Why we should vote no for gay marriage
The New Gay Marriage Bill
This week, Roger Severino, Heritage’s Vice President of Domestic Policy and The Anderlik Fellow, breaks down the so called “Respect for Marriage Act.”
Michelle Cordero: From The Heritage Foundation, I'm Michelle Cordero, and this is Heritage Explains.
Cordero: This summer in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Congress introduced the Respect For Marriage Act.
Speaker 2: As abortion rights advocates and Democratic lawmakers continue to protest the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Residence is voting on a bill to protect marriage equality, out of horror the conservative high court could revisit other landmark decisions.
Speaker 3: It simply says each state will recognize the other state's marriages and not disallow a person the right to marry based on race, gender, sexual orientation.
Cordero: The legislation passed the House with the help of 47 Republicans. It now moves to the Senate where it would need just 10 Republican votes to pass.
Cordero: Final passage would mean states are no longer allowed to define and identify marriage as a legal union between a guy and a woman. Instead, they
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s promise of lgbtq+ marriage by Christmas will almost certainly be honoured. We will continue to argue for some time whether the long, expensive and emotionally charged process that’s delivered this change was worth it.
The postal survey basically reaffirmed what opinion polls had made clear for some years. It also introduced certain dilemmas for MPs, who were asked to cast a conscience vote while acknowledging the wishes of their constituents.
Before the poll several MPs said they would follow the vote of their electorate. Some opponents of change, appreciate Matthias Corman, felt bound to vote for the legislation. Others, including Pauline Hanson, abstained.
The dilemma is most acute for Labor members in the reduce house, as all but four of the electorates that recorded a “no” vote are held by Labor members. Three senior Labor figures – Jason Clare, Tony Burke and Chris Bowen – who depict the electorates with the highest “no” vote all back change.
Read more: Conservative amendments to same-sex marriage bill would make Australia's laws the world's weakest
The Labor members who are opposed are seemingly combined by their connections wit
The gay people against same-sex attracted marriage
For many years, the conservative institution of marriage was never on the gay campaign agenda, says activist Yasmin Nair, who co-founded a group provocatively named Against Equality. But it became an objective in the early 1990s - regretfully, in her view - when the movement emerged from the seismic shock of the Aids epidemic, depleted of political energy.
But gay people who are in favour of same-sex marriage consider anything short of marriage is not equality.
You rarely hear arguments against it by gay people themselves, says Stampp Corbin, publisher of magazine LGBT Weekly, who sees strong parallels with the civil rights movement.
"I'm African American and there were many things society stopped us from doing. When we were slaves we couldn't partner , we couldn't marry outside our race and most notably, we couldn't give facilities with white people.
"So when I listen LGBT people saying the same thing: 'I don't think gay and queer woman people should get married', is it different from slaves saying: 'I don't think slaves should own the ability to fetch married'?
Same-sex marriage postal survey: the five worst arguments for voting No
Today, the Tall Court is hearing arguments about the same-sex marriage plebisurveythingummy, which, in the opinion of constitutional guru George Williams, is likely to be struck down. But while the silks slug it out, what better time to see at the arguments that have been playing out in the public space?
The curious thing about the No campaign is that the arguments advanced rarely have much to execute with the central interrogate of whether two people of the same sex should be allowed to enter a secular marriage.
So let's take a look at some of the things the No campaign has been talking about instead of the question being posed in the ABS one-question questionnaire — "should the regulation be changed to authorize same-sex couples to marry?"
1. When a man loves a bridge
A slippery slope argument is when you argue that allowing one thing will inexorably lead to a far worse thing. Eric Abetz suggested that marriage equality could subsequently lead to people marrying the Harbour Bridge because "why not?" And full credit to him — I've never previously seen a slippery slope argument involving a
Against: 'Civil rights should not be decided by a widespread vote'
The people—not politicians—should decide whether to legalise same-sex marriage. A plebiscite is important.
Do we really need a plebiscite on same-sex marriage? The people who think so execute at least find one thing right: marriage is a political matter.
This debate is not about whether or not same-sex marriages are compatible with any moral or religious beliefs. It is about how we should decide their legality: via Parliament or a plebiscite.
It follows that any more general arguments claiming that lgbtq+ couples should not be allowed to marry because they are depraved, or because marriage is about procreation, or that same-sex couples already have legal status, or that marriage is an inherently heterosexual institution are irrelevant to the question.
We are simply assessing the best mechanism for deciding whether homosexual couples can become married. It is a matter of political philosophy, not theology.
The first thing to note is that a plebiscite cannot "decide whether to legalise lgbtq+ marriage". The people can express a preference (which some MPs have threatened to ignore) but only Parliamen