The only areas which voted no were those with high immigrants populations. This does not bode well for the future.
3
Untrue. Some areas of Western Sydney with high immigrant populations voted no, as did some very white areas of rural NSW and Queensland. Other areas with very high immigrant populations like central Melbourne voted yes, often by overwhelming margins.
In addition, those Western Sydney areas that voted no overwhelmingly support Labor and the Greens, parties who support same sex marriage and campaigned for yes - suggesting that this isn’t a US-style culture war issue for these voters.
Finally can I just say that descent isn’t destiny.
Thank you Australia. Welcome to the 21st century.
4
They did this postal vote to give the politicians cover if they vote for this. Mission accomplished. Now make it the law of the land down under.
(And yes, they were born that way, so stop bothering them.)
3
Like any fair minded person, I was extremely pleased with the result of the same-sex marriage survey which was announced yesterday. However, we should bear a couple of points in mind.
Firstly, there was no need for this $122 million (Australian Dollars) waste of money. This was not a formally binding referendum or plebiscite; as I indicated in the previous paragraph, it was a non-binding survey. This matter could have easily and far more cheaply been dealt with by our elected representatives by having a vote in Federal Parliament. However, because of the blatant tactics of obfuscation and delay that were mounted by especially the Catholic Members of Parliament, we ended up spending $122 million unnecessarily.
Secondly, the results of each Federal electorate were given by the media. A quick check revealed that most of those electorates where the NO vote predominated were most heavily populated by Muslims. Who would have guessed?
3
Thank you for all the positive comments so far.
The LGBTQI community by far and large based their long campaign on messages of love, inclusion and equality while traditionalists based most of their arguments on fear and negativity. I watched the result and it was wonderful to see couples who have been engaged for ten, twenty, thirty sometimes forty years react to the news that finally they will now legally be treated the same as other couples. It certainly was time for a Fair Go for all.
There were many (Brexit) nerves on the day but our ideal to give one and all a "Fair Go" won out in the end. The Legislation is still to pass our Senate and House but is expected to pass by Christmas.
1
75% participation and 60% in favor? That’s a landslide. I didn’t realize how vast the gulf is between Australians and their elected officials. I know Gay Australians were afraid of leaving the decision up to the public. The most passionate support came from the tiny fraction of the country that it would directly impact while the equally passionate opposition had the superior numbers (the deeply religious and fear-based reactionaries) as well as the institutional heft of the church behind it. They must feel especially happy knowing their fellow Australians cared enough to participate and overwhelmingly accept them. Married or not, gay Australians are surely walking with their heads held higher.
3
Open letter to opponents of same-sex marriage (from heterosexual gal): How could so much joy and love be a bad thing? Does this really affect you personally? Really? Consider the large number of people in our world who have been living in the shadows, ashamed of who they are (and whom they love). Shame on those heteros that personalize and oppose same-sex unions, or use religion to condemn a large loving (and lovely) part of our population.
19
We are not condemning then. We're just saying that marriage is a sacrament approved by God. Gay people need to accept their way of life doesn't extend to marriage in natural law. That's all. Civil unions are fine. The world takes another step towards oblivion.
1
Marriage is a legal contract recognised by the state and in some traditions, blessed by various religious organisations. Marriage contracts predate the Christian Church by several thousand years..
3
The world takes another step towards oblivion? Oh you fire and brimstone religious zealots are hilarious. Believe me, if oblivion looks like the explosion of joy and rainbows I saw yesterday then bring it on. Oblivion looks like it knows how to party!
As a gay man, I find the idea of wanting to be the same as the straight/heterosexual population to be utterly repulsive. And marriage is the most absurd of all these silly, little things that straight people do. Despite my own reservation, however, it's not my duty to judge and persecute those whose goal in life is to be normal. I just hope it's just some silly phase that the gay population will get over and soon enough, everyone (that's gay) will be back to doing things that aren't normal (like not marrying and not having kids).
7
One of the drawbacks of sharing a life with another without making him a relative by marriage is that after the death of one, blood relatives can come and claim all property of that person with little recourse. Not the only reason,but the possibility of blood relatives of my husband coming and claiming half of our house as well as all of his property was a good, though not sole, reason to get married shortly after it became legal in Virginia in 2014. The marriage contract is stronger than all other civil contracts.
3
Good for the eco-system, the not having kids part. However this vote was more an endorsement and embrace of the gay population into mainstream society. An acceptance. This is hugely important to the huge numbers of gay people.
3
Mike, thank you for your tolerance. Try to keep in mind, though, that not all of us gay folk who want to be married want to do so in order to be "normal." We know that we will never be just like our straight neighbors, and we know that some straight people will always be ready to remind us how "not normal" we are. We just want to be able to decide that a relationship is permanent, and get legal recognition of that fact.
Fritz Keppler already alluded to the scenario of blood(thirsty) relatives swooping in to claim property of the deceased. I can VERY easily imagine my fundamentalist sister doing this if I died before my "longtime companion." Now if I die first I will leave behind a husband, and she will have to be content with knowing I am in Hell and my husband will follow me there eventually.
4
Whatever the politics behind the decision to have a "non-binding" postal vote, it seems to me that having legislation firmly based on popular support is worth waiting for in a democracy. It's a firm foundation for a major change and provides greater legitimacy than any court ruling or private-members' bill could achieve. Foreign readers should know that Australia does not have a Bill of Rights, but manages quite well in protecting liberal freedoms through the democratic process. Well done!
4
Against the avalanche of conservative, reactionary awfulness coming out of the U.S. that we appear unable to stem (and its reflection in the U.K.) - reaction against gender identity, sexual orientation and racial harmony, against a plurality of opinion and seemingly against decency, civility, tolerance, and fairness itself, this, from Australia and from The Australians is welcome indeed.
Bless all of you who voted for acceptance and for love.
21
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Tasman . . .
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Tasman, when the NZ Parliament passed its marriage equality bill, they enhanced the purely political exercise by breaking out in a native love song (as it was explained to me...video remains available on YouTube.)
It was such a beautiful, heartfelt, soul-stirring touch, a suggestion of romance, to acknowledge the love and respect that all wish to be the basis of successful marriages.
And so, EnZed (New Zealand for the rest of the world) wins the grace and class competition hands down, again. Legends all!
What took them so long?
7
As awesome as Australians generally are, there are a surprising amount of racist and homophobic ones too for such a small populace; even more surprising is how many are relatively young.
4
As awesome as Americans generally are, there are a surprising amount of stereotyping, generalists who don't own passports and who don't know squat about the world they inhabit for such a big populace; even more surprising is how many there are in all age brackets, young and old.
3
As awesome as Americans generally are, the vast majority of them have never traveled outside of the US. (Like flies born and raised in a vinegar bottle, they think it to be the sweetest smell in the world.)
1
Congratulations Australians!
The issue with religious protection bills is it gives a excuse to discriminate. All businesses should have the right to refuse service they just should lace it with their backwards and bigoted ideals.
4
Good on ya mates! Fair dinkum. Cheers!
8
The principle of liberty -- that you should be able to do whatever you want as long as you do not harm others -- is not "conservative" or "liberal." It is libertarian.
Both the so-called "right" and "left" have gotten too free in their intrusions into personal life. The legal right to enter the contract, marriage, is just that -- a right of contract. And if the political "right" had not been overtaken by "christian" jihadists, gay marriage would not have been a political issue.
The sheer size of capitalism and its corporations absolutely requires active and intrusive government to regulate and control the monstrosities of our economy, but outside of the economy we could "calm" our politics by emphasizing libertarian principles on non-economic matters.
We should protect each other's liberty, and realize it is "none of our business" how we exercise that liberty as long as we do not harm others. And those who would be active against self-harm (being fat or smoking) need to be content with preaching, not using government coercion, to achieve "self-improvement of others" [irony intended].
In short, that I endorse your liberty does not mean that I endorse your particular exercise of it.
1
Congratulations Australia!!
I feel so proud for you all.
9
As a gay Australian, I am pleased with the outcome; but the process was heinous.
Marriage equality has not come from my fundamental human right to equality, but as a result of a verdict bestowed by millions of people who have absolutely NOTHING to gain or lose by my right to marriage.
Having a majority vote on a minority’s rights is never, ever acceptable. This vote was not a shining example of participatory democracy. It was cruel, humiliating, and the antithesis of empowering. It was a disgrace, albeit with an outcome I can live with.
33
Redefining marriage means gaining acceptance of the community to recognise the new meaning. Democracy always decided minority rights, courts apply the law, not make it up. The debate is over, marriage equality won out. You should have more faith in democracy and human nature.
There is no right to gay marriage, anymore than a right to polygamy or incest marriage, or marriage to a goat.
It is very clear that in every culture, era, time period, religion, society for all of the million or so years of human existence...that marriage was and is a relationship between male & female (and in western society for thousands of years...between ONE man and ONE woman).
And the reason is crystal clear: only ONE man and ONE woman can create between them a biological child, who is 50% of the DNA of each of them mixed together. That is the very basis and underpinning of ALL human families -- the building block of humanity itself.
Nobody cares what gay people do in bed anymore, what people they hook up with, live with or partner with. But they can never, ever truly be married -- even if you change or pervert laws. Two men and two women can NEVER EVER EVER create a new family, a new life -- or kinship relations between people making them relatives.
2
Concerned Citizen, since your rejection of the legitimacy of same-sex marriage appears to be based on the inability of such a union to conceive children, what do you think of opposite-sex marriages where the couple cannot conceive children?
Should such people not be allowed to marry? Should they merely be advised not to marry? Should they be allowed to adopt? I ask your opinion because these people too "can NEVER EVER EVER create a new family, a new life -- or kinship relations between people making them relatives."
3
A rare example of the USA evolving a step ahead of other advanced nations.
6
Canada beat you to it 14 years ago.
7
I cannot be the first: OutBack 2018. Congrats to the celebrants.
1
AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE OI OI OI !!!
Congrats, Australia I knew I loved you guys!!!!
8