In English?

“The High Court has said that the Australian Parliament is the proper place to determine the plebiscite,” Ms Plibersek said.

Tanya Plibersek.

This is one of those times when you need to ask for a reference for that claim.

This entry was posted in Hypocrisy of progressives, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to In English?

  1. C.L.

    “The High Court has said that the Australian Parliament is the proper place to determine the plebiscite,” Ms Plibersek said.

    Ahahahahahahaha.

  2. C.L.

    IIRC, the High Court threw out the ACT’s gay ‘marriage’ law, rendering all of the ‘marriages’ that took place under its auspices null and void.

  3. Stackja

    The people decide matters not politicians or judges.

  4. Habib

    Slovene Slag lies and says something imbecilic. Stop the presses.

  5. Habib

    Really the only thing the Liberal/National coalition has in its favour is that the alternative is actually measurably worse. If Labor sorted its shit and purged its ranks of the rabble of dud lawyers, union imbeciles and green rejects it’d never be out of office,

  6. Infidel Tiger 2.0 (Premium Content Subscribers Only)

    It sounded better in the original Moldovian.

  7. Galeoturpis

    The high court case http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html makes no reference to a plebiscite. But Michael Kirby on lateline does. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2016/s4527742.htm
    MICHAEL KIRBY: Well, I’m afraid the truth of the matter is: the High Court of Australia – and I took no part in this; I had retired for several years – in 2013 made it clear we did not need a vote of the people.

    The court made it clear unanimously that the Federal Parliament has the power to enact equality for LGBT citizens in the matter of marriage; and, therefore, we don’t need a referendum. We don’t need a plebiscite.

    QED –
    Someone associated with the High Court said on the ABC that Liberal policy was bunkum. Good enough !

  8. Beachside

    Good to know what (former High Court Justice) Michael Kirby’s views are on SSM.

    I’d like to inform him of mine, via a plebiscite.

  9. The Fifth Bike Rider of the Apocalypse

    Is Tanya auditioning for the dumb blonde role?
    A plebiscite is defined as follows:
    ‘The direct vote of all the members of an electorate on an important public question such as a change in the constitution’ – or even same sex marriage.
    The Australian Parliament, Tanya, ain’t the electorate.

  10. Baldrick

    Yep, Labor still has the Liberals dancing to their tune, even when it’s said by the Slovenian Hag.

  11. Louis

    What amazes me is that the same people cheering this were the same people demanding more direct democracy 6 to 12 months ago.

    It’s convenient for Labor that this vote block of theirs will also be something they can sell to their Western Sydney voters but for completely different reasons.

  12. John H of Pelican Waters

    It is now twelve long years since the Howard/Latham changes to the Marriage Act, so the parliament has had ample opportunity to change it again to legalise homosexual marriage, had it so wished. Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to do that. I think that we can safely say now that parliament has ruled on this matter, in favour of the status quo. So I agree with the ALP that a plebiscite is unnecessary.

  13. alexnoaholdmate

    So, this is the end of the issue now, right?

    I mean, the Coalition took this policy to the electorate, were returned, and have now had that policy rejected by the Senate.

    So there’s no need to talk about gay marriage for the rest of this session, right?

    And anyone who whinges about how ‘backward’ Australia is in not following the ‘rest of the world’ – such as the US, where there was no nationwide support for gay marriage so it had to be ‘discovered’ in a Constitution written in 1787 – will surely take their outrage out on Labor, won’t they?

    Yeah, right.

    Simple answer for the Coalition whenever this point comes up in the future – “Well, you’ll have to ask Mr Shorten about that. He’s the one that killed any possibility of same-sex marriage in the near future. Next question.”

  14. Roger

    It is now twelve long years since the Howard/Latham changes to the Marriage Act

    I think it would be more accurate to say “amendments” than “changes”, John. The 2004 amendment simply defined what was understood without saying in 1961, i.e. that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    I make a point of offering this correction because several advocates for change are inaccurately saying “parliament has already changed the definition of marriage once, so it can and should do so again.” We should point out the error in their argument whenever it is advanced.

  15. bingbing

    The only chance those in favour of ssm had of getting it through was this plebiscite. With the Senate the way it is, a vote neither for nor against would have ever have become law. The plebiscite had the best chance of “winning”.

    So it’s Labor that killed it but watch the Libs get blamed by everyone including the LGBTI community itself.

  16. .

    What struth? Plibersek should STFU. Unless she believes the conscription and national anthem plebiscites are “invalid”.

    alex – the US states ought to have the right to legislate on marriage. DOMA and everything like it ought to be declared ultra vires.

  17. gabrianga

    THIS is our Government.

    The Government’s proposed amendments to the Marriage Act includes

    Changing the definition of marriage from “a man and a woman” to “two people”.

    I presume ,like my wife and me ,who find this disparaging and reprehensible there are many more married couples, one male and one female, who just might feel the same.

    Once again the Turnbull Government shats all over many of his Party’s supporters.

  18. LGS

    Tanya Plibersek – likely many of her ilk – only believe in democratic rights when it suits her.
    Somehow, I think she would have a completely different view if the Coalition had a clear majority in both houses. Same-sex marriage would probably be voted down then!

  19. Mother Lode

    If the re-definition went through it would take a while for TV shows and movies to ‘normalise’ it.

    And the somewhat ubiquitous promiscuity of gay men would simply mean that while legally marriage, people would distinguish between ‘real’ marriage and ‘technical’ marriage.

    It is like the way you hear of Jihadis as being Australian – it just seems like a legality. Does anyone really think of them as Australian?

  20. gabrianga

    Just how do you “normalise” a man having anal sex with another man and calling it marriage, Mother Lode? ?

  21. Grigory M

    As MV and I have each said on other threads – legislation is not needed to allow the plebiscite to proceed.

  22. Rabz

    I think we need to question the role that Tony Abbott has played in reducing Ms Plibersek to a drooling, utterly incoherent cretin.

  23. Walter Plinge

    The people decide matters not politicians or judges.
    Sadly, that is not true. Judges, especially activist ones like Kirby, decide matters for us. They can overrule parliament.

  24. Andrew

    The court made it clear unanimously that the Federal Parliament has the power to enact equality for LGBT citizens in the matter of marriage; and, therefore, we don’t need a referendum. We don’t need a plebiscite.

    It indeed had the power to consider SSM, and rejected it overwhelmingly. I don’t know why as a former HC judge Ms Kirby has such contempt for the institution of parliament that he thinks a vote in the House (I believe UNANIMOUS) in 2004 affirmed in 2012 should be so floccipaucinihilipilified now.

    Meanwhile, for the people who said HoWARd6666 stopped SSM, by definition the Marriage Act (1961) did NOT allow for SSM. SS relationships were illegal in 1961 – punishable by 7 years’ imprisonment IIRC. The intent of parliament was for traditional marriage. The next time it had the opportunity to consider the issue, and the 18 subsequent occasions, it ruled the same way (while having decriminalised SSS since 1961).

  25. memoryvault

    So it’s Labor that killed it but watch the Libs get blamed
    by everyone including the LGBTI community itself.

    There are two bills before Parliament for SSM, one introduced by Labor, and one by the Greens. After a bit of horse-trading one of those two bills with suitable amendments will get voted on, Labor will vote “for” in both Houses, and a sufficient number of Liberals will abstain to ensure the bill is passed. This will happen very soon, or first thing next year.

    This is our new National Socialist Coalition in action. Get used it.

  26. Roger

    Tanya Plibersek – likely many of her ilk – only believe in democratic rights when it suits her.

    “Democracy is like a train journey, when you reach your destination you get off.” Erdogan.

  27. herodotus

    Plibbers has been, is, and probably always will be one of the Labor/Green mob who’ll say anything, anything at all. The tragedy is that 80% of the msm will not just go along with the trash talk but amplify it.

  28. Louis

    I still remember the days when being gay was ‘the way I choose to live’ and marriage was ‘a patriarchal institution designed to oppress women and non-hetrosexuals’.

    It’s funny how so many of the proponents of marriage ‘equality’ are also believers in the idea that humans are not meant to be monogamous.

    I honestly think Labor would shit themselves if SSM got through. Same with the greens. How many votes do they get each year on the suggestion that they support SSM. Plus how would they square that with their Muslim voters, which is an ever increasing voting block each year.

    Oh and why the f### does Ally never get asked to put his support or opposition for SSM on the record?!

  29. john constantine

    Their shortfilth voted against gay marriage when labor was in power and has voted against a gay marriage plebiscite now.

    This track record of voting against gay marriage is bigger than any tories track record, but the media still carry his water for him.

  30. Mother Lode

    Gabrianga,

    Normalise as in making having two daddies or two mummies something people are accustomed to hearing about (whatever their opinion).

    I don’t know about you, but when I see a husband and wife, my mind does not leap to imagining them making the beast with two backs.

  31. Cold-Hands

    Making things up and not being hauled up for it by our servile media is something the “Progressives” have come to take for granted. And now Plibbers has said this, it’ll be repeated as an article of faith by all the usual suspects.

  32. Crossie

    There are two bills before Parliament for SSM, one introduced by Labor, and one by the Greens. After a bit of horse-trading one of those two bills with suitable amendments will get voted on, Labor will vote “for” in both Houses, and a sufficient number of Liberals will abstain to ensure the bill is passed. This will happen very soon, or first thing next year.

    If they pull that stunt then at the next election PHON and minor parties will get every seat outside of inner cities. Labor/Libs/Nationals together will not have enough to form government.

    People are fed up to the back teeth with politicians imagining they know better.

    What’s more, all this agonising over the plebiscite is because they know they don’t have the numbers, internal polls have told them it’s not a goer. If the polls were telling them differently we would have had one quick smart.

  33. Boambee John

    Labor in power had ample opportunity between 2007 and 2013 to pass SSM legislation, but did not do so.

    The Liars don’t want to have to explain to their Muslim wing why they passed SSM, they want the Coalition to do it.

    As a side (snide?) comment, under a woman PM, with various women (Plibersek and Roxon) as Health Ministers, the Liars also failed to remove GST from women’s sanitary items, but promptly beat TA about the ears on the subject once he became PM.

    Everything is politics to them, nothing about good, or even reasonable, governance.

Comments are closed.