This is what the Libs pushed for here in SA when the legislation was debated, and if memory serves the ALP granted them that to prevent the Bill falling over.

Their thinking seems to be that if they include all these other relationships then somehow it deflects attention from the gay stuff: the issue is “softened” into one of acknowledging all domestic relationships, rather than dealing with the more hard-nosed political issues of eliminating the longstanding discrimination against gay people and the need to fully recognise, FINALLY, that same-sex attracted people should have the right to marry their partners if they want to.

Personally, I think the Government should let them have their way and as soon as that is done, swiftly reopen debate on Howard’s nasty anti-gay amendments in the Marriage Act.

I’d love to be a fly on the wall at the first Liberal Caucus meeting after that if it happened

It begins with the word “imagine”, a word I rather like to associate with that Albert Einstein Quotation: “I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

No one needs to know everything about gay life and gay relationships to imagine what a struggle for social acceptance might be like. Mr. Croome’s article asks you to imagine these struggles for a moment.

I myself probably have a more pragmatic and less principled view of formal relationship recognition than a committed gay advocate like Rodney Croome does. However, I would at least go as far as discouraging Government from classifying gay relationships as “interdependants” rather than defining them quite appropriately as “de factos”.

Let those principled Conservatives assert their case against same-sex marriages, but don’t be so unimaginative and uncompromising that we have to have our gay relationships classified so vaguely, effectively denying any pragmatic definition.

…From Justin

Among NSW Libs, Heffernan and Fierravanti-Wells would be dead against the proposals, Payne would definitely vote for them (and would cross the floor, I’d reckon, if the party room came down against it). Coonan would probably invoke some-of-my-best-friends-etc. to vote for the current proposals while stacking up the straw men to mollify the right.

There might be one or two other rock-ribbed conservatives who might support the bill, with a gay brother or a lesbian daughter swaying their decision just this once. Gary Humphries represents the ACT, an area with an increasing gay presence, and he may support the bill on constituency grounds (he voted against Howard’s repeal of earlier ACT legislation on gay marriage on that basis).

While gay and lesbian couples have struggled with these discriminatory measures, it is important to recognise that these measures represent an advance, to celebrate them and push for remaining objectives - it would be bloody typical churlish to claim these measures represent a sell-out or an inadequate response.

I’m not sure about how indelible Wentworth’s pink hue is. A Sydney Star Observer (Sydney’s gay journal of record) poll on reader residence a couple of years back revealed that the majority were inner westies, so Sydney and Grayndler might be more reliably queer these days.

Good to hear. Thing w/ Righties of the political persuasion, it’s usually about the money…but sometimes their conscience cometh before political games & money making.

As has been shown in American politics time & time again, by way of the media spotlight, it’s “do as I say, not as I do” underlying most ‘wedge issues’.

Hopefully Aussies in the Senate & by way of polling will demonstrate themselves to be a darn site less discriminatory & narrow minded than many of their American counterparts as they go about their profit-making ventures & need to find “understanding” thru God.

It would be good to live in an “enlightened society”…my hard working gay mates deserve a heck of alot more respect than they’ve received over the past decade and such. That’s a fact. At least this is a major move forward…rather than backwards, Howard style.

Insightful comments. Worthwhile topic tigtog.

It was Nelson, Turnbull, Hockey & Ruddock apparently who pushed similar changes at Cabinet before the election, and as Spiros says, JWH vetoed it. Considering Nelson & Turnbull are now the Opp. Leader & Shadow Treasurer….not likely they won’t get the numbers combined, even with some minority hard right frothing.

If it does go to a conscience vote, this would indicate that Nelson has absolutely no sway at all, either in the shadow cabinet, or with his much sucked up to backbench colleagues.

In respect of contacting more sympathetic Coalition Senators from your state, check out the list of Liberal Senators who voted for (with their consciences) the 2006 - RU486 Bill, at Andrew Bartlett’s site.
http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=130

The end result being 14 Liberal senators voted for, with 17 against. (And this was with Abbott as Health Minister reputation at stake) It was very much a gendered vote for the Liberals in particular, the combined Senate vote was: Male: 21 in favour, 25 against. Female: 24 in favour, 3 against.

As to Aqua-man, he doesn’t win Wentworth with the ‘pink vote’. His 2PP vote for booths in the Cross, Darlinghurst, Potts Point & Elizabeth Bay is a mere 31-40%, these areas being the most pro-labor/green parts of the electorate, (besides a few remaining beachside holdouts :)) This is not to suggest that they’re aren’t many gays and lesbians who vote for Malcolm in particular, or Liberal in general, across the entire electorate, but where there is a significant, identifiable gay/lesbian community, they have traditionally voted either Labor/Green or for independent candidates like Clover Moore in the NSW state elections etc.

He did of course, campaign v. hard for the gay & lesbian vote in the 07 election. In terms of his own seat however, rather than his national profile, he can go as hard as he likes on progressive social policies, as the entire combined Christian Democrat & Family First vote in Wentworth only just cracked 0.6% of the total electorate.

And it should go through just in time for Justice Kirby who retires very soon.

A DD would result in Turnbull losing his seat. So that’s a reason for some Liberal Senators not blocking the bill?

Yes.
>
If Nelson is smart he’ll let his senators go the way they want on this. He’s already presented as a small ‘l’ liberal so to turn conservative would show him up weak. It’s what he believes in and considering his personal history it’s also a character matter. That’s to say if he doesn’t somehow support the bill he’s got none.
>
But the smart play is: don’t try to win caucus and precipitate a conservative/liberal brouhaha (unless he can win). Just allow a conscience vote.

John Howard cared, so much so he killed the idea,despite a majority of his cabinet colleagues supporting it.

Let’s see what Abbott and Minchin, to name but two, have to say, before concluding that the Right couldn’t care less.

The right (and the new libs) couldn’t care less about this issue as long as it avoids the “m” word and adoptive/reproductive rights. They’re right to wait until they see the color of the legislation though.

This could break Nelson’s leadership. On the one hand, the Turnbull wing will be inclined to support the policy, but they may see it as an opportunity to undermine Nelson fatally. On the other hand, Nelson’s supporters on the Right, who put him in the leadership, like Tony Abbott, may see this as the opportunity to break with him.