Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 114

Progress on Australian Same Sex Marriage Bill

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Cody, Wyoming
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by rgp View Post
    "So, rpg, just substitute the word "bigot" for duck. It certainly makes sense.

    Just FYI, if you go back and reread this thread up to this point, you will see that the word "bigot" was introduced into this conversation by Aunt Bea, not by me. "

    Well its...rgp...but anyway.....bigot being introduced by who...is not the matter. The matter is you used it in direct reply to me.

    Please point to where I slung any insults...?

    And I am not incensed by any of it... I merely do not believe in pushing aside one persons "rights" so that another's can be "granted" .



    As I indicated earlier, all they need do is go to another baker that may indeed be willing to fulfill their wishes.

    No one is attempting to impede their nuptial's . This man only chooses not to participate commercially.
    Back when a business owner could legally refuse service to anyone for any reason there were no problems. Now, in these days when the government apparently shares business ownership, problems are continual.

    The purpose of constitution rights is to safeguard everyone's rights, not just the rights of those who share the views of the entertainment media.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    12,162
    An update,

    A final parliamentary vote on a bill to legalise same-sex marriage could come as early as today.

    The bulk of speeches wrapped up in the lower house late on Wednesday night, after sitting hours were extended for a second day to allow extra debate.

    MPs, around 120 of whom spoke on the issue, will now get the chance to propose and consider amendments before voting on the legislation itself.

    Several government MPs, including Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, have said they will support or at least consider changes to be put forward by their conservative colleagues - namely Andrew Hastie and Michael Sukkar.

    The Greens have also indicated they will propose amendments.

    Labor will oppose any change, as will cabinet minister Christopher Pyne who branded some of them "superfluous".
    If the bill passes unchanged from the one that cleared the Senate last week, it will become law.
    I have listened to several of the speeches on the radio and I was impressed by the standard of debate. I have not heard all 120 of them but that number indicates how seriously the members are taking this issue. If the bill does not pass today, with or without amendments, the PM has said that he will recall parliament next week and they will continue to sit until it does. The Christmas break will be delayed. After that it will go to the Governor General for royal assent and it will become the law of the land that same sex couples will have the same rights as everyone else. This is a turning point in the history of Australia.
    We must always take sides.
    Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Northwestern Ontario Canada
    Posts
    3,465
    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Bea View Post
    The wedding cake thing was upsetting to me when I first started hearing about it but I've decided that it is better to deal with an old school in your face bigot rather than one that will greet you with a big smile and then do something nasty or underhanded behind the scenes. I believe that in these days of social media the bigots will be quickly dealt with in the marketplace and eventually do what is best for their bottom line or be out of business. I am still very interested in the arguments and final decision of the Supremes on this issue.
    This bugs me. Keeripes is there only one wedding cake baker in the entire United States? If one guy won't bake it for you find someone else who will. If I own a business I should be able to bake for who I please. No big deal. If I was forced into you wouldn't like what I came up with. Go to Safeway. This insistence that I have to please everyone is nonsense.

    Seinfeld. No soup for you.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    'Stuck inside the Midwest with the LA blues again'
    Posts
    696
    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly View Post
    We've had a lot of the wedding cake/flowers, etc. nonsense over here, too.

    I have very strong feelings that if a business sets itself out as a business to serve the public, it cannot refuse service to a member of a group/religion/minority or whatever else of which the owner of the business does not approve. That would be a VERY slippery slope backwards and could quickly lead back to such things as "No (whatevers) need apply" and the like. I certainly agree that ministers/rabbis should not have to perform marriage ceremonies of which their sect does not approve, but that's a whole different thing than a wedding cake or flowers.
    I agree with you.
    Besides, I think it'd just make much more sense to bake a cake for "customers," sell flowers to "customers," etc., without being concerned about who the customers are or their so-called 'lifestyle.'

    Decades ago, I went into a Thrifty's drugstore and saw a sign that said 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody'- made no sense to me whatsoever then, and it still doesn't.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Camper6 View Post
    This bugs me. Keeripes is there only one wedding cake baker in the entire United States? If one guy won't bake it for you find someone else who will. If I own a business I should be able to bake for who I please. No big deal. If I was forced into you wouldn't like what I came up with. Go to Safeway. This insistence that I have to please everyone is nonsense.

    Seinfeld. No soup for you.
    I agree....not to mention, why would someone insist on spending their money , with a merchant that doesn't want their business in the first place?

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    12,162
    Camper, I agree, and I do think the case before SCOTUS was probably set up as some sort of test case.
    It was a political, rather than a commercial transaction. There is bad blood on both sides IMO.
    We must always take sides.
    Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    21,977
    This is a bad situation no matter which way it's resolved. If a business is forced to provide products or services, no matter to whom, or else get fined or whatever, there is still no way of ensuring that they will provide
    good products or services. What if a Jewish baker feels compelled to provide a cake with a swastika to the local White Supremacists? What if a black baker is compelled to provide a cake to the KKK in the shape of a burning
    cross? The only thing the merchant can do is provide the cake or whatever, but it can be a truly lousy cake, with the swastika nearly unidentifiable, etc.

    And I guess this guy who is against gay marriage could do the same thing.

    And if the Supreme Court sides with the merchant, it can be a very slippery slope back to the bad old days. In a big city, customers do have a lot of choices, but that's not so easy in sparsely populated areas.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
    Posts
    8,031
    Well, I believe that in our personal lives, we all have the right to bake cakes or whatever, for whomever we wish (or not). BUT, if you are in a commercial business serving the public, that changes the rules. You can't just decide you are going to refuse to trade with certain groups. It's commerce, not a religious act. I do not think the Bible addresses wedding cake baking (but it does address how we should treat other people), and I think the whole wedding cake/flower, etc., thing is just thinly veiled homophobia, anyway. Even if it were not, remember that in one European country many years ago one of the first acts of a rising government was to encourage people to refuse to trade with a certain religious group . . . .

    Besides which, if the guy really just didn't want to bake the cake, why couldn't he just say he was booked up that weekend, or some such.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Northwestern Ontario Canada
    Posts
    3,465
    Quote Originally Posted by JaniceM View Post
    I agree with you.
    Besides, I think it'd just make much more sense to bake a cake for "customers," sell flowers to "customers," etc., without being concerned about who the customers are or their so-called 'lifestyle.'

    Decades ago, I went into a Thrifty's drugstore and saw a sign that said 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody'- made no sense to me whatsoever then, and it still doesn't.
    This guy baker is an artist type baker. He does 'themes'. And he is saying it's against his religion so he doesn't want to do it.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    12,162
    The bill passed the House of Reps this afternoon by an almost unanimous vote as members honoured the result of the postal survey.

    Same-sex marriage bill passes House of Representatives, paving way for first gay weddings

    Thu 7 Dec 2017, 6:10pm

    Same-sex marriage will be legal in Australia, with Parliament agreeing to change the Marriage Act and end the ban on gay and lesbian couples marrying. Four members of the House of Representatives voted against the bill.

    Liberal senator Dean Smith's bill will now become law after a day of cheers, tears and applause in the Lower House. People queued for access to the public gallery to witness the law being changed and by the time of the final vote, they were packed into every spot.

    Same-sex marriage supporters wearing colourful "Yes" T-shirts clapped and cheered as amendments were voted down, prompting repeated warnings they should stop their barracking.
    The public gallery led a chorus of We Are Australian after the final vote, with members of the parliament joining in from the floor of the House in tears.

    There had been little doubt that this bill would pass with sweeping support from Nationals, Liberals, Greens, the crossbench and Labor. Opponents of same-sex marriage including Liberals Andrew Hastie, Kevin Andrews and Tony Abbott pushed for changes, but none of their amendments succeeded.

    The legislation passed the Lower House three weeks after Senator Smith stood in the Senate and declared "it was not just a vote about a law but a vote about who we are as a people".

    Senators supporting the bill huddled together on the side of the Lower House chamber to join the celebrations. Veteran same-sex marriage campaigner Warren Entsch was besieged by his colleagues. Earlier gay Liberal MP Trent Zimmerman noted Mr Entsch's long-standing advocacy, lauding him as an "honorary gay".

    How did we get here?


    It has been 13 years since the Howard government changed the Marriage Act to ensure same-sex marriage could not be legal. From that point, the Greens and Australian Democrats made repeated but unsuccessful attempts to overturn that decision, and Mr Entsch came to prominence with his passionate advocacy to allow gay marriage.

    Five years ago, parliament had three bills before it to try to allow same-sex marriage: one in the Senate from the Greens, another a joint bill in the Lower House from Green Adam Bandt and independent Andrew Willkie, and a third from Labor's Stephen Jones. None succeeded.

    The pivotal and ultimately successful manoeuvre came quietly and carefully more than a year ago.
    It was a masterclass in political technique.

    The Coalition's policy for a plebiscite was blocked in the Senate, but Attorney-General George Brandis started to ease the political gridlock by producing a draft bill anyway. That was on the basis that if a plebiscite was actually held and voters supported same-sex marriage, then a bill would be needed.

    More political guile was evident in the way a Senate committee was chosen to examine that bill, with members including Senator Smith and fellow gay senator Louise Pratt, from Labor, as well as opponents of same-sex marriage like Nationals senator John Williams.

    In a unanimous report, the committee laid the groundwork for the process that has ended today, by finding a way through the passionately held views on both sides of the debate. It set out that ministers of religion should be exempt from conducting same-sex marriages, finding there was consensus that religious freedom should be protected.

    And crucially it said marriage could be simply defined as between two people.

    Today's vote implements that, and the House of Representatives has overturned the change made by the Howard government in 2004 to limit marriage to being between a man and a woman.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-0...atives/9235560
    All that is needed now is the signature of the Governor General for the process to be complete.
    We must always take sides.
    Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    12,162
    Here is how the chamber voted

    We must always take sides.
    Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Corte Bella, AZ
    Posts
    1,360
    Good for you!! I've supported gay marriage (in all of it's various forms) for a long time, because, hey, why shouldn't they have to suffer like the rest of us...

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Albuquerque NM
    Posts
    638
    Congratulations, Warrigirl! I just woke up to see it passed.
    What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself. ~Abraham Lincoln

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Northwestern Ontario Canada
    Posts
    3,465
    We have had it in Canada for a long time.

    I'm waiting for the first divorce.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Near Mount Pilot
    Posts
    3,130
    Quote Originally Posted by Camper6 View Post
    We have had it in Canada for a long time.

    I'm waiting for the first divorce.
    I think that Canada was the first country in the world to grant a same sex divorce in or around 2004.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Please reply to this thread with any new information or opinions.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-08-2017, 04:31 AM
  2. Holding up progress.
    By Falcon in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-28-2017, 01:11 PM
  3. Ohio Bill for EMT/Firefighter pet care makes progress
    By applecruncher in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-09-2015, 04:25 PM
  4. Idea in Progress, the Dream Lit Lamp
    By SeaBreeze in forum Home
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-21-2014, 09:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Family & Health Forums: Mom Forum - Health Forum - Low Carb Forum - Pet Forums