UPDATED: MPs report back on marriage

UPDATED: MPs report back on marriage

Only 31 out of the 150 Members of the House of representatives have reported back to the Parliament on their consultations with constituents on same-sex marriage.

Speaking in federal Parliament this morning, Bandt led the discussion on marriage equality, following a motion he moved last year requesting MPs “take the temperature” of their electorates on the issue. He branded Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Opposition leader Tony Abbott’s opposition to same-sex marriage “out of step with public opinion”.

Bandt said the issue is an important one in his federal seat of Melbourne, with almost all feedback to his office in favour of changing the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry.

“I have received several thousand emails on the issue and over nine in 10 have expressed support for marriage equality,” he told Parliament.

“In a survey I conducted of my electorate in November last year, marriage equality was one of the top priority issues for respondents.

“Of the 475 people who responded to the survey, only one respondent expressed opposition to same-sex marriage.”

In his speech, Bandt said allowing same-sex marriage would improve acceptance of same-sex relationships in Australia.

“This push for equal love is not just important for those who want to get married,” Bandt said, “It sends a powerful message to the boy in a country town struggling with his sexuality, or the student who wants to take her girlfriend to the school formal, that the country believes your love is equal.”

Bandt added he is confident marriage equality will eventually be achieved.

“Because love builds bridges where there are none,” he said, “Love thaws hearts and warms minds … Love is a powerful force for good and a powerful force for change.”

The Nationals Paul Neville reported that only 14 people had contacted him in support of marriage equality, while 595 did who were opposed.

Labor’s  Chris Hayes reported that feedback in his electorate was overwhelmingly in opposition, with over 90 percent saying no to same-sex marriage out of 395 who contacted him.

Labor’s Graham Perrett said that that of the 1373 responses he received, 44 percent supportive same-sex marriage, while 53 percent were against and another 3 percent unsure.

Liberal Alex Hawke found broad support for legally recognising same-sex unions but said this did not extend to changing the Marriage Act.

Labor’s Andrew Leigh said most people who contacted him wanted to see change to the law as it stood.

The Nationals’ Darren Chester did not support changing the Marriage Act and said that out of 700 responses he received, 64 percent were opposed to change.

Labor’s Shayne Neuman received 580 responses supporting marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and 150 responses supportive of change.

The Liberals’ Luke Simpkins reported 903 opposing same-sex marriage and 103 in favour.

Labor’s Mike Symon said he had excluded emails from “lobbyists” and that of those that remained only 6.02 of those who responded were for same-sex marriage. However a large number of these supported civil unions.

The Liberals Alby Schultz said 46 verifiable constituents contacted him in support of equal marriage rights, and 635 constituents against.

Labor’s Sharon Grierson said 800 people who contacted her office were supportive of change and 470 against and identified herself as a supporter of same-sex marriage.

The Liberals Stuart Robert claimed opposition was as high as 30 to one against change in his electorate.

Labor’s Catherine King was contacted over 1800 times on the issue and said support and opposition was evenly split in her electorate.

Queensland Liberal Peter Dutton has put his opposition to same-sex marriage on the record.

Queensland Nationals MP George Christensen has reported that 85 percent of those who contacted him in his electorate were opposed and 15 percent in favour.

NSW Liberal Scott Morrison has said he would accept civil unions but not same-sex marriage and that 850 people in his electorate responded that they were against compared to 50 in favour.

Labor’s Anthony Albanese has spoken in favour of same-sex marriage.

Liberal Malcolm Turnbull has told the Parliament that 72 percent in his electorate supported marriage equality, but said that many who opposed did so for religious reasons.

Labor’s Jill Hall reports that her online survey found out of 505 responses strong support for same-sex marriage at between  86 percent and 78 percent.

Liberal Josh Frydenberg said that he did not need to survey constituents as he is in regular contact with voters and had had letters and meetings with voters on the issue. Frydenberg said that he supported civil unions as marriage was the union between a man and a woman.

Labor’s Deb O’Neill said that she believes that marriage was a union between a man and a woman and said 70 percent in her electorate that contacted her agreed.

Liberal Kelly O’Dwyer said that she supported civil unions and was concerned about legal implications for children from same-sex marriage.

The Nationals Tony Crook said he had received nearly 600 responses opposing same-sex marriage and less than 100 in favour.

Independent MP Rob Oakeshott said he was choosing to follow  the community’s views with the national interest in mind.

Oakeshott said that despite the Marriage Act, marriage was defined more widely in other parts of law and called attacks on Penny Wong and the presence of MPs at the Marriage Day Rally last Tuesday appalling, as well as claims that same-sex marriage would lead to paedophilia. He said that around 40 percent were opposed in his electorate, 40 percent indifferent, and 20 percent in favour, and he would continue to listen to them.

Liberal Bruce Billson said he understood the need for same-sex couples to celebrate their commitment publicly but it was not right for people who believed marriage was between a man and a woman to have that definition changed. He accepted that civil unions didn’t sound very romantic and suggested a “committed life partnership” as a better alternative term.

Labor’s John Murphy said he had received feedback from all segments of society both for and against marriage equality and that there were no unanimous views within any of those groups. He said most feedback opposed same-sex marriage within his electorate. He said most people in his electorate did not agree that all relationships were equal. Murphy said he supported civil unions for same-sex couples – a stance which had attracted flak from the conservative right.

Liberal Kevin Andrews claimed a debate was only being held because a “weak” Labor Government and attacked the involvement of GetUp! in calling on people to contact their MPs. He said polling showed majority support for the death penalty and that if the Greens Adam Bandt didn’t vote for that, then his argument that politicians should follow public opinion fell flat.

The Nationals Mark Coulton said that he believed that marriage was between a man and a woman and claimed that was the majority view in Australia – though that could change and he respected those who held an alternative view. But he had been offended by some of the claims that had been made in the debate from conservatives. He said the feedback he was getting from his electorate was that constituents thought there were much more important issues. He called MPs being called on to report back on the issue the highjacking of the Parliament by a single member.

Liberal Paul Fletcher said that most of those who had met with him personally were opposed, that Catholic congregations in his electorate had sent him petitions and that of those who had written to him somewhat more were opposed than agreed to same-sex marriage.

Around 1pm the session adjourned with the vast majority of MPs from both major parties having chosen not to speak.

You May Also Like

25 responses to “UPDATED: MPs report back on marriage”

  1. Byron, I’m pleased you actually spoke with a homosexual!
    As another one, a different one, I can tell you that I don’t particularly care about the word “marriage” except in it’s place culturally as the pinnacle of relationships. That’s why we don’t want a separate civil union scheme. It sends a message that gay relationships are less valued by society.

    Essentially, I don’t care if the word is “marriage” “civil union” or “oogalaboogala” I just want any and all Australians to have access to this legal and social institution equally. No segregation of gays and straights, recognition that we are all equal and our. Relationships are valued equally too.

  2. Why do I suspect that part of this is the organisational efforts of Christian groups. Methinks that support for same sex marriage is underreported in many areas.

  3. The vast majority of Australians, as poll after poll shows, support Equality under the law and the protection of marriage for GLBTI people.

    With over 1084 pieces of legislation that are referenced by the Marriage Act, we need our politicians to stop being childish and support Equality.

    Same-Sex couples will go on marrying long after we have all departed.

    It will happen in Australia soon.

  4. There’s someone missing from that list: Martin Ferguson asked for submissions via his website, but apparently didn’t report back to the Parliament.

    Additionally, Kelly O’Dwyer flatly refused to canvass her electorate. No poll, no contact form, nothing.

  5. It’s pretty clear the general public don’t want pseudo homosexual “marriage”. Homosexuals need to be stop being so bloody childish and settle for civil unions. I actually spoke to a homosexual the other day and he said it was more about getting something that he couldn’t have rather than actually wanting to get married. Which basically sums up the pro homosexual marriage group.

  6. I am very dis-heartened by the MPs comments in this article.

    I will not stop lobbying until we are equal – clearly we have a long fight ahead of us and we need to to be creative in new ways to reach out to the broader community.

    Here are my 2 thoughts:
    1. Lets hold a rally at lunch time in Pitt St Mall and other major capitals so the suits can join in the fight. The weekend rallies have poor attendance and get ZERO media coverage.

    2. We need to do more. get speaking to more family and friends, come out of the closet and be visible.

    3. Lets get high profile celebs to speak out for us (like they have done for NY).

    We are a powerful group of people with strong allies. We have huge numbers. People power can win the day for us.

    Hugs to all x

  7. I would be become a born-again Hillsong Happy Clapper before I believed most of those ‘polls’.

    I get the impression they are quoting people who contacted their offices but not in answer to any poll. And we know how organised these anti-marriage equality groups can be.

  8. I get it. Our rights as tax paying citizens are subject to the approval of heterosexuals through numerous and pointless polls. I dont agree with the fact that heterosexuals can marry and divorce multiple times, making a mockery of the “institution of marriage” as they love to call it when denying gay people the right to do the same.
    Do i get to consult with my local member about that?

  9. These polls as noted before are not robustly scientific or reliable. The methods used to ‘collect’ data suspect to say the least. There is no clear picture of support or opposition which can be reliably extrapolated by this excersise and the whole thing smacks of an attempt to make a fool of the Green Party member who wanted his colleagues to take the subject seriously enough to listen to the electorate. It appears that many chose not and of those who did there was clear bias and no real push toadvertise online opinion polls published on thier web pages where indeed such polls existed. Furthermore the language used in many of the questions of those polls which did run was ambiguous and confusing for many with less than a college education. Whilst technically not loaded, the use of complicated ambiguous language is designed to misdirect.
    The only way to actually know what the electorate really think is to let the electorate vote on the issue. As voting is compulsory subject to punitive action if avoided you will then get a real picture of the state of play instead of messing about with unreliable data and even less reliable statistics.

  10. We were all born equal, and are of the same flesh and blood. We have together known suffering. Yet today in our land of hope, when gay and lesbians are old they are often denied Nursing Homes, when they are young some are still denied jobs with discrimination from government, and this land of plentiful they are not allowed to marry their love. They are Australian but not even included in the Federal Equal Opportunity Act.
    People say “When will you be satisfied”, I say to them, “When Australians are all free of government oppression, when they are all afforded the same dignity and respect, equal access to laws, and where no Prime Minister would dare to tell two loving adults who they should marry”.
    We are standing at the pearly gates at the Temple of equality. We have come far together, and there is still work to be done. I want this country to be about a fair go, where an attack on the Civil Rights of one person is an attack on all of us. We are all deserving of Civil Rights, and this eloquent quest we are on, is simply about being afforded the same Civil Rights and protections as others have. To have the same dignity and fairness.

    So although some are straying from the great road of justice and freedom for all, it is important remember that great things are happening across Australia, as more and more people join with us wanting to once again make this great country the land of a fair go for all.

    In our history we have overcome so much together. The more people treat us badly, or shout for our murder as a handful of politicians did at the anti-marriage rally, the more the community marches with us, and helps us open the grand doors, to the temple of Equality, where we will all live as free people.

  11. Paul Fletcher – formerly a director at Optus prior to moving into politics. Optus – historically a gay company with a high proportion of gay staff and a gay CEO. Back in the 90’s the Optus Christmas party was even the third biggest gay party in Sydney. His attitude is a joke and he should know better, but then he is probably blinded by the Hillsong happy-clappers mentality.

  12. I’m sure Adam Bandt realised the result of this when he raised the issue in parliament, most likely this was done merely to keep gay marriage on the agenda.

  13. These results are not scientific or open to indepenent viewers, and rely only on a politician being honest…

  14. Democracy is at work…..if you don’t like the things the rest of Australia is saying, you may just have to live with that. I don’t think insulting people with name-calling because they don’t agree with you is mature or respectful of democratic process. I commend mps for the work they have put in across the country in seeking out their electorates views and thank them for caring what Australians think about such an important social issue.

  15. This exercise seems to have resulted in most MP seeking support in their electorate to support the views they already hold personally.
    Why not spend a little money and contract an independent professional service to do a more extensive read of the public pulse on this issue?

  16. The North American civil rights movement of the last century was not without its detractors. The government in many instances sent troups in to ensure that segregation ended without mass victimisation of African-Americans (as they were known at the time). Though the circumstances are not the same it does iterate a point that many politicians will already know- what is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right. With this in mind, how will the people who fought this movement for equality be represented in the annals of History. Truly they will be seen for what they are; the last vestige of a dark period for Human Rights.

  17. Not allowing same-sex marriage has a huge impact on straight people! Just ask members of the Straight Spouse Support Network. If their spouses didn’t have this social pressure against being gay, they might have married someone they were attracted to, instead of getting straight-married and setting themselves up for unhappiness and divorce (not saying that all straight/gay marriages end up that way, but it seems pretty likely). It affects the straight children and parents and siblings of gay people. It affects straight politicians, who have to deal with all of this, and it affects straight people who don’t even care, who have to listen to the debate.

    That’s all, of course, aside from the 10% or so of the Australian population it affects by not allowing them the choice of getting married to their partner. That’s over 2 million or so citizens.

    How about we just accept that allowing same-sex marriage is the right thing to do, get it sorted out, and move on?

  18. One of the MPs states that his electorate feel that there are more important issues to debate. I agree totally. The solution is simple, change the law, allow gay and lesbian Australians to marry, and stop the quarreling. At the end of the day, the only people that are directly effected are the people getting married and their families. Anyone that opposes it doesn’t have to be involved, and their marriages won’t be effected. And if they are so narrow minded that the thought of two men or two women being married upsets their lives, that’s their problem not ours. This change of law would bring Australia into the 21st Century, help remove homophobia a little more, and bring equality to so many families that are currently discriminated against.

  19. Maddie – “Of course there will be more people in certain states disagreeing with same sex marriage because the majority of people are straight and they have no idea.”

    I thought that they have no idea because they’re bigoted, not because they’re straight.

  20. If it was entirely down to public opinion, what about all the people who believe that the Church is corrupt and that religious teachings have no place in school etc etc. It’s not about what a few bigoted MP’s and their church funded pockets think. It’s about human rights, equality and moving forward with the times.
    It was not that long ago that the marriage act said marriage between and Aborginal and a white person was illegal… and that marriage was between a man and as many women as he pleased.
    Lets catch up with the times Australia! Definitions can change. Society does and always will change. We’re in the 21st century, so lets start behaving like it.
    Lets make a simple decision to give everyone equal marriage rights and “move forward” with other important issues. It’s really not that hard.

  21. Oh that’s funny Paul Fletcher, maybe if you asked a more broad section of your electorate, you may have received a more accurate response. Rather than only dropping in on church meetings. Appalled.

  22. Of course there will be more people in certain states disagreeing with same sex marriage because the majority of people are straight and they have no idea. What does it matter to these people and even yoursleves what goes on in total strangers relationships? it will have no effect on any straight australians on the PM on their daily routines. Why is Australia so far behind when we are supposed to be so advanced? I am straight but my sister is gay and in love and I wish to be at her wedding.. we will be wether or not the Australian government recognises it, their will be bridesmaid there will be gold rings their will be vows there wil be love and commitment, stop letting austrlian citizens keep the stigma on same sex relationships who are you to judge with what we do with are hearts? One life one chance.