Hard News: The Treasure at the End of the Rainbow
64 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I never thought this would happen in my lifetime, and who would have thought it would happen under this Government?
Easily. No government controls private members bills - which is kinda sorta the point of having them at all. I'd also note the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993, was passed with a overwhelming bipartisan majority under the previous National Government. Associate Health Minister Katherine O'Reagan (whose name the bill was under) and Labour's then health spokeswoman, Lianne Dalziel don't get the credit they deserve for making that happen.
-
and it's been signed by out deputy Queen (how apt) now it really is law
-
Regarding Gillard, it's a numbers game. She's a got a majority of precisely one and is loath to risk it.
If she had a majority of, say, 20, I suspect there'd have been more progress in Australia.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Regarding Gillard, it’s a numbers game. She’s a got a majority of precisely one and is loath to risk it.
Nah, that pass is well and truly expired. Gillard is making much play of the ALP giving it's caucus a conscience vote on Marriage Equality when it's (rightly) a convenient stick to beat Tony Abbott and the Libs with.
But you don't get to have it both ways, Julia. And nobody gets to rule it out of order to point out where Gillard stood when her own conscience was put to the test. It wouldn't have won the day, but as Russell says in the OP symbols matter too. I sure as shit think Wall's bill would probably have passed without our Prime Minister's support at every stage, but it sure send a message to undecideds in caucus, the party, media and the general public.
-
Hebe,
Me and beloved (we're heterosexual committedly de facto) were musing last night how the passing of the bill is a grand thing -- and how surprisingly moving it is for us as a pair of serial marriage-killers (note I did not say serial-marriage killers). In some way the new law redefines the whole marriage deal into something we could subscribe to. Possibly; there would be rainbows, and my best (male) friend would have to be the bridesman. Probably we won't get around to it though because commitment is a state of mind, not a certificate. I am very happy that all have the opportunity to marry, or not.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
I suspect it's also partly to do with the ALP's long-running factional bickering.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I sure as shit think Wall's bill would probably have passed without our Prime Minister's support at every stage, but it sure send a message to undecideds in caucus, the party, media and the general public.
Yes, so a shame he and most of his colleagues were not in the chamber for the final reading. But I understand the competing priority of the televised state funeral of one of their life-long inspirations.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Yes, so a shame he and most of his colleagues were not in the chamber for the final reading.
I’ll repeat what I said up-thread on that score, Sacha. Judith Collins voted for marriage equality through all stages. Both pro- and anti-members weren’t in the chamber on Wednesday night, for the most part I don’t know (or pragmatically much care) whether they were at long-standing ministerial/electorate engagement or tucked up in front of the telly watching Elementary. I don't care because proxy votes aren't counted differently from those cast in situ.
-
Sacha, in reply to
it's the symbolic value, Craig. that's all.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Easily. No government controls private members bills – which is kinda sorta the point of having them at all. I’d also note the Human Rights Amendment Act, 1993, was passed with a overwhelming bipartisan majority under the previous National Government.
Yes, but only three National MPs voted for the civil union bill -- and they've all left Parliament. (Quite a few also voted for the odious and stupid "gender clarification" bill, Collins included. I appreciate her recent change of mind, but her record is poor.) Had the current large National caucus voted like that on marriage equality, the bill would have been lost.
That they didn't is possibly quite largely down to John Key's comments shortly before Wall's bill was drawn, which surely allowed some of his caucus to be a little bolder than they might have.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Had the current large National caucus voted like that on marriage equality, the bill would have been lost.
Can't argue with the numbers there, Russell. :) But that would have been the case whether they were in the House or hooked off to the Backbencher after lodging their proxies.
-
Tony Abbott’s problem isn’t that he’s a Catholic. It’s that he’s a vindictive tit-mouse whose brain is apparently impermeable to facts or empathy.
+2 Abbott's a Neanderthal.
But on the subject of marriage equality in Australia, isn’t it so awesome Julia Gillard’s response to last night was a big bag of “yeah whatever”? I’ll also note that when her conscience was put to the test, she went and stood next to Abbott.
Again, I entirely agree. However, we don't know how the vote would have proceeded had the Libs allowed their members a conscience vote. We do know Turnbull would have voted for marriage equality had he been allowed.
-
Sorry to be so late replying - just to say that although lesbians did not have the legal discrimination that gay men did, a lot of us were treated very badly by police and employers ( if employers found out) and many were threatened, beaten up, and generally given a bad time.
-
Islander, in reply to
+2 Abbott’s a Neanderthal.
Oh please!
Neanderthals were sensitive caring HUMAN beings.
And cannibals, just like us-
Post your response…
This topic is closed.