (the money they would use may not be legally accessibly), and the question of if the ABS is legally permitted to obtain/use the personal information needed to send out the survey.

The part that most people on the ground are frustrated with, is that a plebiscite is not binding. Even if a majority of Australians vote to legalize SSM, the government doesn't have to pass it into law. Given the rather large cost and the fact that the parliament can still do whatever it wants, many people agree that it's a rather pointless exercise.

However it will give the government a very clear picture on who does and does not support same sex marriage. And I think it unlikely that they will not follow the results that are shown. But, this is Australia - unfortunately our government is rather incompetent. Let's not even mention that several of them are being investigated for ineligibility as members of parliament.

Our civil right and Democracy were hijacked by left wing gay activists in Australia.

How? Are gay people taking away your rights? Or are left wingers taking away your rights?

How will people getting married affect you on a daily basis?

wouldn't a direct vote be more legitimate than a vote by parliamentarians? yes in a real democracy, but unfortunately the Same-sex marriage advocates cant lobby & play the PC card on the voting population quiet as effectively as politicians wanting to be re-elected.

Again its that a civil rights issue and shouldn't need to be voted on, this issue is a no brainer, change the rule move on.

as a yank, i'm really confused by this issue.  wouldn't a direct vote be more legitimate than a vote by parliamentarians? i support gay marriage so i don't see what the big deal is. the article states that gay marriage advocates are afraid of getting hate speech, but who cares? a ittle hate speech is nothing compared to what happened in america. african americans suffered through beatings, lynchings, and other violence in order to gain civil rights. so spare me the "i'm afraid of hate speech" whine. stand up for who you are and be proud and be counted.

Two people should be able to get married and have the same rights as any other two people. Whether they identify as male/female or other isn't really relevant.

@Jonathan Prin

Respect for all but not rights? and who is to decide its different you, thats fine you married your wife, but imagine for a second (I get its a difficult) but what if you happened to be gay and fell in love with someone you wanted to spend your life with..

@Dango Bong

Its important because each person should be able to decide the path of their live and who has say in it.

Marriage can be the difference between your chosen partner having access or a voice in a medical situation.

And more than anything.. who cares.. if someone wants to be married good luck them.

expecting benefits from the government is a different issue. If the government does not want to pay benefits to these people they do not have to

What do you mean by benefits? Do you mean to be in the same tax brackets that wedded heterosexuals have? Because that isn't a benefit.

Do you mean financial support for your children? You think that should be withheld from parent/s of a child simply because of their sexuality? That isn't legal. You seem to have confused the word legal rights with benefits.

If they are so convinced that everyone supports homosexual marriage and only a few nasty old hateful homophobes remain, what are they worried about?

No one ever said only a few oldies would be against SSM, was always going to be a highly divisive/ugly topic and it sure is. The no camp has even 'found' a gay couple opposing SSM, been all over the news lately. That's the pbm, you can find pro/anti SSM in any demographic/socioeconomic/religious etc category.

Our civil right and Democracy were hijacked by left wing gay activists in Australia.

Mate do you really think left wing gay activists are the issue here? Perso, am in the 'who am I to judge/tell 2 consenting adults they should/shouldn't get married'? Naively perhaps, I thought there would be more of us i.e ppl who don't really care and simply have no reason to oppose SSM. Consent & age are key, gender isn't imo.

you can love whom you wish but expecting benefits from the government is a different issue. If the government does not want to pay benefits to these people they do not have to

I believe in democracy and voting.

I wish respect for everyone.

I don't expect someone telling me that me marrying my wife would have been the same as me marrying a man. It is different. Hence adaptation. That is all.

@NZ

Absolutely. Plenty of stupid out there on both sides. And most of it, as you point out, is on the religious side.

@lucabrasi.

Sure fair enough apologies, I just find when it boils down to its either, an "ewwww" or "god said" issue and nothing more. Neither or which are sufficient reasons to compromise others exercise of their maximal freedom.

Maximal freedom being, let people do as they please as long as it doesn't directly effect anyone else in a demonstrably negative way. (general offense as such doesn't count)

Perhaps you are an example of a religious person that sees the value and protection that church/state religion/government separation actually gives both the religious and non-religious alike. :-)

I still don't get why governments think they should have any control over what anyone does.

If you're not harming anyone or interfering in the life or property of anyone else, get the hell out of their lives.

@NZ2011

Don't pigeonhole us, mate. Some of the "god squad" are as liberal as it gets....

Down votes but no reply.. hmm is the god squad having issues facing up to their chosen allegiances?

Chop Chop.

I'm genuinely interested.. if gay people are already living together, and some already have kids of course.. whats the issue.. I just don't understand.

They should let Australian peoples to decide same-sex marriage if they believe the majority wanted same-marriage in Australia.

I'd say leave the gays alone, and concentrate on those reprobates who identify as Australian yet persist with a mangled attempt at "English" to push their unpleasant views.

chop chop ah ha ha ha ha ha ah ha ha ha ha.

Tell me whats your issue with gay marriage?

Our civil right and Democracy were hijacked by left wing gay activists in Australia.

Why those gay activists are trying to block same-sex marriage plebiscite?

They should let Australian peoples to decide same-sex marriage if they believe the majority of Australian wanted same-marriage in Australia.

The issue is, civil rights should not be up to a vote, governments should protect people, even if they are in a minority.

The majority of people do support it.. but thats not the point, there might have been a time when the majority of people would have supported segregation by race for example if they were able to vote in a semi anonymous way.

In anycase, the vote looks likely to go ahead last I saw, hopefully if it does its overwhelmingly in support.

It is ridiculous, asking people to vote on something which the lawmakers of the country ought to be introducing regardless of personal opinion. Consenting adults have the right to marry and all the other legal rights denied them presently. It's not a fricking reality show.

As Australians would say, it is a 'Claytons' vote - the vote you have when you not having a vote.

This is the key point:

MPs not bound by party policy or the postal ballot's result

It is also a postal vote (ie. snail mail), which is abnormal, and not switched on for younger people who tend to do everything electronically. There is also no parliamentary sanction for it (unlike, say the Brexit referendum which had a basis in the British government's acceptance of the Treaty of European Union - they have to deal with 2 governments, their own plus the European one). And it is being administered by the Australian government's statistic-gathering institution and not the proper electoral institution.

Regardless of ethical and philosophical issues at stake, the process is expensive, shonky and cynical in lieu of any other properly binding democratic process.

If they are so convinced that everyone supports homosexual marriage and only a few nasty old hateful homophobes remain, what are they worried about?

Won't the vote prove overwhelming support?