Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Well this is an opinion poll that the Gay Marriage crowd won’t be citing in the name of their cause

Well this is an opinion poll that the Gay Marriage crowd won’t be citing in the name of their cause

Life must be a barrel of laughs if you are a Green Gay activist because it looks to me that the  Gay marriage push has just  crashed into the reality that the people do not actaully support any change to the marriage act as so may proponents of Gay marriage have been insisting . If nothing else the greens parliamentary stunt of a making the members seek the mood of their electorates on the issue seems to have gone really bad for the Greens with nearly two thirds of the members reporting that the people do not support any change to the act:

Click for source

I do note that there is a fair bit more support for civil unions for homosexual  couples according to the Age piece that I cite above so It looks to me that As the Labor party makes a move to give its members a conscience vote the efforts to bring about Gay Marriage in this country will amount to nothing. Is anyone really surprised by this? I for one am not especially when you take into account that a homosexual couple are treated the same way as a heterosexual couple by Centerlink, the tax office and for the purposes of inheritance (a good reform from Labor on that* 😉  )

I must say that I thought that this quote from Graham Perrett is particularly stupid

But Queensland Labor MP Graham Perrett, a Catholic, pointing to bullying and suicides, said it was ”time for everybody, every adult in Australia to be given the same opportunity … to wake up with their own loved one”.

Its stupid because there is absolutely no legal  reason that would prevent a gay person doing what Graham Perrett thinks is a problem for homosexual couples who don’t need to be married to sleep together as often as they please.

Cheers Comrades

* I am praising Labor for something here 🙂


  1. lbertrand says:

    Readers may recall that lefty barrister Jeremy Sear believes its OK to use leading questions in gay marriage opinion polls that show a majority in support: https://iainhall.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/barrister-unaware-of-problem-with-leading-questions

  2. Iain Hall says:

    That is a most apt reference Leon, one that I had forgotten about as it happens 🙂

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    To be fair, Iain, I’d suggest that what has happened is that those MPs opposed to gay marriage themselves have reported that their electorates also oppose it. Likewise those MPs in favour of it have reported that their constituents are also in favour. I don’t recall Sophie Mirabella (our MP here in Indi) going into the streets to seek opinion on the matter. I don’t recall her raising it in any forum whatsoever, and I follow the local news very closely.

    That said, I think the Greens have used the gay marriage issue as a political football in order to raise their own profile and support base. Think about it. If the Greens had not beaten the drum so loudly about ‘the need’ to change the Marriage Act to include same sex relationships as opposed to a separate form of Marriage (civil unions or whatever), then the government by now would probably have already introduced and put into law a gay marriage/civil unions bill and there’d be nothing to protest, nothing to carry on about. And I reckon most gay people would be happy with that outcome too.

    This all or nothing approach on gay marriage has been beaten up by the Greens for political purposes. Gillard would therefore be wise to also use politics to put the issue to bed by introducing a separate bill to cover gay unions. Of course she’d need the Greens support to get it through but if they oppose it then they’re exposed as the screaming hypocrites that they are.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Yes Ray I am happy to admit that there are clear flaws in the way that different MHRs have both gathered information and they way that they have delivered the reports to parliament but with the state of play in federal politics I doubt that Gillard will manage your most sensible suggestion.

    . Gillard would therefore be wise to also use politics to put the issue to bed by introducing a separate bill to cover gay unions. Of course she’d need the Greens support to get it through but if they oppose it then they’re exposed as the screaming hypocrites that they are.

    It would certainly wedge the Greens because their all or nothing approach would render their support impossible.

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    Yep, for a so-called progressive party the Greens actually have a poor record when it comes to supporting important reforms, witness their rejection (3 times) of Rudd’s ETS bill. If they’d passed that (instead of aligning with the coalition in the Senate), Rudd might still be PM, we’d effectively have a carbon tax, the ALP would probably have a clear majority and the Greens would still be in the wilderness. They are actually retrograde and more about raising their own status than introducing progressive changes. They’re a stumbling block.

  6. Iain Hall says:

    Yes Ray and one that has peaked IMHO , at the next election they will certainly find that the Libs will direct preferences away from them in every seat which will find Adam Bandt out of a job and if Labor have any sense they will do likewise.

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    And, as I suspected, our wonderful Sophie has confirmed that she imposes her own views over the electorate.

    From the Border Mail http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/local/news/general/gay-debate-no-hot-topic/2270980.aspx?storypage=0 :

    The member for Indi, Sophie Mirabella, criticised Mr Bandt’s approach to the debate over gay marriage.

    “The motion that was put forward by the Greens member Adam Bandt was a motion that asked MPs to survey the views of their constituents,” Mrs Mirabella said.

    “This is what I am paid to do every day. I don’t need to be told by the Greens how to do my job.”

    Mrs Mirabella said her stance on the issue was clear.

    “I have and will continue to support legislative reform that gives same-sex couples equal property rights,” Mrs Mirabella said.

    “The debate about the institution of marriage in Australia gives rise to profound differences of opinion.

    I believe that the majority of the North East community views the institution of marriage as it is currently defined by the Marriage Act, that is, ‘the union of man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’.”

    So, in her words, that is HER belief, not her constituent’s belief, who she didn’t even bother canvassing. She might be right about the majority opinion but her couldn’t-give-a rat’s attitude is just so typical of her. She is really hated here and I’m surprised people vote for her. Maybe I should run as an Independent at the next election just to highlight what a terrible MP she is. It’d be fun.

  8. damage says:

    I’d ay that she’s got a better idea of the view of the electorate than anyone else though Ray because it is her job to know.

    It’s a bit harsh to call her attitude couldn’t-give-a rat’s. When you say “really hated here ” do you mean “in your office” or is “here” some place broader than that. In 2007 with a primary swing AGAINST her she still managed to get 50% more votes than the ALP member got. Even with a 7+% swing the ALP still came way short. In 2010 again there was a primary swing againt and again she held the seat comfortably with a 2 party preferred swing to her of .75%. So she’s gained ground she lost in 07. I’d be so bold as to suggest that she’ll get all of that 7% back with interest at the next election. So HATED would appear to be a rather exagerated assessment.

    You would need to get 354 votes to doe better than the worst in Indi 2010. I doubt you could. And that would mean that by your own assessment people would vote for someone that they hated rather than you. Can your ego handle that after the last time?

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    My ego has taken worse bruisings, damage, and I’m still here … under my own name. You should try it one day. I’m still speaking up locally and still, believe it or not, a bit feared around here in some quarters (mainly at the council). Anyway, Sophie was successfully taking this seat from being one of the safest Liberal seats in the nation to a marginal one and in 2007 she only held a 9% majority. But in 2010 she picked up due to the national swing against Labor. This area is so rusted-on conservative voting that I reckon the Libs could put up a Craig Thomsom type in Indi and they’d still win it (but only just). She is certainly hated but – as you surely must know – people vote for the party first in most cases. Getting back to my prospects, seeing that there’s 90,000 voters on the roll here I think I might do a bit better than the council elections, which has only 8,000 voters and where they tend to be parochial (i.e. they only vote for candidates in their home town). Considering also that a lot of people from Bright tend to nominate for council elections, a couple of hundred votes out of about 2,000 ain’t so bad. My best effort was nearly 1,000 in 2003.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Sorry Ray all I can say is “my EYES!!!” as i just had a vision of Sophie doing a Craig Thomson and its not a pretty sight at all!!!!

  11. damage says:

    Wouldn’t say 9% was marginal with this Governent in power Ray.
    You are indeed my inspiration re using my real name. My real name is for my friends and my friends are not here. I’ve seen the treatment you cop for ysing your own name and I’ll take the 5th. Anyway you (mistakenly) keep on hinting that you know who I am anyway. It’s quaint and a bit silly, but you think you know so from your point of view who cares.
    And I would agree. You are feared. That machete makes you a shogun. And I had no idea you were talking about standing as a Liberal.
    I’b back none of the other 82,000 to vote for you and most of the 1000 who did to realise that Canberra is a long way from local council. But even if you got 10000 votes Sophie would still beat you. Meaning she’d be more loved than you and you say she’s hated. But not feared?

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    It’s hardly worth approving that tripe, damage, but I did … just to respond to this part:

    you (mistakenly) keep on hinting that you know who I am

    Bullshit. Others do (regularly). Think TOI & Craigy. But I don’t. Because I don’t care. And I never have. You can get back to the topic now, which is not me.

  13. damage says:

    Well you started bragging about being feared so it sort of became you.

    And you have – again mistakenly – made a number of references to me as HJ or Husky someone so Bullshit may be your breakfast mate.

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    That’s utter crap and off topic. If I’ve referred to you as “HJ” then that is not seeking or claiming to know your true identity. It’s just a fact that you are also the alias Husky_Jim, for Christ’s sake, and most people know that. Now, I’ve let your comment up but don’t keep going with your usual off-topic rubbish & insults – they won’t be published.

  15. Frances Makarova says:

    I just have one question regarding the inheritance law for Gays. Was it even necessary? Surely if someone leaves a “Will” leaving everything to another person, their sexual relationship, whether or not one even existed, would not count either way. So this would seem only to be applicable, if one partner or the other died Intestate!

  16. Iain Hall says:

    I think that you are right about that Francis

  17. Richard Ryan says:

    ON the subject of Gay marriage—it is reported Abbott would not sell his Arse—even to be PM.

  18. Richard Ryan says:

    Does that mean, Abbott is a smart arse?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: