Marriage bill back in Parliament

Marriage bill back in Parliament

The Greens will re-introduce their Marriage Equality Bill in the Senate today, delivering on a promise made during the federal election.

Greens spokeswoman on Sexuality and Gender Identity, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, told Sydney Star Observer, “On Wednesday I will re-introduce my Marriage Equality Bill, as promised, at the start of the new Parliament.”

Hanson-Young moved a notice of motion for the bill yesterday, so the bill could be introduced at the first available oportunity.

Hanson-Young said that with reform of parliamentary procedures and public opinion strongly supporting same-sex marriage, the time for a parliamentary debate on the bill was now.

“The election campaign made clear that one area where the community wanted to see change was the removal of discrimination against same-sex couples preventing them from marrying the one they love,” Hanson-Young said.

“With enough community support for this campaign and increasing parliamentary pressure over the next few months, we can achieve a conscience vote for all parliamentarians — and a true reflection of where our Parliament stands on delivering equal marriage for all Australians.”

Hanson-Young called on supporters of marriage equality to write to their MPs and senators if they wanted to see a conscience vote on the bill.

Australian Marriage Equality national convenor Alex Greenwich welcomed the Greens’ re-introduction of the bill and echoed the call for a conscience vote.

“Sarah Hanson-Young’s bill is a simple and straightforward solution to those discriminatory sections of the Marriage Act which ban same-sex partners from officially declaring their love,” Greenwich said.

“Surely members of the federal Labor and Liberal Parties have more important things to do than stop same-sex partners committing to each other.

“The electorate has given the Greens a clear mandate to pursue marriage equality … we hope that this time senators will be allowed to do more to show their support than just not attending the vote.”

You May Also Like

15 responses to “Marriage bill back in Parliament”

  1. Dave has a good point. The SSO, in a bid to be fair, publishes material from virulently homophobic posters (who seem to hate spelling as well). However, websites dedicated to hating gays would never publish pro-gay postings. It’s like being nice to people who have no hesitation in kicking you in the teeth.

  2. Interesting Comment Dennis,
    Did you know Hetros Invented Swingers Partys,Dirty book shops,Prostitutes,sex slaves,Rape and denis’s personal fourite “Phedophiles” staring Cristian Crusader “Uncle Denis”
    Luckily Denis Aids doesn’t discriminate,so all the “Shit of Society” in your Community is slowly bumping each other off,Entertaining,isn’t it,Cheers Denis..
    Strange for a hetro not to like Dykes,isn’t it a Fantasy or something,Maybe Denis will boycott those call me now ads.

  3. The SSO is homphobic publishing gay hate material. Are we meant to debaite those that seek to vilify us?

  4. LOL David

    I think Denis needs to come back in a few thousand years as that is how long it will take evolution to evolve him into a human being.

    There is no reason we can’t go for a conscious vote now and in the future, as well. Lets find out who is with us and who is against us so we will know how to vote in the future to rectify the problem, if need be.

  5. Abbott and Gillard are both shameful gutless wonders on this issue. To plan to guillotine debate by denying even a conscience vote on the issue? Bad politics from the same old business-as-usual suspects. Where is the ethical leadership on this?

    It is particularly galling coming from Gillard, an atheist in a defacto partnership who, as former Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Minister, advocated long and hard for fairness, dignity and respect in the workplace. Julia, what about fairness, dignity and respect everywhere else – including in Parliament when an issue warrants a democratic conscience vote? What about the fairness, dignity and respect of marriage equality?

    If Tony Abbott is confident of winning a free vote against same-sex marriage, he should wedge Gillard on it by demanding she let Labor MPs vote freely on it. It seems to me that one reason he wouldn’t do this is if he was worried that it might actually pass.

  6. Dear Denis (or is that Dennis?). God is capitalised, disappointed only has one ‘s’, faggots only one ‘t’ and finish only one ‘n’ – unless you are referring to Helsinki locals (in which case you need to capitalise the ‘F’).

    Avoid posting anything on any site until you’ve overcome your pig ignorance. Get back to us in, oh, a century or two.

  7. the great man a.h. tried to rid the world of faggotts, god sent aids to finnish the job, i am dissapointed both failed , faggotts and dykes just understand marriage is for normal people

  8. If Julia Gillard won’t allow a free vote, the Greens should break the alliance with Labor and bring down her homophobic government.

  9. Additionally, I believe the thinking public should remind our politicians that we expect them to think morally and ethically; not just to exist as politicians who are only in the job for the large retirement pensions and lurks-n-perks that they get; not just in the job to kowtow to assumed higher (silent) powerful people, organisations and religions; not just in the job to pamper their egos; and to not use the public as fodder for their (tiresome) political games.

    Unfortunately, I think most politicians are wise to the fact that we are so cynical of their ways, that they don’t care… that they think we’re used to their ways, so they’ll keep up on treating the public so badly.

    Thankfully, not all politicians are like this. Sarah Hanson-Young seems to be one of the ethical politicians (thank you Sarah). Sadly, ethical politicians can quite often get jaded because of the attitudes and actions of others in politics, and thus leave. Hopefully, Sarah, and other positive politicians will be able to hold on to their aims and get past the govenment and opposition that these days often only seem to mirror each other (when they are not whinging about each other). Good luck to Sarah, and such similar politicians.

  10. It’s understandable (unfortunately) that Abbott’s stance on being against same-sex marriage is because he is a puppet through his own religious views, and is scared to rock the boat of people in his religion that he feels he must kowtow to (or get votes from). One way for him to get support from the wider public is to show that he can instead think for himself and be a pioneering leader. Many people who dogmatically follow their own religious views tend to forget that religions have changed, evolved and even grown from traditions that have long gone (for example: we don’t stone people anymore for perceived sins; divorce became an option for Anglicans because of Henry the 8th; even the Catholic world evolved to fit within a modern world through Vatican II. Traditions have their place, but as we see, some have been questioned and evolution has taken place. So change is always possible.

    As for Gillard, she must certainly be a puppet, because she calls herself an atheist, so the only reason she must be against same-sex marriage is because she values the votes from the religious-right, more than a just, equal and fair society. I think she should be requested to explain her reasons for why she chooses to discriminate, to justify why, and to prove that her (and the Labor Party’s) ‘view’ is not through being a puppet of the religious right. She obviously doesn’t want to marry… that is her choice, but there is no reason for discrimination. If she, and/or the Labor Party cannot fathom that such discriminations give ammunition for the bigots to maintain their hate campaign, then all of us clear-thinkers (no matter what sexuality) should be concerned. And if she is declaring a ‘no conscience vote’, that goes to show that there may not be any conscience from her as a person after all (see Kevin Rudd for further detail); plus if she’s not allowing it, then she must fathom that the issue will have a good chance to win against her wishes. Welcome to Dictatorialist Australia.

    Those who say that giving us the right to marry devalues the sanctity of marriage have no real argument; our love for our partner is just as real, valid and valuable as love between a straight couple. Essentially, those in our community who want to marry are promoting love and marriage, and recognising and valuing such sanctity (whether that be on a religious level, or plainly only on their own spiritual level). Additionally, note how many of the straight population (who have the choice/liberty [luxury?] to marry, and who are a larger proportion to us) do not value the sanctity of marriage, either through divorce, violence, abuse of any other kind towards one partner on any level, violence, etc. Many of them certainly do not value the sanctity of marriage, yet there are people in these straight marriages who are happy to abuse the sanctity of marriage; yet they are also allowed to re-marry as often as they want. If we follow the common-sense argument of any abuse in marriage as devaluing the sanctity of a straight marriage, then there should also be a law not letting those people re-marry. It’s a silly argument, but it’s just as silly as the argument that same-sex marriages would devalue the sanctity of marriage.

    And to the pedantic people who say that allowing the marriage of same-sex couples will open the gates to other types of marriage, such as to under-aged people, or to animals; that view is just laughable and pathetic (let alone condescending), as that would just be an abuse of children and animals. An abuse of power over another party. What we are talking of marriage between consenting adults; people who should have an equal understanding and knowledge of what marriage is all about.

    Finally, I get fed up with closed-minded cynical GLBTI people who say that same-sex couples who want to marry just want to copy straight people. That is not the case. When someone is in love on a spiritual level, the positive basis of wanting to get married is to celebrate, symbolise and further connect with our beloved; and that kind of connection is not exclusive to straight couples. Additionally, I do not follow any specific religion, as religions are just social-constructs quite often tailored for what the powerful want; however, I am spiritual, and thus feel that I have more of a direct connection to a higher spiritual entity than what I would feel as someone who is dictated to by a mediating religion that tells me what I can and can’t do.

  11. Unfortunately Gillard has stated that she WILL NOT allow a conscience vote (see

    So much for Labor standing up for the rights of the minority!

    Good on the Greens for re-introducing this bill.

    Givent the “hung parliament” hopefully there are enough MPs with principles who will support this bill regardless of Gillards discriminatory position!

  12. I cant understand why this has been introduced before the new Senate (with lots of Green votes) sits next July.

    I fully support the move and hope it gets up BUT surely they are going a year too early.

    Can anyone shed light on why the she is raising this now before all the other Greens Senators can voteon the matter???

    I’m confused.

  13. It is noted so far today, 1200 PM… That the homophobic Murdock Press has not mentioned same sex marriage in it’s breaking news.

    They appear to practice a fair amount of censorship with the issue, the same with Radio Station 2UE from Midnight to
    5 AM.