Posted on 09/19/2012 10:11:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
SYDNEY: Australia's parliament voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to reject gay marriage, after days of heated debate that saw one senator resign from a key role after linking same-sex unions to bestiality.
The House of Representatives voted down the bill to legalise marriage between same sex couples by 98 to 42, with Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard and opposition conservative leader Tony Abbott both voting against it.
Gillard had allowed Labor MPs a conscience vote on the issue -- meaning they were free to vote how they wanted rather than along party lines -- while the opposition had opposed it.
Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese, who voted for the reform, said despite the bill's failure the figures were encouraging.
"Just a few years ago there wouldn't have been the support of anything like 42 votes on the floor of the national parliament for a marriage equality bill," he told reporters.
"All the figures show that there is majority community support on this issue... and I think at some future time, parliament will catch up with the community opinion."
The vote ends several days of debate on the bill, during which one senator sparked outrage by linking same-sex marriage to sex with animals. The furore surrounding the comments forced him to resign from his parliamentary role.
Speaking on the bill late on Tuesday, outspoken Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi said he questioned what the next step would be if the government redefined marriage so that two people could wed regardless of their gender.
"The next step, quite frankly, is having three people or four people that love each other being able to enter into a permanent union endorsed by society," he told the Senate.
"There are even some creepy people out there... (who) say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step?"
Elements within the Liberal Party slammed the comments, including high-profile former leader Malcolm Turnbull who described them as "hysterical, alarmist, offensive".
Liberal leader Abbott said Bernardi had offered to resign his position as his parliamentary secretary as a result, and he had accepted this.
Staunch Catholic Abbott, who opinion polls suggest could become prime minister when an election is held next year, described Bernardi as "a decent bloke with strong opinions" but said his comments had been ill-judged.
"They are views that I don't share," Abbott told reporters. "They are views which I think many people will find repugnant."
Advocates of marriage equality say gay marriage has broad support in Australia, where same-sex unions are recognised in five states.
However, because marriage is covered by federal legislation, which defines it as only between a man and a woman, couples joined in civil unions are not seen by the national government as married.
Australia’s vast flocks of sheep can rest easier this evening.
RE: Australia’s vast flocks of sheep can rest easier this evening.
Uhhhmm... No. You don’t have to be married to do that.
Makes it legal ~
Sheep are easy - especially Aussie sheep!
I am quite shocked at how resounding the victory was especially as some pundits were predicting it would pass easily.
I am happy to say I put my submission to the government panel charged with looking at the issue.
Mel
Good on Ya. That’s Beaut Mate.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I do believe the tide has turned.
“Rule One...”
people are just sick and tired of this crap, yet over here the homostapo still will try and define marriage and call their fight marriage equality but then deny any other kind of marriage.
notice how they always try and claim victory.
They are trying to do it with CFA over here, they keep saying look how many states have it and yet they do not move to those states and those states did not vote and even in some cases the people were denied their vote
Never thought I’d live to see this become a “reality.”
JUDITH: I do feel, Reg, that any Anti-Imperialist group like ours must reflect such a divergence of interests within its power-base.
REG: Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith’s point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man—
STAN: Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself—
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: I think you’d finished.
FRANCIS: Oh. Right.
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man—
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don’t you shut up about women, Stan. You’re putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me ‘Loretta’.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It’s my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can’t have babies.
LORETTA: Don’t you oppress me.
REG: I’m not oppressing you, Stan. You haven’t got a womb! Where’s the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: crying
JUDITH: Here! I— I’ve got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can’t actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody’s fault, not even the Romans’, but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What’s the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What’s the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can’t have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.
I could be wrong, but I’m sensing a backlash finally coming to fruition against the homosexual onslaught. It seemed to start about the time of the Chick-fil-A issue, when the desperation of the sodomites was on full display. Now, they’re lying about an about-face that CFA has taken on homosexuality. Truly desperate.
Our church pastor, who had been rather mute on any mention of this evil infiltrating today’s society, finally gave it a sound denunciation a couple of Sundays ago, eliciting copious applause from the congregation. That hit home for me.
That’s pretty good Aussie accent for typing - Good one!
With men I have seen a comeback to common sense on this issue but many women just seem to be caught up in the gay marriage hysteria. I do not mean to denegrate the fairer sex but a lot of women go on feelings on this issue and do not work their way through it using logic.
Mel
Hey Matey, I used to live in Adelaide.
BTW, when I left good old Oz... 70 US cents buys one Aussie Dollar. Look what’s happened to the USD since!
Aussies are getting richer while the Yanks are getting poorer.
I wish I could go back to Adelaide to retire, but the price of houses are now beyond my ability to buy PRECISELY because the USD has lost its value !!
Who would have thought this would happen when I left in 1993?
I’ve seen this exact same thing, Mel.
People always excoriate me for saying this, but if women’s suffrage were reversed, we would see a neck-breaking return to conservatism in this country in a heartbeat.
When were you here? - Dang we lost a good one!
We'd love to have you back,as long as you remember rule #1.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.