Australian voters say yes to same-sex marriage


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2017/11/14/australian-voters-say-yes-to-s.html


#2

Congrats!


#3

This doesn’t mean they all have to get same-sex married, does it?


#4

Of course not! The liberal agenda would be nothing without innocent fetuses to abort.

‘Breeder dyads’ will be grudgingly accepted as an inferior sort of married so long as they can provide evidence of their continued contribution to this vital area.

If you are not in good standing with your local abortionplex, though, it’s mandatory gay marriage for you. (There is some suggestion that youthful offenders with a chance at rehabilitation should be given promiscuity training and a probationary period in which to improve; but that remains controversial).


#5

It was embarrassing that out government put this to a public vote when plenty of surveys all said the same thing. i.e. that the majority of the public wanted this.


#6

One good thing though was just how badly our right-wing, religious arse, former PM Tony Abbott got it wrong. His electorate (mine as well) voted 75% YES.


#7

The outcome is a win for Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who called a referendum after the country’s conservative Senate refused to debate the measure.

Err, I don’t mean to that guy, Rob, but this is all kinds of wrong.

It wasn’t a referendum, it was a non-binding postal survey, which is one of the reasons supporters of legalising same sex marriage were opposed to the exercise. The Senate is not “conservative”, in fact, the reason the Senate opposed the survey was because it was unnecessary (everyone knew what the majority opinion was), expensive, divisive and likely to encourage homophobic bullying (which it did). It was the Greens and the Australian Labor Party that voted the survey down, with some progressive (-ish) small parties helping out.

The PM is conservative (OK, not by US standards, but… who is?). His motive for pursuing the survey was the same as David Cameron’s pursuing the Brexit referendum: he assumed the result he preferred was a shoe-in and it would bolster his position as leader against conservative wreckers in his party (like former PM Tony Abbott). Unlike Cameron’s dumb move, the consequences of Turnbull failing wouldn’t be as awful (Australia would have got SSM eventually even if the No’s had won the survey) and he was right about the inevitable win. It was the conservatives in his party who insisted on a postal survey - they assumed that younger voters would be baffled by the whole snail mail concept, or too apathetic to vote in a voluntary poll.

But still, the result is super. Yay us!


#8

There’s still a fair bit of uncertainty, I think my wife summed it up quite well:


#9

Sorry to be that guy, but a couple of clarifications. The result was closer to 62-38 (61.6-38.4, invalid votes were less than 0.01%). More significantly, the reason why they went to a postal plebiscite (not a referendum, which is compulsory) was not due to the intransigence of a conservative senate, but to placate the conservative wing of the ruling conservative party. Progressive forces in Australian politics opposed the plebiscite because it was unnecessary and exposed LGBTIQ+ people to two or so months of constant damaging public discussion of whether they deserved or should be afforded the same human rights as the rest of the population. Turnbull is no hero in this. A better politician would have just put the vote to parliament and be done with it.

We will now get to watch as those same conservative elements of Turnbull’s own party seek to amend the proposed bill legalising same sex marriage until no-one but them could vote for it. We have to look after the rights of those Christian cake bakers you know.


#10

Yes to same-sex divorce too.


#11

Meanwhile, apparently wherever you go, ~39% of the population are incorrigible assholes.


#12

Australian for Marriage.


#13

Wedding bells are ringing!


#14

cough

Actually, now I think of it, it was the Tories proposed referendum that the Senate voted down for being unnecessary, expensive, divisive and insulting to gay citizens, but a majority of the Senate (like the public) also opposed Turnbull’s “compromise” postal survey for the same reasons. That’s (partly) why he had to use the Bureaus of Statistics to do it, rather than the Electoral Commission.

S’OK, It’s only Australian politics - you don’t have to take notes.


#15

I don’t see why conservatives don’t back gay marriage. Want gays to stop having sex? Have them get married. Something in the cake, I think.


#16

Yes! But the joy of knowing almost 80 per cent of those who ‘voted’ said yes and that the bastard conservatives can no longer claim a mandate or majority is tempered with the knowledge it has yet to pass into law. Still… :rainbow:


#17

Ok, ok. So I disagree with the underpinnings of the gag, but:


#18

As I recall, the first same-sec divorce cases in Canada generated some “isn’t this weird?” press. Phhft! A sad but natural consequence of people being people regardless of orientation.

When we live in a world where the egg mother can sue the birth mother, the courts need to stay flexible and take care of any kids first.


#19

https://twitter.com/frbower/status/930275571099090945

:rainbow::blush::rainbow:


#20

Happy Greens:

Next, back to Parliament:

https://twitter.com/richarddinatale/status/930616195400704001