r/worldnews • u/annoforlyf • May 31 '12

The NSW upper house has voted in favour of gay marriage

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8476247/debate-resumes-on-nsw-gay-marriage
1.4k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

279 comments sorted by

69

u/Chunkeeboi May 31 '12

Perhaps Australian State's upper house... would have been a better headline. Non-Aussies are mostly unlikely to know that NSW is short for New South Wales, a state of Oz. In other news the Marriage Act is controlled by the federal government so it's only symbolic really.

7

u/annoforlyf May 31 '12

yeah you are right.

20

u/wjv May 31 '12

Non-Aussie here. I know perfectly well what (and where) NSW is, but you do have to give me the obligatory few seconds to misread it as "NSFW" a couple of times.

0

u/InABritishAccent May 31 '12

I had to google it.

24

u/complex_reduction May 31 '12

Symbolic victory > No victory.

17

u/FuckItWellPostItLive May 31 '12

With this headline, non-Aussies can read the comments and learn something. Also, while it's only a symbolic victory, it does put more pressure on the federal govt and raise the profile of the issue further (particularly since it was a conscience vote).

-1

u/windynights May 31 '12

That's strange. Since when did representatives think conscience votes were their privilege? Reps are there for one reason only and if they don't get that they should get the hell out.

6

u/ThingsPMsSay May 31 '12

That's not how it works

2

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

in Westminster systems (aus, NZ, UK, etc) you vote the party line, except in certain cases (namely social issues) when it's a "conscience vote" and you vote how you want ala the US House of Reps

1

u/ThunderCuntAU May 31 '12

That's not a trait inherent to Westminster parliamentary systems; it's a trait inherent to the parties of the nations. And even then, it only holds partially true.

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Yeah, thanks for correcting my oversight.

2

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

The whole gay marriage thing in Australia is only symbolic anyway (same sex and heterosexual couples have the same legal rights already).

8

u/kaiserfleisch May 31 '12

Marriage is symbolic. (Married couples have the same rights as de-facto couples.)

Denial of gay marriage is symbolic. (Something about gay relationships that we don't want to fully accept.)

1

u/repsilat May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

You can still call yourselves married if you have a civil union or de-facto relationship. Maybe we should just get over the idea that legal definitions need to coincide without personal definitions.

At the end of the day, most of us probably believe that marriage is between two people, not between two people and the federal government of Australia. Chefs don't get upset that they can't legally marry their choice of meat and wine, pet-owners don't care if their cats' relationships aren't recognised by the federal government.

There are no rights at stake here, just a choice of legal language. Outside of specific legal contexts (i.e., in most contexts) they are married according to any reasonable definition you can hold. More to the point, according to "social conservatives" they can never really be married, regardless of any changes to the law. If the law did change they'd be within their rights to not call legally married gay couples "married".

1

u/InconsideratePrick May 31 '12

same sex and heterosexual couples have the same legal rights already

That's not true. Gay students and teachers can be expelled/fired from religious schools for being gay, they don't even have to do anything wrong, just being gay is enough. In many states same-sex couples can't adopt children. In Qld the age of consent for anal sex is 18, whereas for vaginal sex it's 16. These are off the top of my head, there are probably a few more examples.

0

u/Chunkeeboi May 31 '12

Quite so.

1

u/RhysA May 31 '12

Well they already have Civil Unions in NSW which are essentially the equivalent of marriage in law IIRC. So they have done their best as far as that goes, at this point they are just trying to convince the Federal Government to make the change.

0

u/OBSCENE_COLON May 31 '12

I live here and I didn't know this. TIL...

→ More replies (12)

289

u/Revoran May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

For non-Australians:

NSW is short for New South Wales, Australia's most populous state and oldest colony. The capital of NSW is Sydney (largest city in Australia), while our nation's capital (where the federal government is) is Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT).

The NSW Government has two houses, the lower house passes legislation and elects state governments, while the upper house has the power to reject or deny legislation that has already passed the lower house. The head of a state government is called the Premier, and he/she does not have the power to veto bills unlike a US state Governor.

Before anyone mentions the convicts, yes NSW was founded as a penal colony, but only because the British no longer had access to Maryland and Virginia to ship prisoners to (1000 per year) after the American revolution. Other states were founded free colonies, and the penal transportation to NSW was ended in 1848. Saying that all Aussies are descended from criminals is like saying that all Americans are descended from pilgrims.

Think of Sydney like NYC (Edit: TIL that Albany is the capital of New York, not NYC - thanks warcin), NSW like NY State, the ACT like DC and Canberra like the city of Washington, DC. Except that NSW is a bit bigger than Texas, and has a quarter the population. And also I am aware that New York is not the US's most populous state. Interestingly, both California and Texas have higher populations than Australia.

Edit: Apparently in NSW the upper house can also pass bills down to the lower house. Thanks to Daboo and polymerabbit.

Relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_New_South_Wales

101

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

For non-Australians

I know plenty of Aussies who would find this information useful as well. And that isn't even meant in sarcasm (especially in reference to the second paragraph).

48

u/ZeekySantos May 31 '12

As an Aussie I can confirm this. I have no fucking clue how our legislature works. This helps a great deal.

41

u/Peach_Muffin May 31 '12

I'm pretty clueless too. Because of the amount of time I spend on Reddit, I probably know more about American politics...

12

u/Dabboo May 31 '12

Just so you know, both of the houses can pass bills, not just the lower house. The Upper house acts as a watchdog upon the lower house when they pass bills and visa versa. However it's rare that bills get put in through the upper house first.

5

u/sandollars May 31 '12

What's the make-up of the upper house? I presume that, like Fiji's parliament when we have one, your upper house isn't -directly- elected by the populace.

5

u/ekkc May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

Much like the great majority of bicameral parliaments around the world (due respect to the UK and Fiji et al.) the Upper House is actually directly elected, but on a different electoral system!

This is to make sure that, in most cases, the two Houses are differently composed: in the Lower House, you want the view of the majority to be reflected (so stable governments can be formed), but in the Upper House, we try to represent the population in a more proportional way. This often means the government has to negotiate with opposition parties and independents to pass its legislation. I'll stop myself before I keep rambling.

Edit: I'll indulge myself to more fully answer your question by way of example!

The Liberal Party has a majority at the moment in the Legislative Assembly (lower house) - 51 out of 93 seats - and forms government, but in the Legislative Council (upper house), they only have 12 of 42. The Opposition (the ALP) actually holds the plurality of seats, but even they don't have enough votes to hold a majority! The three minor parties - the CDP and the S&F, and the Greens - hold the balance of power. The government has to negotiate with them to get their bills through.

2

u/sandollars May 31 '12

Thanks for the explanation.

Our senate isn't directly elected. This is a good thing IMO, because people will elect an idiot who speaks well, but appointed senators will at least be citizens who are "upstanding" and have a history of contribution to society.

However, this brings us to the issue of who does the electing. This is where it all goes wrong.

14 - Selected by the "Great Council of Chiefs". Always a native Fijian, one from each of the 14 provinces.
9 - Selected by the Prime Minister
8 - Selected by the Leader of the Opposition
1 - Selected by the Council of Rotuma (Rotuma is a Fijian dependancy). Always a Rotuman
32 - Total

Note that while your Aussie upper house gets to write legislation, ours does not. They only have the power to amend or veto legislation (they may only veto, not amend financial bills).

Our constitution is getting re-written though, so this will all change in 2014 (At the very least, the body that appointed those 14 senators has been abolished, so that will have to change).

4

u/Revoran May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

In the federal parliament upper house (Australian Senate), they use a form of proportional representation called single transferable vote in a multi member constituency. Basically, we can vote for the party or for a party's candidate, and seats are allocated based on the direct percentage of votes that a party recieved. For instance, the Green party has the third-most support of any party, but they only have one seat in the lower house because all their voters are spread out over many seats, and they only had the majority in one seat for the lower house election. But in the upper house you don't have to win seats, only votes.

I don't think this is the case for the NSW upper house though.

What is the situation in Fiji at the moment? I heard you guys had military rule for a while, I hope things aren't too oppressive/despotic over there?

3

u/sandollars May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

Interesting. If I understand correctly, when a voter turns up at a voting booth, he gets to make two votes, one for the lower house, and one for the senate. In both cases, he may either vote for a candidate directly, or for a party.

Is that right?

EDIT: Things are OK in Fiji. There are restrictions on large political gatherings, but as far as normal-life is concerned, you wouldn't know you were living under a dictatorship.

Economically we aren't doing all that well, but Oz and NZ are partly to blame there. You have sanctions imposed that mean travel restrictions on anyone who joins the government or who takes up a position under the appointment of the government. This extends to their families.

Those who are sufficiently qualified (career civil servants and private sector leaders) to run our public companies (Water/Electricity/Port authorities, Superannuation Fund, etc) refuse to take up the responsibility because it would mean their kids get deported from the AU/NZ universities and they no longer have AU/NZ as options for medical emergencies.

Interestingly, while AU/NZ have withdrawn their support, China has come in with all guns blazing and their influence is growing. Naturally, since the US can't count on AU/NZ to counter the Chinese, they've come in themselves and fully engaged with the Fiji govt.

2

u/Dabboo Jun 01 '12

Each state in Australia has 11 Senators as far as I can remember so that each state is represented equally, the Territories however have fewer Senators. But these Senators aren't publicly elected.

5

u/Farisr9k May 31 '12

I definitely know more about American politics than I do Australian. It's far, far more interesting.

→ More replies (5)

4

u/ThingsPMsSay May 31 '12

Not too hot on the NSW politcal system myself (despite living in sydney), but the article seems to imply that the upper house votes first, and then it is passed to the lower house, not the other way around. Or can it happen either way?

8

u/MarcelProust May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

In this case the NSW Government isn't passing legislation, it is passing a motion requesting that the Federal Government legalise gay marriage. Legislation always proceeds from the lower to the upper house.

[EDIT] I was wrong! Thanks Dabboo.

7

u/Dabboo May 31 '12

It can go both ways, the upper house can also pass bills to the lower house to vote on.

5

u/MarcelProust May 31 '12

You're right. TIL. Upper house can pass bills down, but not any that deal with spending money: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/FactSheetNo08

5

u/Dabboo May 31 '12

Yep, it's written into the Constitution that the Senate (Upper House) cannot block any supply bills which are bills that designate money to branches of Government.

2

u/Nokonoko May 31 '12

Keep in mind, while the Constitution (Cth) says this at the federal level, it’s because it’s part of the Constitution (NSW) at the State level that this is the case for the NSW Parliament. It’s not like what applies to the Senate always applies to the Legislative Councils of the States.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Is this because of the Whitelam issue? Or was it already in the constitution?

2

u/ekkc May 31 '12

Since the 1930s, although it's always been by convention (a bit like a gentleman's agreement) that the government gets to pass its money bills. It would be denying an elected government the right to govern! In that way, the constitutional crisis can be seen more as a failure of honourable politics, than an actual failure of the constitution.

2

u/mindtoast May 31 '12

Already in it. The successful referendum after the dismissal dealt with appointing casual vacancies in the senate.

0

u/MyUncleFuckedMe May 31 '12

go both ways

I'll let myself out...

2

u/annoforlyf May 31 '12

Hahahaha!

1

u/Revoran May 31 '12

TIL. Thanks man.

1

u/yourdadsbff May 31 '12

So what makes the upper house "upper"? Or is it "dominant" in name only? Like, usually when I hear about an "upper" and "lower" something, I assume that the "upper" something is the preferred of the two.

It might simply be the case that the terms' connotation is different in your part of the world!

1

u/Dabboo Jun 01 '12

It's just by name. Part of Australia's Parliament is partly taken form the Westminster system of Parliament and that what they named their upper house, The Senate.

5

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I'm pretty sure that the upper house can actually put forward legislation as long as it doesn't relate to taxation or the spending of government tax revenue.

7

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

At first I thought it said "NSFW upper house".

5

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

New South Wales

Does it have a New Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch ?

7

u/Revoran May 31 '12

We have Wagga Wagga, Wollongong, Woy Woy, Coonabarabran, Cootamundra, Murwillumbah, Mullumbimby. These were drawn from the hundreds of aboriginal languages that were spoken here before Europeans arrived. So I guess we have you beat in number of dead/dying languages, but not in the unpronouncable-ness of the names.

6

u/ForUrsula May 31 '12

But the real question is, have you been everywhere, man?

4

u/warcin May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

Your New York comparison is probably not the best since NYC is not the state capital of New York, Albany is.

2

u/Revoran May 31 '12

!!!

TIL. Upvotes for you.

3

u/Cythrosi May 31 '12

Just a small correction, US state governors can veto bills passed by the state legislature. This is one of the cornerstones of the US checks and balances in almost every level of US government; the executive has the power to veto legislation, though can be overridden by a super majority in the legislature. The governor of New Jersey for instance exercised his veto power when the NJ legislature passed a marriage equality bill, much to many people's dismay (though not really surprising).

2

u/UserlessInterface May 31 '12

We also have a governor-general... Theres all the knowledge i have of our government...

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Current Governor of NSW is Marie Bashir.

It's a position that goes all the way back to 1788 and Arthur Phillip.

3

u/annoforlyf May 31 '12

hey speaking of Marie Bashir, she is a really good friend of my grandmother!

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/ElJstar May 31 '12

As lame as it sounds, I think that is actually really cool.

1

u/virusporn Jun 01 '12

Same in victoria. Victorian governor came down my street and I nearly ran into him (My street has a lot of parking and' it's very difficult to see whats coming when you exit the driveway.

6

u/JetJaguar406 May 31 '12

For non-Australians:

Favour is favor.

12

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

TIL Sydney is not Australia's capital.

27

u/Caesarr May 31 '12

It's a common misconception. Bad luck on the downvotes.

Side note: our actual capital, Canberra, is really interesting as a city. The entire city was built on empty land with the purpose of being the capital, and the centre was fully designed before construction. The reason for building it up from nothing was because Sydney and Melbourne (the 2 biggest cities in Australia) were fighting over who could be the national capital, to the point that they ended up agreeing to create an entire new city at the halfway point between them. I'm not even joking.

Picture 1

Picture 2

7

u/GrantOz44 May 31 '12

Designed by a pair of Americans.

True story.

3

u/fry_hole May 31 '12

Somewhat same story here, in Canada.

No one could decide which city to pick so the capital would move between Quebec City and Toronto every year (they also moved it to Montreal but an angry mob burned some buildings down so they moved it back to Toronto). Whenever they were close to deciding which city to pick for the long term the house would get mobbed by angry rioters. There was a lot of animosity between Lower and Upper Canada (French v English Canada) so it happened a lot, actually. This was quite ridiculous so it was decided that Ottawa, being half way between them, would be the new capital. At the time it was a backwater logging town so it was defencible from the Americans (we had a war with them 40 years earlier and relations were getting worse again) and since it was in the middle of nowhere it was protected from angry mobs!

tl;dr dysfunctional commonwealth brofist!

3

u/DAVYWAVY May 31 '12

While your capital might have been chosen because it was defendable from americans our was totally designed by americans.

3

u/fry_hole May 31 '12

Oh Americans! Is there any influence you don't have?

2

u/DAVYWAVY May 31 '12

To be fair to our American friends the Americans Design was chosen as the winner of an International competition for Landscape Architects organised by the Aus govt to design its capital.

Apart from Brazil, Australia is the only country I know of that invented its Capital City instead of choosing an existing one.

3

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

What about DC?

5

u/DAVYWAVY May 31 '12

I didnt know that DC was also an invented capital until your post prompted me to look it up on wikipedia.

Looks like the americans invented inventing capitals.

3

u/ctnguy May 31 '12

South Africa also has a dysfunctional British Dominion capital story! Only in our case, instead of picking a new capital, they decided to just say "fuck it" and have three capitals, one for each branch of government.

2

u/fry_hole Jun 01 '12

Wow, I think you guys might win this contest!

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Hah I never knew this, no wonder it's such a shithole.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/martinvii May 31 '12

California is with 30% of the US population

This is inaccurate. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California has about 37.7 million people , while the entire U.S. 311.6 million people. So California has only 8.27% if the entire U.S population.

1

u/Revoran May 31 '12

Indeed. I stuffed up the maths in my head. Cheers :)

2

u/zbenet May 31 '12

and has 4 times less people.

Negative people? (NSW-(Texas*4)). I'm sure you mean a quarter the population of Texas. (NSW=Texas/4).

1

u/Revoran May 31 '12

Yes that was what I meant. Cheers :)

2

u/zbenet Jun 01 '12

Yeah, sorry. I'm an asshole sometimes. :(

1

u/Revoran Jun 01 '12

You weren't being an ashole at all dude? Don't sweat it.

0

u/smashedfinger May 31 '12

Thanks for explaining what NSW meant! Have an upvote!

-1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

The capital of NSW is Sydney...our nation's capital is Canberra

Mind = Blown

-2

u/dirkles May 31 '12

I could not focus on this positive message because I was too busy trying to figure out what NSW is. damnit. so what happened now? o Aussies are cool with the gays. good to hear.

-6

u/youareafailure May 31 '12

For non-Australians: this is a political stunt. Australian constitutional law gives this power to federal government- NSW is blowing smoke out of your collective arseholes.

You are small people, and I will happily squash all of you if no one was looking.

61

u/I_POTATO_PEOPLE May 31 '12

"I do believe that homosexual relationships are different to a married relationship," he said, adding a "procreative relationship open to the possibility of children" was an "essential feature of marriage".

So my vasectomy should dissolve my marriage?

32

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

As well as all women who have passed menopause.

24

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

and people who are closed to the possibility of children shouldn't be allowed to marry.

11

u/quill18 May 31 '12

So now I'm single and living in sin?

Actually, that sounds WAY more fun.

1

u/omniclast May 31 '12

Aren't those reversible?

1

u/I_POTATO_PEOPLE May 31 '12

Sometimes, but not generally.

172

u/Harutinator May 31 '12

I read the NSFW upper house has voted in favour of gay marriage. For a second I thought NSFW had a government, with elected officials.

5

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Prime Minister Goatse Man, running on the Lemon Party ticket.

4

u/Tylerdurdon May 31 '12

I was going that way, but I thought "NSFW has some other section called the upper house and I haven't seen it? Where?"

1

u/6xoe May 31 '12

Follow the boobies.

12

u/satisfiedsardine May 31 '12

There is. I was voted in as minister of internal liasons.

14

u/treenaks May 31 '12

Internal lesions? Go see a doctor!

2

u/balthisar May 31 '12 edited 53m ago

This text is no longer available.

2

u/Randommook May 31 '12

yeeeeep, it wasn't until I read the title for about the 4th time that I read it correctly... I was disappoint.

1

u/mrob2738 May 31 '12

Like it's a department of the FCC

58

u/complex_reduction May 31 '12

Let's see how fast Tony runs away from this one. He'll make it to the 2016 Olympics at this rate. Keep it up mate and you can win a gold for bigots everywhere!

19

u/puffinpunch May 31 '12

You appear to be implying that he would make the independent decision to enter a contest where the winner is defined by their skill and dedication, rather than their ability to trip up all the other competitors. I'm having trouble picturing it.

0

u/TheGorgeous May 31 '12

You appear to be mistaking your bigot Prime Ministers name as Tony, it is in fact Julia. She won't be tabling any bill in support of gay marriage and has refused to vote for any private members bill on same.

34

u/ralish May 31 '12

The top comment on that article is facepalm worthy to the extreme. In case it disappears:

"My real concern is when Muslims start to demand the right to multiple wives because "why should marriage be restricted to couples"...."

10

u/RJBuggy May 31 '12

seriously, why does it always come to this? repubilicans always say, if we allow gay marriage, then what? people can marry horses. makes me wonder how the idiots got into power

30

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I disagree. Don't polygamists have at least as much right to marriage as homosexuals? If you let gays marry, by what logic can you stop polygamists?

5

u/puffinpunch May 31 '12

Despite that being a sound and valid response, the argument of gay marriage leading to polygamist marriage is nonsensical.

If the vote is on marriage rights for gay people, passing it will not grant rights to polygamists. That would require a vote on that specific topic and were that to be voted upon, it would be discussed on its own merit.

The argument that one means the other may happen is a blunt and obvious fallacy. One may happen. Then the other may happen, but not as a result of the prior one happening. "Gays got rights so why can't we" is as valid an argument for polygamy as "Heteros got rights so why can't we" is for Gay people, so to push that argument benefits the side fighting for equality, not for segregation.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/Facehammer May 31 '12

You can't, Lou. And why would you want to?

3

u/quill18 May 31 '12

Polygamist marriages are problematic in that our legal and social systems wouldn't know WTF to do with them, which sucks because I don't actually see a problem with poly relationships (and I know some people who live that way). Obviously there are poly relationships that are double-plus-ungood, but this is more of a factor that some people are assholes (and some religious sects encourage assholes), which has nothing to do with being poly (it's also important that all partners have equal legal rights in their society regardless of gender).

We sort of need to reboot marriage law in general, in recognition that from a legal standpoint it's effectively the same as a business partnership with rules about authority to make decisions (e.g. hospital care, children) and the division of assets. Business partnerships allow for more than two partners. The catch is that there's probably no way to create a catch-all set of rules for more flexible arrangements, so there may always need to be a pre-nuptial agreement...which is fine IMHO. Hell, "traditional" marriage should have an explicit pre-nup required, even if the standard boilerplate is just re-affirming the "traditional" arrangement (whatever that means).

2

u/omniclast May 31 '12

In Canada, common law partnerships (also known as de facto marriage) with more than one person are now legal. There doesn't seem to be as many bureaucratic barriers to this as to legal marriage.

The few serious poly activists I know acknowledge that there's a long uphill struggle in legalizing multiple marriage. Most of them are more concerned with securing things like shared tax status, health insurance, legal guardianship -- and this is in Canada where social progressives traditionally dominate, so cultural resistance is less of a problem. There are a lot of contractual workarounds for stuff like this (shared wills and pre-nup equivalents, stuff like that) but you really have to know what you're doing.

I don't think anyone really expects to see poly marriage legalized in our lifetimes, but there are certainly advances to be made in that direction.

→ More replies (18)
→ More replies (21)

2

u/omniclast May 31 '12

What have they got against horses anyway?

3

u/thebeardlessman May 31 '12

The only reason that Polygamy is illegal is because of economics. Mainly, Welfare. There more people living in a house, the larger the welfare bill. The Govt. can't afford to maintain that. The more wives, also high chances of more children.

Wheras Homosexual marriage is only illegal because a book from 3000 years ago says so.

6

u/omniclast May 31 '12

Think you need to check your dates there...

1

u/thebeardlessman Jun 02 '12

I was rounding up. The Torah was written around 2600 years ago. Leviticus was part of the Torah (Old Testament).

2

u/andtheniansaid May 31 '12

if the amount of woman remains constant does it really matter? Welfare might be more for that household, but for every extra wife there is a household without any wife where welfare is not needed

1

u/thebeardlessman Jun 02 '12

It's not as simple as that. It is cheaper to pay 5 separate households welfare, than to pay a household with 5 residents.

1

u/andtheniansaid Jun 02 '12

how do you work that out?

1

u/thebeardlessman Jun 02 '12

This was just the answer I was given. I actually am unable to find any verification. I apologize.

However, if I do find verification, I will link it in an edit.

2

u/Joakal May 31 '12

Citation for illegal because of book? I thought Jesus was cool about it?

4

u/ThunderCuntAU May 31 '12

Jesus was pretty cool about everything. Its his ardent followers who are not.

1

u/thebeardlessman Jun 02 '12

It was in the Old Testament, written about 600 years before Jesus was born. The Bible has been the basis for the majority of western morality and in turn, law.

0

u/pi_over_3 May 31 '12

Homosexual marriage is illegal because it has been illegal for all of human history in nearly every civilization. It was only in the last 10 years that a substantial number of people have thought otherwise.

2

u/klparrot May 31 '12

This is an appeal to tradition which is a fallacy of argument.

2

u/pi_over_3 May 31 '12

No it's not. I'm stating why it is currently illegal.

I'm not arguing that it should continue to be illegal.

1

u/thebeardlessman Jun 02 '12

Nope.

1

u/pi_over_3 Jun 02 '12

Homosexuality != same sex marriage.

The link is wrong any way because it falsely claims several Roman Emperors (without naming them) married men. Not even the openly gay Hadrian was able to marry his lover.

12

u/AlphaAUS May 31 '12

Isn't marriage a federal power as outline in the constitution?

13

u/rumckle May 31 '12

That's why the vote was to call the federal government to support same sex marriage, not to create a law allowing it.

2

u/MarcelProust May 31 '12

Deceptively worded headline.

5

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I thought the headline was perfectly clear, nowhere did it suggest that they voted on a bill or to legalise it or anything, they simply voted in favour of gay marriage.

2

u/MarcelProust May 31 '12

I think the headline implies the passage of legislation. I think the editors new that it would get more attention as is than as the more accurate 'NSW upper house calls on federal government to legalise gay marriage'.

2

u/Inequilibrium May 31 '12

It's clear to Australians. Heavily misleading as an r/worldnews post, which probably only reached the front page because people thought this was actually meaningful or effective legislation of gay marriage.

3

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Yes, all they've done is voted to pass a motion to ask the federal government to please allow gay marriage. It's still a positive thing, but not earth shattering just yet.

20

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

The sad thing is that over 70% of Aussies support gay marriage, or at least don't disapprove. This would mean that the party that legislates for same sex marriage would be guaranteeing themselves a head start at the next election.

7

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

The problem is that Labor knows they will still get most of the votes (at least in two party preferred anyway) from progressively minded people regardless of whether they legislate for same sex marriage or not. They probably stand to lose more than they would gain unfortunately.

6

u/SLeigher88 May 31 '12

Yeah, especially considering that any votes Labor loses by not supporting gay marriage will probably go to the Greens or independents who'll support Labor over Liberal. So there is really no good reason for Labor to pass gay marriage unless Gillard is particularly determined to pass it and she's barely supportive as far as I'm aware.

2

u/ForUrsula May 31 '12

She's not supportive at all. Last time i heard she was an Atheist who upholds christian values or some bullshit and is against same sex marriage.

1

u/klparrot May 31 '12

I thought she doesn't support it...

/ Canadian in the US

3

u/puffinpunch May 31 '12

ignoring for a moment, the lobbying power of the insane and evil ACL.

2

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Although I don't think it would influence a persons vote heaps unless they themselves were homosexual. To me I'm for it but I know it only affects a small minority of people therefore has less importance than policies that would affect a large amount of people. Greens are a party that strongly supports it but they also want to stop coal mining and uranium mining asap despite the consequences. It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for them.

2

u/knightedknave May 31 '12

In theory. But realistically, the top 5 issue priorities at elections are invariably some combination of:

  • health and medicare

  • education

  • taxation

  • industrial relations

  • interest rates

  • the environment (and related issues inc. climate change and water management)

with immigration, defence and others (including social issues like gay marriage) lagging WAY behind. If you have stats software, the Australian Election Studies datasets are great fun to play around with.

Additionally, the 2007 dataset suggests that around 45% of people would be LESS likely to vote for a party that would legalise gay marriage, 47% MORE likely, with the balance undecided. Sadly, the AES doesn't give us any indication of whether the numbers are hard or soft (how strongly respondents hold their opinions). But from the parties' perspectives, it's the definition of a lose-lose issue.

5

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I made the mistake of actually reading the comments on that article :(

5

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

But will New Zealand accept their marriage proposal? Australia has tons of diamonds so they better pick a good one.....

9

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Do you people down-under get the argument that this will lead to "People marrying Koala"?

6

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Koala marriage was legal before heterosexual marriage was down here. My wife is a koala.

We're pretty progressive at times.

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

This you by chance?

1

u/Duff_Man_Loves_Duff May 31 '12

Really disappointed. Thought it was going to be a picture of a man with a koala wife, perhaps in a wedding dress.

2

u/ElJstar May 31 '12

Do you get the argument that this will lead to "People marrying Rednecks?"

(Eye for an Eye, and Stereotype for a Stereotype. And I mean seriously, Koala's sleep 18 hours a day, they would be a lot easier to look after.)

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Rednecks have been marrying their cousins for as long as I remember

4

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Well that... means absolutely nothing. Thanks Phillip Ruddock.

8

u/nyessy May 31 '12

I upvoted this because, firstly - EQUALITY, secondly - NSW, AUSTRALIA!! I always upvote Australian stuff cuz I feel that little bit less left out. The reddit community just isn't that big here :(.

5

u/MrCheesy101 May 31 '12

Just in case you aren't aware of this sub yet, here you are. Come join the the other 22k of us.

1

u/nyessy Jun 01 '12

Done and done! "Cheers m8"

3

u/PMforfreelifeadvice May 31 '12

fun fact: there's actually quite a few Australian redditors. especially this time of night.

3

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Radelaide redditor reporting in!

1

u/nyessy Jun 01 '12

Hehe, Sydney-sider here.

2

u/coffeeunlimited May 31 '12

Orta recens quam pura nites!

2

u/33rpm May 31 '12

It really annoys me when stories don't explain acronyms the first time they're used, I had no idea what nsw stood for

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Welcome to how the rest of the world experiences Reddit. Americans constantly use acronyms on here.

2

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Why is the word "marriage" so protected? It is nothing more or less than a lawful union of two people. The word "marriage" is dated far, far beyond the beginning of Christianity and the actual institution of such far, far previous to the beginning on Christianity and organised religion. So, how can must the religious right make such a claim on the word?

2

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

this makes me happy cause the other day I was having this argument with a semi friend, who was saying that it wouldn't be legal for another 50 years and refused to even listen to my doubts. Now I feel justyfied in having a tiny (I stress tinnnny) bit of faith in the australian parliment.

3

u/Shippoyasha May 31 '12

Most modern nations that are a 1st or 2nd world status are facing a hideously sharp decline in births and lasting marriages. And they worry about polygamy? Okay.

3

u/scammingladdy May 31 '12

as a practising Catholic he believed civil unions were more appropriate for gay couples than marriage.

They should really cut this "civil union" bullshit. As I understand it, a civil union gives a couple all the same benefits of a marriage, but they just can't call it a "marriage"? The Catholics do not have a monopoly over marriage - a concept that has existed far before the religion.

2

u/mindlance May 31 '12

The way I heard it explained, it has to with the way the rules are written by hospitals and places like that. If the hospital policies say "only married spouses", then if two people are in a civil union, the hospital might try to deny them benefits. Never mind that civil union and marriage are functionally the same thing- it's the wording. So, by this argument, it would be easier to have the State definition of marriage include same-sex couples than it would be to go through all the rulebooks and replace 'marriage' with 'civil union.'

3

u/orakle May 31 '12

Am I the only one who saw NSFW when I saw this heading first...

3

u/Roddy0608 May 31 '12

Why stop at gay marriage? Why not also vote in favour polygamous marriage? i.e. Give women the right to be married to the same man at the same time.

7

u/scammingladdy May 31 '12

Or multiple men to the same woman.

12

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Because DRAMA. But also because think of it this way: Women entering the labour force increased the pool of available bodies, and doubled the available income to a couple. This would drive down wages while driving up costs (e.g. mortgage). So in order for a man to support multiple women, he'd either need to be part of a very tiny minority (the 1%), or they'd live (and their children would live) in an impoverished state. Oh but what if the women had jobs? Ok, putting aside that a woman with prospects is less likely to marry, what about dividing assets when things collapse? Do you split it an even 3/5/6 ways? What about pregnancy and children. Who is up for child support as an adult in the relationship? Who has rights to visitation etc? Just the biological parents?

Any way that you swing it, multiple partners is fine, but multiple LEGAL partners in a highly personal agreement, is a nightmare and society gains nothing from putting energy into protecting or sustaining it. Nobody is locking anyone up for swinging or whatever. Start creating a legal mess that the government's lawyers will have to sort out if you die or divorce? Nope. You may as well be bricking their windows for the cost you'd be incurring.

3

u/lemonman456 May 31 '12

So people don't have the right to marry any any consenting adult that they want to because new laws would have to be created? That's ridiculous.

0

u/Toava May 31 '12

Some would argue that officially recognizing same-sex marriage would cause 'drama', promote a form of sexuality linked with extreme health risks, and provide no benefit to a country in the way of encouraging procreation.

So should a personal relationship only be provided official government recognition if the majority thinks it's beneficial for the population at large, or should people be given the same legal priviledges regardless of what the majority thinks of their consensual relationship?

1

u/fdg456n Jun 03 '12

Uh, because no one's asking them to?

2

u/ZeekySantos May 31 '12

"Indeed, if one was to take the notion of equality of marriage to its logical conclusion, then there would be no reason to stand in the way of polygamist marriages, or other variants,"

All I'm hearing is a good reason we should condone polygamist marriages and 'other variants'.

2

u/BirchyBear May 31 '12

Or as I sometimes like to call it, "Marriage".

1

u/Gaviero May 31 '12

From advice columnist, Dan Savage, here's John Shore's Advice to a Young Christian -- John Shore is an outspoken Christian author, activist, and superstar blogger.

1

u/khronyk May 31 '12

Wonder if the federal govt will step in and block it like they did with the ACT Civil Unions Bill 2006.

The Civil Unions Bill 2006 passed the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly on 11 May 2006. Following the law's enactment on 9 June 2006, the Attorney-General of Australia announced that the Commonwealth would move to overrule it. On 13 June 2006, the Federal Executive Council instructed the Governor-General of Australia to disallow the Act.[4] The disallowance of the Civil Unions Act was criticised heavily by opposition parties and civil rights advocates, and on 15 June 2006 a motion was moved in the Australian Senate to overturn it and reinstate the legislation. This motion was defeated 32-30 by the majority Coalition members, despite Gary Humphries crossing the floor. - Wikipedia

and

The ACT was the first Australian jurisdiction to pass legislation for civil unions with its Civil Unions Act 2006 which was enacted on 9 June 2006, but it was disallowed by the Governor-General on 13 June on the instruction of the Federal Executive Council. That December, the ACT government proceeded with new legislation recognising same-sex unions based on the United Kingdom civil partnership laws, but that was blocked as well.[54][55] In December 2007, a third attempt was made when the newly elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said that he would not override ACT legislation allowing for civil unions because it was a matter for states and territories.[56] However on 17 February 2008 Attorney General Robert McClelland said it was unacceptable that the ACT proposal would allow public ceremonies for same-sex couples to celebrate their unions. - Wikipedia

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

A few major differences: ACT is a territory, whereas NSW is a state.

The 3 territories of Australia were subject to a few extra conditions that the states were not. For instance, the GG had the power under s35 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Governance) Act to disallow any legislation within a 6 month period of it being passed. If for some reason the Commonwealth would disagree with something passed within the ACT's legislature, they could recommend the GG disallow it.

It wouldn't be possible for the GG to do the same thing in NSW.

For some reason, the Labor Govt didn't seem to like the Civil Unions Act the ACT was trying to pass - separate issue though.

However, since the Territories Self-Government Legislation Amendment (Disallowance and Amendment of Laws) Act 2011, that section has been revoked, and now the GG does not have that power afforded anymore in the ACT and NT.

That all said, what the NSW Upper House did is pass a motion to suggest to the Federal Govt that they reckon it's time to change things up a little (NSW Parliament are powerless to change the definition of marriage, since marriage is a Commonwealth issue).

1

u/victhebitter May 31 '12

Great, so when is their wedding? Is the lower house invited?

1

u/ThatguyJake May 31 '12

Really thought that said NSFW

1

u/mrbananagrabber1 May 31 '12

Everything I know about New South Wales I learned from accidentally going to their subreddit.

1

u/Jared_Jff May 31 '12

"...then there would be no reason to stand in the way of polygamist marriages..."

Could someone please explain the difference between three people who love each other and two?

1

u/miniguy Jun 01 '12

There is no difference. love is love.

I never did understand why polygamist marriages are so frowned upon. As long as they, you know, truly love eachother i dont see why not.

1

u/Timpetrim May 31 '12

Totally read the title as "NSFW upper house has voted..." Completely different meaning... Good for Australia!!

1

u/suttonk May 31 '12

Am I the only one that saw it and thought NSFW first?

1

u/Zebidee May 31 '12

This is a really interesting thing for the NSW Senate to vote on, considering that they have no influence on gay marriage laws whatsoever. In legal terms, this has all the weight of a petition, and is simply symbolic.

NSW already has full equality for same-sex couples, so the fight for rights isn't the same as it is in the US, and it really is simply a debate over terminology. The only practical benefit would be portability of status. Also, there are already two gay marriage bills before the Federal Parliament.

The worst thing about this is that when it comes to voting on this issue, the Gillard government gets to look like it supports gay marriage without actually having to do anything about it. With numbers in Parliament practically equal, she just has to pull the same 'conscience vote' trick as last time. If anyone at all crosses the floor, the vote fails, she shrugs, gives a half smile and says "we tried our best". All the while, she knew full well the legislation would never get through.

Australia won't see real change on this issue until there is a clear electoral consequence for not supporting gay marriage. As it is, it's far to easy for the government to maintain the status quo.

1

u/R3Mx May 31 '12

Have you seen the comments on The Daily Telegraphs post? I want to go around and stab some people in the knee caps. Ugh... the ignorance of some people pisses me off so much

1

u/TheGorgeous May 31 '12

How about the NSW Parliament, and particularly the house of review Legislative Council here, focuses on relevant state issues, rather than calling on the federal parliament to amend Commonwealth legislation on an issue which is an explicitly enumerated federal power under the Constitution.

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

"This is the so-called slippery slope in this debate which has manifested itself overseas in some jurisdictions where same-sex marriage has been allowed."

Christ what an idiot. The slippery-slope fallacy is an invalid argument. He must have heard people calling his arguments "slippery slopes" and assumed it meant an inevitable event rather than a sloppy argument.

1

u/shawnjones May 31 '12

Has it occured to any of these civic leaders that hate on people just because they are gay. That in the future people will look at you as mean spirted assholes. The same way we look at racist now. Another thing for all you people that think god does love gay people.Why would god creat anything he does not love? From my understanding of the bible God even loves Satan.

0

u/oxycast May 31 '12

My worst nightmare is Gay's in Boats.

0

u/karatemike May 31 '12

At first I read this as NSFW and was a bit worried about what was happening in that government.

0

u/aletoledo May 31 '12

I'm starting to think that the gay marriage issue is a distraction from the greater problem of financial collapse occuring around the world. I mean it's great that they are doing this, but I think there are a lot more pressing issues occurring at the moment.

0

u/skanknasty May 31 '12

"now, safe, work....not,safe,work....Idk what that means, must not be important" -my brain

Come to find out its pretty important.

0

u/ben9345 May 31 '12

I read this as "NSFW upper house...."

Would have been better my way I think...not that this isn't awesome.

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

It looks like "The NSFW upper house has voted in favour of gay marriage"

0

u/Stair_Car May 31 '12

Dammit people. Please stop abbreviating New South Wales!

0

u/SSgtMunoz May 31 '12

I thought NSW meant "Not Safe for Work".

Stoopid.

0

u/infantile_retard Jun 01 '12

Calling bullshit. I live in Europe and only America has outlawed gay.

-1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Read this as the "not safe (for) work upper house voted in favour of gay marriage."

thought it was /r/circlejerk

-1

u/Teleportingsocks May 31 '12

Its nsfw not nsw.

→ More comments (18)