Australian leaders plan vote on same-sex marriage

Ajustar Comentario Impresión

The Prime Minister confirmed that the government would not allow a free vote on the issue if a majority of Australians voted "no" in the postal plebiscite.

"I know LGBTI Australians are frustrated, they're angry, and they're bewildered that it has come to this", he wrote.

Polls indicate popular support in Australia for marriage equality, but the issue has dragged on for over a decade amid political wrangling on the best way to vote on the issue.

"We took this promise to the people, saying that everyone would get a say on this".

Immediately after the government announced it was going ahead with its plan for a non-binding, voluntary postal plebiscite (technically it's a postal "survey"), marriage equality advocates started encouraging people to update their enrolment details ASAP. That's what I'll do.

"Really, this plebiscite is no more than a glorified opinion poll - a 122-million-dollar opinion poll", Ms. Gerber said. "If that's the case, that'll be reflected in the plebiscite and of course then it will sail through the Parliament", he said.

Others, like Joel Smith from Melbourne who arrived in the United Kingdom in June, aren't going to vote.

"And I say to you if you don't like same-sex marriage, vote no".

Tim ended the tune, addressing the politicians singing: "Your attempt to keep Australia in the past will be a failure because most of Australia ain't homophobic".

But I honestly think it's a pointless exercise.

"If we are faced with a postal plebiscite we have a duty to every Australian who supports fairness and equality to win it". Private media proprietors of course can campaign for one side or the other.

"We've see a lot of censorship of those arguing against the Marriage Act", Liberal senator Zed Seselja said on Sky News on Thursday.

"It is crucial that we launch these proceedings and confirm the legal validity of the postal plebiscite before $122 million of taxpayer dollars is spent on an unfair and unnecessary process only created to frustrate and delay marriage equality", HRLC legal advocacy director Anna Brown said in a statement on Thursday.

"It's not good enough, it could have been done yesterday (with a vote in Parliament)", she said.

Earlier this year, the British High Commissioner to Australia was forced to deny that a redefinition is being subtly pushed on citizens.

Following a series of highly-controversial comments, many called for her name to be stripped from Melbourne's Margaret Court Arena.

"The High Court found very clearly that it is the Australian Parliament that needs to determine this".

"Respectfully, some of us have always had a consistent position, and taking a lecture about the failure to pass a change in the law from the opposition is a bit rich".

Comentarios