You were looking for the sad tag, subby.

Back in April last year, My local MP asked around the electorate for their views on same sex marriage. I sent in my opinion, but as I never heard anything back, I just forgot about the whole thing. Until last week, when she replied back with the following.

Hello

I am contacting you because you have let me know your opinion on same-sex marriage.

I have thought long and hard about this issue.
I am proud of what this Government has achieved for same sex couples since forming Government in November, 2007. In 2008, then Federal Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, announced that the Government would go beyond the 58 pieces of discriminatory legislation found by the HREOC inquiry, and that legislation to remove inequalities in 100 areas of the law would be introduced, giving gay couples the same treatment as heterosexual de facto couples with respect to federal legislation and services such as social security and veterans' affairs.

I have genuinely tried to ascertain the view of my electorate on this issue as I feel marriage is a public declaration of one's commitment and love to one another. I strongly believe than any change to the Marriage Act must be supported by the community or it will not have the benefit of achieving lasting equality and recognition.

In this debate people need to remember I am being asked to change the law, not the traditional religious view of marriage. The law is silent on love, children and commitment, only asking that you come to the union voluntarily and that you have provision for settlement of property.

I would like to point out something that I have found quite ironic. People say that they oppose any change to the Marriage Act because of the historic meaning of the word 'marriage', thus implying the act has some sort of protected status. In August 2004, then Prime Minister John Howard changed the Marriage Act. This meant that same-sex marriage was officially prohibited because the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act were amended in order to define marriage as a "union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". That this change was made highlights the fact that the Marriage Act, like any other Act of Parliament, does not have a protected status.

I think the community is changing constantly and that sometime in the future we will be in a position where we aren't debating this issue anymore, that the definition of marriage will be broadened to include same sex couples. I just don't think we are there yet.

Whilst undergoing this exercise of consultation with my community, I have received letters and emails that have really moved me, individual's stories that detail the discrimination that they or a loved one has encountered. I am sad to say that I have also received correspondence that is full of hatred and homophobia - I found the views expressed in these letters to be abhorrent. To those people I would say, I was not interested in hearing your views on homosexuality. This is a question about changing the Marriage Act and I reject the intolerant and cruel statements that have no place in our society.

Most people that have contacted me had the same view as me, that they want all forms of discrimination ended for homosexuals but think the word marriage should remain defined as a union between a man and a woman. I have formed the view that at this present time my community of Chisholm believes that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman and is asking me to cast a vote for no change.

I am replying to your many letters and emails now as I do not know whether I will have the opportunity to vote as I may be in the Speaker's Chair and do not have a deliberative vote in that position. I wanted to let you know what I would be doing if I was voting, to be very clear about this issue.

I again would like to re-iterate that this has not been an easy decision for me, and that this decision will bring relief for some while undoubtedly severe disappointment for others.

Thank you for sharing your views with me

Kind regards

Anna Burke MP

I can't criticise her for following the electorate if that's what has happened here. Obviously, I also can't comment on whether or not other politicians did the same or whether they just said "yes" or "no" as the case may be. I do find it interesting though, that the public shift towards same-sex marriage here has been very impressive, yet I wonder whether it's the left here that's being the vocal minority in contrast to the silent majority...

I should probably point out to those unfamiliar with the Westminster system that this survey of the electorate was for the House of Representatives bill that was mentioned in TFA, not the senate bill that TFA is actually talking about.

Who can it be now?

/who can it?
//who can it?

Australia: Forever ten years behind.

/I just love that both of our parties are against equality.
//My personal theory on this is that Australian men have much smaller dicks than American men.

"Private members bill"

hehehe

why does gay marriage ALWAYS have to cum b4 pot legalization

steerforth: Both our main parties aren't against equality. There are some in Labor who are against it, and they were allowed to vote on their conscience. There are some in the Libs who are for it, but they weren't allowed to vote on their conscience.

Yes, they are. Gillard is not just against it but vocally so, and she's the leader of the Labor party, so in my opinion, both sides can get run over by a truck full of dildos for all I care.

Fluorescent Testicle: Australia: Forever ten years behind.
.

Seems to me that you are trying to impose your values on others. Not very Democratic/tolerant of you.


"The US can't impose its values on the world" President Obama, 2009

Under where?

Fluorescent Testicle: Australia: Forever ten years behind.

/I just love that both of our parties are against equality.

This, exactly this. Especially the ten years behind part.

steerforth: Gillard's opinion is beside the point: Link I know you don't like the result of the vote, and neither do I, but that doesn't mean you have to misrepresent it.

I'm not misrepresenting anything; as their leader, she speaks for them, whether or not a handful of outlying MPs disagree with her.

I value actions over empty platitudes, and so far, they've done nothing.

When Gillard's gone and somebody who isn't an insufferable biatch up to take her place (unlikely to be soon), or when the Liberal party pulls its head out of its ass (unlikely to be ever), I'll change my opinion, but not a moment before.

Fluorescent Testicle: ... somebody who isn't an insufferable biatch steps up ...

/FTFM.
//Why do I keep missing random words today?

No pooftas, you say?

Fluorescent Testicle: Australia: Forever ten years behind.

/I just love that both of our parties are against equality.
//My personal theory on this is that Australian men have much smaller dicks than American men.

Ten years behind what?

/and why does the size of my penis enter into this

Fark Tony Abbott. No, not that way. Fark that guy.

Fluorescent Testicle: When Gillard's gone and somebody who isn't an insufferable biatch up to take her place

And I'll bet that you can't explain why you hate Julia Gillard with any more specificity than our right-wing American brethren can explain why they hate Obama. Feel free to prove me wrong by actually stating why, other than this one issue, you despise her so much.

steerforth: Changing the party platform to support same-sex marriage is an empty platitude. Raising a bill in the Senate to change the law is an empty platitude. Standing up for the rights of gay people in the face of religious and bogan outrage is a platitude.

Yes, yes and yes - because nothing has changed yet. Call me when Gillard takes to the stage and announces that she'll start standing by the platform. Again, I'll happily change my opinion if/when things change, so get off your damn high horse.

Trapper439: And I'll bet that you can't explain why you hate Julia Gillard with any more specificity than our right-wing American brethren can explain why they hate Obama. Feel free to prove me wrong by actually stating why, other than this one issue, you despise her so much.

Mostly this (gay rights are sort of my pet issue), but I'll admit that some of it stems back to the time I met her and Rudd - I've never met a more punchable pair of smug-assed idiots in my life. Not entirely sure why disliking her for a very obvious and very important reason is the same as Republicans hating Obama for being black, but whatever.

/For the record, I hate Abbott just as much, but he isn't the PM.
//Can any of you give me a reason why I shouldn't hate her?
///Or were you all just upset by the small-penis crack?

They put their fozjammers in some other blokes gollywattle mate. IN HIS GOLLYWATTLE!

... Wait, this is the main tab, no wonder this thread is full of dumbasses. Oh well.

hasty ambush: Fluorescent Testicle: Australia: Forever ten years behind.
.

Seems to me that you are trying to impose your values on others. Not very Democratic/tolerant of you.


"The US can't impose its values on the world" President Obama, 2009

Huh?
Fluorescent Testicle is an Aussie. What does Democratic and/or President Obama have to do with an Australian commenting on Australian politics?

Fury Pilot: Huh? Fluorescent Testicle is an Aussie. What does Democratic and/or President Obama have to do with an Australian commenting on Australian politics?

To be fair to the troll, I'm a dual Aussie-American citizen, so I will be voting for Obama this year (not that he knew that).

Of course, I'm not a Democrat, so... :P

Fluorescent Testicle: Fury Pilot: Huh? Fluorescent Testicle is an Aussie. What does Democratic and/or President Obama have to do with an Australian commenting on Australian politics?

To be fair to the troll, I'm a dual Aussie-American citizen, so I will be voting for Obama this year (not that he knew that).

Of course, I'm not a Democrat, so... :P

I hope you are not holding your breath for the Australian government to recognise same-sex marriage. Despite Abbott being an asshat, he will be the next Prime Minister (just), and there will be no way it gets through the lower house while the Liberals are in control.

steerforth: Fury Pilot: hasty ambush: Fluorescent Testicle: Australia: Forever ten years behind.
.

Seems to me that you are trying to impose your values on others. Not very Democratic/tolerant of you.


"The US can't impose its values on the world" President Obama, 2009

Huh?
Fluorescent Testicle is an Aussie. What does Democratic and/or President Obama have to do with an Australian commenting on Australian politics?

Fluorescent Testicle has formally been Mel Gibsoned.

Damn, that's harsh...

Fury Pilot: I hope you are not holding your breath for the Australian government to recognise same-sex marriage. Despite Abbott being an asshat, he will be the next Prime Minister (just), and there will be no way it gets through the lower house while the Liberals are in control.

Haha, heeell no. I've given up on our embarrassing "Right-wing and even more right-wing" system of government. I intend on moving back to the States soon enough, probably permanently; either when Obamacare kicks in fully or when marriage equality passes at the federal level, whichever comes first.

Good to know that there are someplaces in the world who have not drank the Kool-Aide.

Fury Pilot: Damn, that's harsh...

I find it amusing that my small-penis joke, which wasn't even directed at him, hurt him so badly. :)

This is so sad. :(

Gumaraid: Good to know that there are someplaces in the world who have not drank the Kool-Aide.

Sorry to disappoint, but 5 states or territories recognise same-sex unions. It is only a matter of time before it passes at a Federal level. Our government is just bloody slow in everything it does.

steerforth: Fluorescent Testicle: Fury Pilot: Damn, that's harsh...

I find it amusing that my small-penis joke, which wasn't even directed at him, hurt him so badly. :)

I'm a girl, so yes, my penis is small.

You have not only been Mel Gibsoned, but RUSSELL CROWED.

I thought we hadn't disowned him. He does owns the Rabbitohs (or part thereof) doesn't he?

steerforth: Fury Pilot: steerforth: Fluorescent Testicle: Fury Pilot: Damn, that's harsh...

I find it amusing that my small-penis joke, which wasn't even directed at him, hurt him so badly. :)

I'm a girl, so yes, my penis is small.

You have not only been Mel Gibsoned, but RUSSELL CROWED.

I thought we hadn't disowned him. He does owns the Rabbitohs (or part thereof) doesn't he?

We gave him back to New Zealand after the telephone incident.

I obviously didn't get that memo :)

Fury Pilot: Gumaraid: Good to know that there are someplaces in the world who have not drank the Kool-Aide.

Sorry to disappoint, but 5 states or territories recognise same-sex unions. It is only a matter of time before it passes at a Federal level. Our government is just bloody slow in everything it does.

OK, so the legal status of same-sex marriage in Australia sounds similar to the U.S. -- legal in some states, but not recognized at the federal level. So the "ten years behind" crack sounds more than a little unfair.

keypusher: Fury Pilot: Gumaraid: Good to know that there are someplaces in the world who have not drank the Kool-Aide.

Sorry to disappoint, but 5 states or territories recognise same-sex unions. It is only a matter of time before it passes at a Federal level. Our government is just bloody slow in everything it does.

OK, so the legal status of same-sex marriage in Australia sounds similar to the U.S. -- legal in some states, but not recognized at the federal level. So the "ten years behind" crack sounds more than a little unfair.

No, it is probably fairly accurate.

The states only recognise unions, not marriages.

It is important to realise that our parliamentary system is different to the US (it is very like the UK). While our form of government is slightly less bound to two party rule than the US, politicians pretty much always vote along party lines as the party has much greater control over them here.

The current Labour government is only in power through the support of Independent MPs and the more conservative Liberal Party (the current opposition) will likely win the next election. Liberal MPs all voted along party lines (against obviously) while Labour allowed a conscience vote (which was mixed).

With the likelihood of more conservative Liberal government coming, this reform will be stifled for quite a while.

steerforth: Fury Pilot: keypusher: Fury Pilot: Gumaraid:

With the likelihood of more conservative Liberal government coming, this reform will be stifled for quite a while.

Which is why Julia should do a flip-flop, make it an election issue and wedge Tony's Speedos up his clacker.

She can't. She has publicly stated that she personally does not support it. Allowing the conscience vote just made it worse because she can't even say that she changed her mind because the majority of her own party would back it.

Also, that image of Tony Abbott was totally unnecessary :P

Fury Pilot: keypusher: Fury Pilot: Gumaraid: Good to know that there are someplaces in the world who have not drank the Kool-Aide.

Sorry to disappoint, but 5 states or territories recognise same-sex unions. It is only a matter of time before it passes at a Federal level. Our government is just bloody slow in everything it does.

OK, so the legal status of same-sex marriage in Australia sounds similar to the U.S. -- legal in some states, but not recognized at the federal level. So the "ten years behind" crack sounds more than a little unfair.

No, it is probably fairly accurate.

The states only recognise unions, not marriages.

It is important to realise that our parliamentary system is different to the US (it is very like the UK). While our form of government is slightly less bound to two party rule than the US, politicians pretty much always vote along party lines as the party has much greater control over them here.

The current Labour government is only in power through the support of Independent MPs and the more conservative Liberal Party (the current opposition) will likely win the next election. Liberal MPs all voted along party lines (against obviously) while Labour allowed a conscience vote (which was mixed).

With the likelihood of more conservative Liberal government coming, this reform will be stifled for quite a while.

"Unions." I am sorry, glided past that, I was not reading carefully enough. Also, the way federalism works in the U.S., I don't expect there to ever be an up-or-down vote on same-sex marriage in the U.S. Congress. Even DOMA said only that states were not obligated to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

keypusher: Fury Pilot: Gumaraid: Good to know that there are someplaces in the world who have not drank the Kool-Aide.

Sorry to disappoint, but 5 states or territories recognise same-sex unions. It is only a matter of time before it passes at a Federal level. Our government is just bloody slow in everything it does.

OK, so the legal status of same-sex marriage in Australia sounds similar to the U.S. -- legal in some states, but not recognized at the federal level. So the "ten years behind" crack sounds more than a little unfair.

It's hard to directly compare. Marriage is a federal issue in Australia, and same-sex marriage isn't legal (marriage is defined as something between a man and a woman). However, same-sex civil unions are recognised in most Aussie states and even without a formal union, de-facto rights (same-sex or not) are much, much stronger than in the US.

So I'd say Australia is further along the path to equality in the purely practical sense (i.e., equal access to tax deductions, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, right to sue for "spousal" maintenance etc, etc), but the US will probably have same-sex marriage first.

Espin: No pooftas, you say?

Came for this. Good on yer, Bruce, figuratively speaking.