Same sex marriage

 

Back in August, Victorian National Party MP Andrew Broad threatened to resign from the Coalition if the promised same sex marriage plebiscite did not go ahead.

You may recall that the Parliament rejected a Coalition sponsored bill to have a plebiscite and then Labor and the Greens challenged in the High Court the Government’s fallback option of an ABS run survey.

Malcolm Turnbull expended a good deal of political capital in going ahead with the survey and keeping the Coalition’s promise to consult the people. He and the Coalition with abuse and fallacious claims such as suicide rates rising or an increase in homophobia and bigotry. These were all proven false.

But now that the people have spoken, Broad and a few of his colleagues are still unhappy. They are again threatening to leave, claiming that Malcolm Turnbull shows a ‘complete lack of leadership’.

Mate, there would not have been a marriage survey of the people had Turnbull not stuck to his guns. Is that not leadership?

Despite the survey, Broad is repeating his threats to move to the cross bench.

You asked for a survey, now accept the result.

About Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

I'm a retired general who occasionally gets called back to save the republic before returning to my plough.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Same sex marriage

  1. entropy

    You know damn well they have accepted the result. It is the fine print they are objecting to.

    A clear demonstration of why you should Never Ever sign up to anything without first seeing th contract, or in this case, the legislation.

  2. Farma

    You miss the point.

    You know very well you miss the point.

    You do so to obfuscate.

    Your post is not worthy of this site in my opinion.

  3. A Lurker

    I would direct Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus to the following quote by another Roman…

    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.” ― Marcus Tullius Cicero

    The disease that festers within the heart of the Coalition are those individuals who would happily and willingly sell out the fundamental freedoms that our ancestors fought and died to protect.

    I need not name names, for we all know who the Termites are.
    One thing is certain – Andrew Broad is not one of them.

  4. entropy

    Classic gramsci tactic.

  5. cui bono

    MT has reneged on promises to include protections in this legislation. It’s this flippant disregard for ‘commitments’ that drives the discontent.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle

    It’s curious that Turnbull fought so hard for the SSM survey but hasn’t fought at all for conscience provisions.

    That substantially negates the credit he should’ve received for pushing the SSM survey.

    I’m interested by the obscene haste to ram through the SSM bill without any protections for Christians (or Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims for that matter). Does he fear that his chance to actually achieve something, anything, is rapidly diminishing? I wonder if his mum had a British passport? She might’ve.

  7. mareeS

    entropy +2, A Lurker +2. Excellent points.

  8. entropy

    Actually this a good example of why the current plans for a republican referendum need to be torpedoed. They plan on essentially getting us to vote with the slogan “the republic is the republic” and everything is hunky dory.

    Then we only find out later what their real plans to screw us over are.

  9. Trumble only “stuck to his guns” because he knew two things:

    1. That the most likely result was a “Yes”, therefore the political risk to himself was non-existent; and
    2. He saw the survey and its likely outcome as a guaranteed boost to his “popularity” and a way of entrenching himself as PM or at least as leader of the Turnbull Coalition. He could look hip and win the hearts and minds of then young and swinging (yes, old terms, but appropriate), and he could claim the “Yes” result as his very own (as he has done) as his legacy.

    With the result of the survey, the matter is resolved beyond any future doubt, and Trumble comes out of it smelling like roses. Of course he made sure it happened.

  10. Baldrick

    Lucy is nothing more than a troll. Stop giving her oxygen by replying to this trash.

  11. James of the Glens

    “You know damn well they have accepted the result. It is the fine print they are objecting to”.

    Quite so. There could hardly be a more dishonest statement from LQC. Get yourself out of the gutter.

  12. Roger

    Mate, there would not have been a marriage survey of the people had Turnbull not stuck to his guns. Is that not leadership?

    Broad’s comment was specifically directed to Turnbull’s actions, or lack thereof, since the plebiscite.

    You know, large Prime Ministers usually try to govern for all the people, not just those who voted for them or their cause.

  13. entropy

    You can just imagine the republic “debate”. Our betters will spruk on about how they are crippled by their cultural cringe and proclaiming the wondrous coming of age of an Australian republic, with that idiot in the pirate costume assuring everyone we just need to sign up and we can work out the details later. It will be wonderful. Just wonderful.
    Especially for the political class.

  14. Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

    PS: you might all go on about me, but I voted no in the survey. But I accept the result. Religious freedoms are important, so long as you remember the proverb Render Unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.

    I wouldn’t want enshrined in rushed SSM legislation something that might allow Sharia law (or Old Testament punishments either).

    Turnbull is reviewing this with a view to introduce appropriate religious protections next year.

    Do you really think he has the political and other capital to oppose SSM after the survey result? Debates about religious freedoms would lead to a delay to SSM until next year, something that is politically untenable.

    Whatever you might all think about Turnbull, on this issue he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. But if he had just pushed through the SSM legislation without a survey it would probably be law now given the numbers in Parliament. So at least give him some credit for expending political capital on the survey. Or is this an example of Turnbull Derangement Syndrome?

  15. Mother Lode

    A clear demonstration of why you should Never Ever sign up to anything without first seeing th contract, or in this case, the legislation.

    To paraphrase the US Dumocrats:

    “We will have to look at who gets prosecuted to see what’s in it.”

  16. entropy

    So what you are saying is the legislation shouldn’t be rushed, and we should strive ensure the proper protections are in place, Lucious.

  17. Tel

    You know, large Prime Ministers usually try to govern for all the people, not just those who voted for them or their cause.

    Yes exactly! I mean for example there was… errr, I mean we could just bring up… you know… uhhhh.

    Exactly!

  18. Mother Lode

    It’s curious that Turnbull fought so hard for the SSM survey but hasn’t fought at all for conscience provisions.

    Turnbull doesn’t understand conscience, not having one of his own, and assuming that the rest of Australia are mugs who change their beliefs readily if properly goaded by a clever (and dare I say – potentially great) man such as himself.

    Press the right emotional button, pull the right incentive-lever, and the whole benighted mass of Australian citizens will obediently shuffle to the desired space utterly convinced that they are following their own independent will.

    Here is my victory – shallow creature that he is, I think I can easily have more contempt for him than he could ever muster for me. There just isn’t enough ‘him’ there.

  19. candy

    LQC is a big Turnbull supporter and there are those who believe passing SSM will be a huge achievement and he will go down in history for it, as George Brandis said in Senate yesterday. They want it done by Christmas to get the Newspoll up.
    Very likely it will. I can see his point, Newspoll is very important.

    It is concerning about the rights of parents in this issue in regard to education, though. Not so much the cake makers, as business people can work around it. However, my feeling is most of the Libs don’t give a toss about any amendments and simply want that Newspoll up now.

  20. H B Bear

    A clear demonstration of why you should Never Ever sign up to anything without first seeing th contract, or in this case, the legislation.

    Lord Waffleworth wasn’t going to repeat his Republic referendum mistakes. All this ABS survey did was hand a blank cheque and a baseball bat to Brandis and the gaystapo.

  21. A Lurker

    Turnbull is reviewing this with a view to introduce appropriate religious protections next year.

    Yeah right, and you actually believe him?

    Who will comprise the panel tasked with reviewing protections for religious freedom?
    Will it be made up of those who actually hold our freedoms dear, or perhaps the outcome has already been determined and this panel is simply window-dressing to give the impression that the Turnbull Government cares about freedom of religion.

    I can all but guarantee that religious protections will be pushed out to the never-never, or be so bare-boned that it afford no protections at all.

    And what about other freedoms?
    You know, those inconvenient ones like Freedom of Speech? Freedom of Conscience? Freedom of Assembly? Freedom of Expression? Freedom of Association?
    Will they be likewise protected?
    No, don’t answer me because I can’t stand being lied to.

    Oh, one last question, has the Turnbull Government repealed that nasty anti-freedom of speech law that was brought in a month or two ago? Or is that still operating in the shadows?

  22. Mother Lode

    You know, large Prime Ministers usually try to govern for all the people

    Nah, they govern for themselves. They govern for their own prestige, reward, longevity and such.

    The people governed are merely a means to that end.

    We have seen what happens in countries where the people have lost their leverage.

    It is up to us to set the price, to tell them what the conditions are.

    Or, rather, it was. A fractured people are happy to sell out one group for their own benefit – group X is told loudly of the gifts to be given to them with the understanding that it will be at the expense of group Y, happy to not notice that for each other group, they are group Y.

  23. Farma

    Next year,,,,Yeah right.

    Your right about damned though, he wont be PM much longer will he.

  24. Tim Neilson

    Turnbull is reviewing this with a view to introduce appropriate religious protections next year.

    FMD.

    You’re either imbecilic or flabbergastingly dishonest.

    If the treacherous six wouldn’t support proper protections while they had the leverage of putting them in the actual SS”M” Bill, why should anyone imagine that they’ll vote in favour of them as a standalone?

    Answer: they won’t.

    And even if they do, who’s to say that the cross bench will give the Trumble Election Winning Machine the numbers to get them through? (Assuming that the TEWM is still in office then.)

    Answer: no-one can safely predict that.

    This is classic treachery by the CINO’s – give the “progressives” absolutely 100% of what they want now, assuring us that everything will be all right because at some time in the future they’ll politely ask the the “progressives” to give us 1% of what we want, and then when the “progressives” say no the CINO’s will expect us to direct all our anger at the “progressives”.

  25. Makka

    This is classic treachery by the CINO’s – give the “progressives” absolutely 100% of what they want now, assuring us that everything will be all right because at some time in the future they’ll politely ask the the “progressives” to give us 1% of what we want, and then when the “progressives” say no the CINO’s will expect us to direct all our anger at the “progressives”.

    They aren’t called the “Jellybacks” for nothing.

  26. Roger

    Yes exactly! I mean for example there was… errr, I mean we could just bring up… you know… uhhhh.

    Don’t be so cynical, Tel, et. al..

    The early Hawke, for e.g., achieved much for the common good by bringing opposing interests together.

    That’s the sort of leadership Broad is asking for on just this one issue.

    Short of that we’re heading for the same socio-political polarisation the US is experiencing.

  27. Bruce of Newcastle

    Turnbull is reviewing this with a view to introduce appropriate religious protections next year.

    Lucius – You know better than to commit such a hilarious sentence to print. I’m surprised at you!

    Turnbull is entirely transparent. As I said: he wants an achievement for his otherwise completely hopeless tenure as PM. Everyone knows that if he put up a SSM bill with conscience provisions it would fail. Then he’d either be knocked off as PM because of Newspoll, be booted by the HC for being a hidden Pom or his government would fall due to the s44 fallout. So he can’t afford the time for a combination bill, and he knows that a split bill will pass the SSM part and reject the conscience part.

    I really do hope he gets booted by the HC for being a secret limey. He deserves it.

  28. Roger

    I really do hope he gets booted by the HC for being a secret limey.

    Alas, Turnbull’s paternal Scottish ancestor came to these shores in 1802. His maternal grandmother was born in England but in those days British nationality was only conveyed through the paternal line.

  29. Tel

    The early Hawke, for e.g., achieved much for the common good by bringing opposing interests together.

    Hon Jim Carlton, House of Representatives, 21 April 1983:

    Today, in my remarks on this Bill, in particular, I speak on behalf of the unemployed. Again, as I do not represent an existing interest group dependent on government protection or largesse and am not fearful of a cessation of benefits, I do not feel obliged to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on his capacity to assemble and charm the group of people most likely to provide willing or conscripted endorsement of the disgraceful deal cooked up between the ALP and the Australian Council of Trade Unions before the election. This so-called accord — this deal — was and is a recipe for the continuing exclusion of 10 per cent or more of the work force from the opportunity to earn gainful reward for employment.

    So yeah, if you like price fixing and the ability to throttle supply by keeping a certain group of people out of the workforce (which is what price fixing is designed to do) then wonderful. All Australians?? Hmmm, not exactly.

  30. Bruce of Newcastle

    Roger:

    Register as a British citizen: Born before 1983 to a British mother

    If his mum acquired a British passport during her career as an expatriate academic, which she was qualified for under this same rule, then he is in the proverbial manure. A British passport would’ve been quite useful for her, so it’s plausible. I doubt he’s explicitly renounced British citizenship since he’d’ve had to have done it at the time he nominated, long before s44 became an issue. A test of Turnbull’s qualification to be an MP would be awesomely pocornworthy even if the HC finds he’s in the clear.

  31. Chris M

    Strange there was a post singling out BorisG yet Lucy is far more Stalinist and trollish IMO.

    Andrew Broad seems a decent man with principles, hope he stays that way. Hey maybe Lucy was like this some decades back?

  32. But now that the people have spoken, Broad and a few of his colleagues are still unhappy. They are again threatening to leave, claiming that Malcolm Turnbull shows a ‘complete lack of leadership’.

    Mate, there would not have been a marriage survey of the people had Turnbull not stuck to his guns. Is that not leadership?

    That was from the LQC post.
    Below is from LQCs comment. My bolding.

    Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
    #2569582, posted on November 29, 2017 at 10:06 am

    PS: you might all go on about me, but I voted no in the survey. But I accept the result. Religious freedoms are important, so long as you remember the proverb Render Unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.

    And now a quote from Broad cut n pasted from Andrew Bolts blog. My bolding.

    Mr Broad is a staunch opponent of same-sex marriage… He will respect his electorate and vote to legalise same-sex marriage, but said he thought the legislation was being rushed through Parliament…

    What we have here is a complete deception by LQC. A misrepresentation of Broads position. I’m betting this deception was deliberate.

    I reserve the right to tell a deceptive prick to go fuck himself for wasting my time.
    So LQC GO FUCK YOURSELF YOU DECEPTIVE PIECE OF SHIT.

  33. Mater

    Turnbull is reviewing this with a view to introduce appropriate religious protections next year.

    Yes, that’ll work. While we’re at it, we’ll open the borders now and abolish welfare next year.

  34. A Lurker

    A Libertarian response to concerns about the potential loss of fundamental freedoms with the passing of the ssm Bill.

    Sinclair Davidson #2558301, posted on November 19, 2017 at 6:34 pm
    What isn’t clear to me is how anyone’s rights are being eroded…

  35. MACK

    “You asked for a survey, now accept the result.”
    I accept the result – 47% of people want gay marriage, and the majority either don’t or don’t care.
    Can’t we get on with the serious stuff?

  36. Australia is being short changed with the proposed exemptions for religious freedom.
    Christians should not be seeking EXEMPTIONS so they can teach and practice their faith in their parishes, schools and hospitals.
    They deserve and have been denied explicit recognition of the SEPARATION of Church and state, and of their rights to religious liberty, often referred to as the “first freedom”.
    So much for MT’s deceitful assurances.

  37. Mater

    Best to deal with the protections now, whilst there is leverage to reach a compromised position. One side wants SSM and the other wants protections codified. In such a tight parliament, if SSM is pushed through without the protections inextricably linked, what motivation exists to acquiesce to the findings of the Ruddock Review? The Greens and Labor have form on this.
    Such a move is inexplicably stupid.

  38. The SSM project is an example of the sexual revolution in action, where primacy of pleasure is defended fanatically with scant respect for democratic notions such as the right to be wrong.
    Christians are not seeking EXEMPTIONS so they can teach and practice their faith in their parishes, schools and hospitals. They want explicit recognition of the SEPARATION of Church and state, and of their rights to religious liberty, often referred to as the “first freedom”.
    MT has ensured that religious rights are herewith denied.

  39. Makka

    Such a move is inexplicably stupid.

    Not if you consider Turdball’s record as a devious snake.

  40. Rabz

    The Waffleroach

    expended a good deal of political capital in going ahead with the survey

    There I was thinking he didn’t have any in the first place.

  41. FelixKruell

    Broad and others had the opportunity to put up their bill (with whatever protections they want) and make it a government bill at any time prior to the plebiscite, noting the support for SSM in the polls. They didn’t. They wanted the people to decide.

    Broad and others had the opportunity to put up their bill (with whatever protections they want) during the plebiscite, and make it clear that this is what they would support (and nothing else) if a ‘Yes’ vote prevailed. They didn’t. They didn’t want the people to know what they had in mind.

    To now whinge that they weren’t given an opportunity to put up their own bill as a Government bill is pure hypocrisy.

  42. entropy

    Has anyone ever seen Lucious and PMO in the same room?

  43. Habib

    I don’t give a shit if some weirdo wants to marry a wildebeest as long as it doesn’t cost me money, or rights. This bollocks will do both. A sensible government would repeal the Marriage Act. A moronic one would pander to noisy communists, who less than a decade ago decried marriage as legalised rape/slavery.

  44. candy

    They didn’t want the people to know what they had in mind.

    Well, apparently there are about 200 gender/variations identified in the LGBTI community, so probably those supporting Andrew Broad’s bill think there is a great risk of religious groups stepping on the toes of some. It is hard to understand this new sexuality identified, so many.

  45. .

    I haven’t read the bill. There should be exemptions, however.

    That said, I believe trolling the “cliched Christian service provider” is a breach of the SDA under s 28A.

    Maybe the protection is actually already there.

  46. .

    Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
    #2569582, posted on November 29, 2017 at 10:06 am
    PS: you might all go on about me, but I voted no in the survey. But I accept the result. Religious freedoms are important, so long as you remember the proverb Render Unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.

    I didn’t “vote”, it was an illegal sham.

    I also only accept what the government does because they have the guns. I accept nothing they do morally and believe in individual sovereignty. If god has laws he can enforce them.

    Beat that for grandstanding.

  47. a reader

    Does anybody know who the brave folks who voted against it are?

  48. .

    On the current open forum, p1 IIRC.

    Baldrick put it up.

  49. Boris

    I have mixed feelings about this. I had an impression before the survey that Libs would would ensure at least some protections, which might only be a fig leaf but still.

    Now that we know that almost 40 per cent voted no, including probably majority of Liberal voters, there is an even more compelling case for the government to do something.

    Citing various political issues about the timing of the bill before Xmas etc is just confusing the issue.

  50. twostix

    lol.

    A Turnbullian to the very end.

  51. twostix

    Nobody wanted a postal survey and we reject it, and the attempt to turn the results from a postal survey nobody wanted into the equivalent of a binding vote, completely.

    Enjoy the remaining five second of n0-power you have, Turnbullians.

    The biggest failure in Australian political history.

    At least Rudd had some things he accomplished.

  52. twostix

    The other day I drove up to a regional polling booth.

    It was like a one party state. An ocean of red, with a single mute Liberal volunteer.

    Turnbullians are worse than termites. Literally destroyed not only a government, but an entire party in five years.

    And why did they do this?

    So they would be allowed by their leftwing cultural betters to attend the student union and opera again.

    That’s literally the entire motivation for all of it.

Comments are closed.