Plibersek backs marriage
Federal Human Services Minister and Sydney MP Tanya Plibersek has come out in support of gay marriage.
Following an online consultation with her electorate, more than 80 percent of respondents to the poll said they supported a change to the Marriage Act that would allow gay couples to wed.
“The main argument from most of those who made submissions in my electorate is that Labor’s task of ending discrimination against same-sex couples is not finished yet,” she said.
“The clear preference from residents in the Sydney electorate … is to amend the Marriage Act so that same-sex couples can get married.”
Plibersek said 57 percent of respondents supported a national civil union scheme open to both same-sex and opposite-sex de facto couples, however only nine percent supported a similar scheme only open to same-sex couples.
“The residents of Sydney who wrote to me in support of same-sex marriage came from many different backgrounds,” she said.
“What they shared was a belief that no law should discriminate against people because of their sexuality, a belief that I share.”
Plibersek’s comments are set to please marriage equality advocates who have criticised the minister for her silence on the issue, especially given the large number of gays and lesbians living in her electorate.
In the lead up to the 2010 federal election, Australian Marriage Equality leafleted the seat of Sydney calling on Plibersek to stand up for a Labor Party change on the issue.
“The Prime Minister has indicated that this issue will be debated at the Labor Party’s national conference later this year,” Plibersek said.
“I believe that it is the right time to renew Labor’s program to deliver this final measure for full equality for same-sex couples, and I will be making a case for change at that conference.”
Plibersek joins Finance Minister Penny Wong, Sports Minister Mark Arbib and Assistant Treasurer Bill Shorten who’ve publicly stated support for same-sex marriage.
Australian Marriage Equality are holding a Marriage Equality in the Pub event at Newtown’s Bank Hotel this Saturday from 3-5pm.
The free forum is a chance to hear from key campaigners, advocates and lobbyists including PFLAG national spokeswoman Shelly Argent, NSW Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann, and anti-homophobia educator Daniel Witthaus and ask questions about their experiences.
Australian Marriage Equality will also be on hand to schedule meeting between participants and their Federal MP or Senators.
Why is it whenever anyone comes out in support of the LGBT community, we all pile on and criticise them? Plibersek supports gay marriage, but we moan and whine that she should have supported it earlier, she hasn’t done enough, she isn’t personally LGBT wah wah wah.
How about we just say thanks Tanya, and spend our time trying to bring over the fence-sitters, like Bishop and Turnbull.
Or is simple civility and smarter tactics too much to ask?
As a voter in her electorate, and one who has been highly critical of her silence on the issue of same-sex marriage (and of her vote in support of amending the marriage act to specifically exclude same-sex couples back in 2006) it is welcome news that Plibersek has finally seen the light.
As for “not im my bedroom”, maths and statistics are obviously not your strong point (nor is rational debate it would seem):
– 80% of the people who provided response to Plibersek supported same-sex marriage
– 57% of the people who provided response to Plibersek also supported civil unions open to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples (ie 23% only supported marriage not civil unions)
– 9% of the people who provided response to Plibersek also supported civil unions open only to same-sex couples
After many years of refusing to answer where she stands on marriage, it’s good to see Tania Plibersek finally support same-sex marriage. It’s a no-brainer that her electorate supports same-sex marriage though, and as the representative of her electorate she should have done this many years ago.
American courts send people to their death while not properly funding legal representations.
It takes people like Tanya to stand against injustice in Australia. Just because a government violates Civil Rights does not make it right. We are all deserving of a fair go.
Not in My Bedroom.
Your arguments are absurd.
Civil Unions being the same as Marriage? If you believed that then you would not object to marriage. And give me a break trying to gloss over the many pieces of legislation that favour married couples over non married couples. Lie again?
It is all so smooth to discriminate. Listen to yourself.
As for Tanya, well her survey is not scientific, the galaxy polls are that show a majority of people support Same-Sex Marriage. But Tanya is taking a leadership role. More then yourself. She is not denying history.
No you have not convinced me I or others need discrimination. It is especially absurd for someone who is not subject to inequality to argue for it for others. Sounds like a mad bastard if I ever heard one.
If you see ‘SSM (Same sex Marriage)’ as a forward move in any country…..
…. Australia is going to get SSM well and truely before they get it anywhere in the USA.
Link
http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/iMAPP.Jan2011.pdf
Quoted text – cut and post from the above link.
Majority of Courts Reject Right to SSM
A new IMAPP policy brief by William C. Duncan concludes the majority of courts, as well as the majority of Americans, have rejected the idea that same-sex marriage is a right. For a summary of court decisions over the last decade, go to http://www.marriagedebate.com.
Dave,
I also read the facebook groups which are of the conservative christian stance. They also report what happend to all three judges in one trial when those judges came up for election. The people voted them out.
Also I fail to see why ‘being different’ means a person is second rate or a second class citizen. We are in a multi cultural world. We have many different cultural groups, each with their own cultural features and things. Just because a Mexican or a Cantonise person are part of a different cultural group to a German or a Sudanise, does not make that Mexican nor the Cantonise as being a second class citizen.
The Legal status of Civil Unions, need not be any different to that of Marriage, and I do not see why it can not be just as socially accepted as Marriage is given the fullness of time.
I would also argue that it is not so much the difference between Civil Unions v Marriage, rather the fact that Civil Unions are associated with gay unions whereas Marriage is still associated with straight unionships only, and society may judge it as that.
Many of the Hetrosexual people I speak to (including myself) in person would question the value of marriage if the word was used in association with homosexual people.
TO ANTHONY
That 80% seems to conflict with the 57% supporting for civil unionships.
Just because the homosexual people may get gay-marraige, does not mean it can not be taken back from them in the future.
Not In My Bedroom, can you read? It clearly states more than 80 percent of respondents favor same-sex marriage …. let it go
Not in My Bedroom
Civil Unions are not Marriage. Why argue for inequality? You say from your other post you are heterosexual. Well what business is it of yours if a couple gets hitched? You will never meet most couples married at the moment let alone Same-Sex couples. The argument for discrimination does not sit well with people like my Anglican Bishop, or many people of good will, those who believe in a Fair Go.
If people live as if married, they laugh and cry together, they garden together, they argue, they love, they grow old together, they are committed to each other for life in sickness and in health, and they want their relationship recognized as marriage, then I wish them all the best.
A number of courts around the world have ruled that schemes separate from marriage cannot be equal to marriage. Most recently, the California Supreme Court ruled on 15 May 2008 that giving the unions of same-sex couples a name that was separate and distinct from marriage reduced gays to “second-class citizens”. Studies in the US and UK also show that civil unions do not deliver the same legal security and social recognition as marriage.
This is not to mention the many areas of legislation that discriminate in favour of married couples. It would take many years to give full equality even Civil Union legislation passed. That is years of discrimination you will not have to live with. But then again you do not live with discrimination now as you are heterosexual, and you have the nerve to push for the discrimination of my relationship!
There was a time that government did not regulate marriage, the community did. I have to question the existence of government regulation if it results in a loving couple not being able to marry.
[…] were unsure. (Convince the 18 percent and you might have a majority, I say.) In related news, Sydney MP Tanya Plibersek has said she supports marriage for same-sex couples. via Twitter, Facebook, […]
Right, now how about a Who should be PM poll? Rudd or Gillard? That would be interesting
Good on you Tanya-about time you ended your silence and spoke up for your consultants
Shame it took an online poll to tell you what you should have already known
Slowly all the pawns start to fall – soon we’ll topple the Queen and the LGBTI community will finally be treated as equals.
It takes people like Plibersek to save the Federal Labor Party. She has set an example to other members, if they want to once again be the Party of a Fair Go, the party that values social justice for all Australians, then they should stand together and be counted. They should not put Party Policy ahead of being critical of a policy that leads to great inhumanity.
It took guts for people to stand up to the White Australia Policy, and to the shocking treatment of our Aboriginal people. It took people with courage and conviction, people who believed in a Fair Go.
It is time others joined Plibersek and set their party on the right side of history, the side that tried to stop the cruelty against us good people.
History will judge politicians who are against our Civil Rights, as no different from those who supported the segregation of people of a different skin colour. There will be no future in politics for those sort of people if they do not act and support a Fair Go for all Australians.
I believe in a Fair Go, and I am glad Plibersek does to.
@ Ben, then we need somthing more democratic in the 21st century than the Labor Party.
There is a great distinction between Marriage and Civil Unions. Although the distinction may only exist in the use of the word(s).
I quote this from above.
Plibersek said 57 percent of respondents supported a national civil union scheme open to both same-sex and opposite-sex de facto couples.
Why are you celebrating this as ‘marriage rights’ or ‘marriage equality’?
It is clearly an advancement in civil unionship rights for GLBT people. Not an advancement for ‘marriage rights’.
In my view, it would be a great day to see a national ‘civil unionship’ scheme. But the use of & definition of the word marraige should be kept to mean a unionship between a man and a woman.
When I speak to people, the majority of people holding the same or similar view to me. They do support the claimed ‘marriage rights’ that seem to be trumpeted about.
ALP party policy is binding on all members of parliament – including opposition to same-sex marriage.
The job now is to get that position changed.
At least a dozen MP’s including NSW people Plibersek, Albanese and Arbib have publicly supported marriage.
More are needed.
If you live in an electorate with an ALP representative, MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN.
Similarly, if you have Liberal or National Party representative, MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN.
If you dont speak up, it is too easy for a member of parliament to say “the only people who have contacted me on this have said they are opposed to same-sex marriage”.
Get active – Speak up!
Gay marriage was banned back in 2004 and now in 2011 she finally has the guts to speak out in support of marriage equality, sorry Tanya but your a little late.