DeadVim

I was having the 'Queensland isn't exactly the progressive thinking capital of the World' chat with some Aussies at the cricket yesterday.

It was that 'post-Lunch nothing much happening on the field' atmosphere.

I knew in their hearts that they realised that they were living on the set of Deliverance.

When the chat turned to casual racism I swear it was 1984.

I half expected Dennis Lillee to come on to bowl.

sonlymewalter

Really?

I'm in the wrong city

sonlymewalter

and his head......

IvanM

A conscience vote means the caucus vote is irrelevant. The libs have their own stacking issues and there is a big battle in NSW between right and left. The libs are more disciplined in toeing the party line giving the impression of unity.

With a constituency system there will always be a dilemma between the national and local needs. The more marginal the seat the more local needs take priority.

It will be interesting to see how much voting power gets handed back to the labour membership. There is recognition that the current system is eating at labour.

Turban Explorer

But the point is they want equality - the right to get 'married', 'have a marriage'. Call it anything different and it's perpetuating the inferiority.

Japonica

They have as much right as anyone to be as happy, miserable, or somewhere in between, as the rest of us are in our marriages.

The sanctity of marriage thing is hilarious. All of the people who decry it as the downfall of society obviously have their heads in the sand. Let's see...50% divorce rate, Britney Spears type 24 hr. marriage, fundamental LDSers with their twenty wives.

P.S. we've had legal same sex marriage in Canada and 2005 and last time I checked, the country hadn't imploded from it. It's a marriage, not a civil union, or other such euphemisms. If churches don't want to perform them, fine, but the state cannot discriminate.

paulry

My mistake, I thought it was all about establishing a legally recognised loving partnership between two people of the same sex.

Turban Explorer

Yes it is. It's called 'marriage'

Petals

I agree with it but think they should call it something other than "marriage" as marriage is between a man and a woman. I think a lot of people would be happier with that option.

My brother is gay lives with his partner and they have no intention of getting wed. However I do believe after living with him for many many years now longer than most marriages they should have the rights of married people with regard to super, inheritance, burial etc. At the present time they have no rights.

Kooky.

Why is marriage between a man and a woman? Because we said so? Why can't we now say otherwise?

sonlymewalter

Looks like the definition of marriage is between two people regardless as to whether they are same sex or not - therefore it would be the correct term.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Petals

I think it should be called something else because it will be more palatable for the masses.

I also think that there will be more support for the union of gay people if its called something else. I do not see it getting passed if the wonderful "marriage" word is part of the process.

Homophobia is alive and well.

roaringmouse

Looking at these 2 comments, then it could be argued that marriage is the inferior thing, and why on earth would a group of people want the ability to sign up to an inferior arrangement.

spartacus

I'm in a same-sex marriage. We have the same old sex, first Saturday of every month. I hadn't realised I was committing a criminal offence..

Turban Explorer

I'd rather be a hip, liberated, stylish gun slinging metrosexual. If someone coins a term less stuffy and old hat than marriage then I'll be envious. Calling it something else just reiterates outdated homophobia and prejudice. So, on that basis there's a good chance the Aussies will label it 'queer union' or 'bender partnerships'