The SA Politics Thread

[Matt]

Sorry, will rephrase... I meant that I doubt that would be their genuine reason for opposing it.
I think it would be politically awkward for a state Liberal branch to support/allow a conscience vote in direct contradiction with Abbott and the Feds, particularly in the middle of an election campaign where the issue is likely to continue to pop up.

I don't care who does it, Labor/Greens/Coalition or a combination of all of the above - just get it done and get it done quickly.

We only live once and I'd like the chance to be able to celebrate my relationship with my family and friends in the same manner as them and knowing it will be given the same status and recognition by the law.

I don't see why this needs to linger on for another few years while people piss about debating/opposing something that won't affect their day to day lives in the slightest.

I've already lost several relatives who would have loved, and who I would have loved to have there to celebrate with me. Why drag this out for any longer? It's almost universally agreed (even by those in opposition) that its inevitable, so suck it up, get it done, and we can all get on with it.

[Wayno]

Yep genuine reasons often remain hidden, as we know. Anyway Labor must *prove* their legislation will sustain the test of time. Perfectly reasonable for the libs to question, and potentially oppose, on this front.

Remember how fed labor faired afeter the Malaysia asylum legislation fiasco? Due diligence will produce the best result, and get it across the line irrespective of the libs underlying reason/strategy.

As for the question 'who would oppose?' I bet several constitutional lawyers are already itching to get involved in such a case, maybe even pro bono, to earn a name for themselves. Just takes someone to act as catalyst.

[edit: I'm in favour of gay marriage, in case you're wondering]

[Matt]

This is the biggest thing that irks me, though.
The people that do oppose it - I fail to see any valid reason as to why.

The legislation over here passed an important stage in the House of Lords a couple of weeks ago, and I was outside with Stonewall (lobby group) at the time.

Adjacent were a heap of religious folk singing and praying - apart from a few closer to Big Ben who were reminiscent of the scum in Rundle Mall, most of them were quite calm and non-invasive.

When news came through that it had passed, our lot went crazy, as you'd imagine - conga lines, people cheering, people hugging, etc.

On the other side, grown men were actually crying.

Why?!
I find the entire thing so bizarre that people can be so passionate about someone else's relationship.

If I get married, the sun will still come up tomorrow, they'll still be married, nothing whatsoever about their lives or their relationship will change. So why the tears?

I just wish people would worry more about their own lives/relationships and less about people's that they don't know, never will know, and has nothing whatsoever to do with them.

If they choose to live by their own (often convenient) interpretations of a 2,000+ year old book, that's their right and prerogative, but don't insist that the government should force me to do the same.

[monotonehell]

The people crying were insurance and superannuation industry members who will have to pay out now.

[Maximus]

Question: Is the gay marriage issue solely about definition -- i.e. the definition of the word 'marriage'? Or is it also about rights -- i.e. same-sex couples don't currently have the same legal rights as married (heterosexual) couples?

I feel a little ignorant asking this, but I genuinely have not been able to (relatively easily) find out the answer.

[Aidan]

In Australia it's solely about definition, but in some other countries it was about rights.

[monotonehell]

It's about rights in all countries.

The definition issue is just a diversion from opponents. The definition is in the Law. It's the Law that is to be changed.

[Waewick]

what I can't work out, is why the focus on changing the marriage law, rather than simply removing it?

I mean it really is a legacy item from a previous time and really doesn't apply anymore.

If you want to get "married" you go to a church, otherwise you are in whatever modern people want to call it.

[monotonehell]

what I can't work out, is why the focus on changing the marriage law, rather than simply removing it?

I mean it really is a legacy item from a previous time and really doesn't apply anymore.

If you want to get "married" you go to a church, otherwise you are in whatever modern people want to call it.

If only it were that simple.

The problem is not so much in the "church" side of things, it's the financial rights part of the relationship. When two people marry (or even defactos to some extent) they receive different rights as to their financial and personal rights. Things like life-long partners being refused entry to a hospital to see their ill companion, superannuation or insurance not being paid to a life-long contributor because of their "non married" status, this kind of thing.

If two people are committed to each other and choose to share their life (and wealth) how is it correct that another party is allowed to take away their rights to visitation, benefits, and other rights enjoyed by heterosexual privilege? There are no barriers to two (or more!) men entering into a business partnership, other than some bedroom arrangements, what's the difference?

[Maximus]

Ah, so I should have clarified -- dictionary definition vs legal definition.

Mono, I think the answer to your (rhetorical) question is that marriage, in previous times, was primarily about reproduction. Obviously same-sex couples can't (biologically) reproduce! As society has evolved, of course, marriage has become just as much (or even more so?) about companionship and other things. So, no, it's not correct to deny certain rights to same-sex couples. But I do think it's important to recognise the genesis of the issues.

[monotonehell]

Ah, so I should have clarified -- dictionary definition vs legal definition.

Mono, I think the answer to your (rhetorical) question is that marriage, in previous times, was primarily about reproduction. Obviously same-sex couples can't (biologically) reproduce! As society has evolved, of course, marriage has become just as much (or even more so?) about companionship and other things. So, no, it's not correct to deny certain rights to same-sex couples. But I do think it's important to recognise the genesis of the issues.

If you want to take it back to its genesis then do so. Marriage was originally about property rights. That was the husband's ownership of his wife and any property that a dowry may have provided. "Traditional marriage" as we know it today, goes back only about 100 years.

[Maximus]

Marriage was originally about property rights.

Really? My reading suggests that marriage originated as a formalisation of monogamy, given the widespread religious and cultural belief in such.

What do you mean by "traditional marriage as we know it today"?

[rev]

Maybe it's just me, maybe I'm just tired from working all day with this migraine, but what the hell is so hard about this issue that governments can't manage to sort out and pass legislation allowing same sex marriages?


Make it as simple as having a civil ceremony with a celebrant, that is recognized by the state officially. How simple is that?

Religions shouldn't even come into play here.

I don't know of any religion, Christian or otherwise, that allows same sex marriage. Therefore any legislation passed, would only be in regards to civil services/unions with a celebrant.

It's the year 2013, surely something as simple as this could be dealt with in a timely manner? Apparently not.
And I'm no fan of homosexuals, and even I think they should be allowed to be married in civil ceremonies that are recognized by the state.

[Matt]

"No fan of homosexuals"

Sweeping statement!
What have we done to dissuade your fandom?

[rev]

What's that got to do with same sex marriage?