Head of the ACL posted:

i'm gay

QUACKTASTIC posted:

Christian Lobby: government has met us over gay marriage 'no' campaign

The head of the Australian Christian Lobby, Lyle Shelton, has said changing the definition of marriage may cause some people to think he is gay, as he revealed that the organisation has been approached by the government to discuss the “no” campaign of a same-sex marriage plebiscite.

Shelton was asked on Sky News on Sunday night how allowing same-sex marriage would affect his own marriage.

“If the definition of marriage is changed, it’s no longer assumed ... that I’m married to a woman. So that affects me straight away,” he said.

“So you’re worried that people may think you’re gay if the law changes?” host Patricia Karvelas asked.

Shelton replied: “They may or may not, but certainly the terms of my marriage have changed, and of the millions of other marriages in Australia”.

The Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), an organisation vocally opposed to changing the definition of marriage, partly due to the argument that children need both a mother and a father, has been approached to discuss its role in a potential plebiscite on the issue, Shelton said.

“We’ve had some initial discussion,” he said. “The government has reached out to us and some other groups in this space.”

Last week attorney general George Brandis told Senate estimates that consultations have started with stakeholders on a possible plebiscite. Shelton has confirmed with Guardian Australia that the ACL has been part of that consultation process.

“We’re thankful for that conversation,” he said. “We have every confidence that this will be a fair process.”

But the ACL has warned against truncating the process, after suggestions that the plebiscite could be held as early as October.

“I think people need time to realise the importance of changing the definition of marriage,” he said. “An October plebiscite would be a surprise ... It seems an unrealistic time frame.”

The prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has committed to holding the $160m plebiscite if the Coalition wins the next election, despite being personally for marriage equality.

Brandis is due to take a proposal on the mechanisms of the vote, including if it is binding on Coalition MPs who are against same-sex marriage, to cabinet for approval shortly.

Labor says a plebiscite is unnecessary and has pledged to hold a vote on the issue within 100 days of winning office.

Despite the outcome of a plebiscite, parliament will still need to vote to remove restrictions in the Marriage Act that limit marriage to being between a man and a woman.

Shelton wants the no campaign to be funded in the same way that the yes campaign is funded.

“I would expect that equal funding would be provided to both sides as there is to any normal referendum, or in this case, plebiscite,” Shelton said.

“It’s got to be fair debate and I think, more importantly, people from our side of the debate have got to feel free to speak without being labelled as haters or homophobes or bigots. That’s been really tough in this whole thing. None of us want to see that ugliness in this debate. We want to be respectful to the other side, but we want to be able to be free to be able to speak about why marriage should be retained as between a man and a woman.”

Jason Tuazon-McCheyne, a candidate for the Australian Equality party, said neither side of the campaign should receive government money.

“I’m against public funding ... equally, no funding,” he told Sky News.

He thinks a plebiscite will be divisive and dangerous for members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) communities.

“I think a fear campaign is very, very easy to sway people’s minds. People don’t understand [the issues], necessarily,” he said.

Tuazon-McCheyne said that the government should fund more counsellors and psychologists to work during the plebiscite campaign, citing already high numbers of suicides or attempted suicides by members of the LGBTIQ communities.

Shelton labelled that “terrible emotional blackmail” and said that the no campaign has “respectfully” put forward its case until now.

“No one is saying that same-sex couples can’t be good parents. Of course they can,” Shelton said.

He said the next logical step in the debate would be about assisted reproductive technology, like surrogacy and in-vitro fertilisation (IVF).

“I’m not sure we have had a proper community debate on this,” Shelton said. “I’m with the global feminist movement because I want a ban on all surrogacy. It’s inherently exploitative of women.”

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/15/with-gay-marriage-people-could-think-im-gay-says-christian-lobby-head

Amethyst posted:

The fact that that's the best thing they can come up with to support the "no" side is hilarious. The plebiscite should be a wipe out.

quote:

Morrison: Negative gearing your “one chance to build wealth”

Mr Morrison has been leaving clues about the changes he wants to make to tax breaks for Australians who invest in property.

He has attacked Labor’s policy — under which only new properties would be able to be negatively geared after a proposed 2017 introduction — saying everyday mum-and-dad investors would be hurt.

He told 2GB radio this morning that two–thirds of people are taking advantage of negative gearing have a taxable income less than $80,000, while 70 per cent of people only negatively gear one property.

“[Shadow treasurer] Chris Bowen thinks everyone who’s on negative gearing is on a rort,” he said.

“He thinks they’re big property barons and you’ve got to go and tax them and slam.



“Well, for most middle-income people it is the one chance they’ve got to build some wealth."



And there it is, the Property Council mindset writ large, where Mr Morrison used to be head of research.

This is either an admission of how completely distorted our economy is and therefore is an argument in favour of the Labor reforms, or it is a totally inappropriate (not to mention wrong) attitude for a Treasurer given it privileges a single asset class and its beneficiaries with whom he has a long association.

open24hours posted:

That a plebiscite is even on the cards is a disgrace.

Amethyst posted:

Eh. Our politicians are spineless, but a positive plebiscite will be something worth celebrating, just like it was worth celebrating in Ireland. Let's make the best out of it instead of moaning through the whole thing, maybe.

Amethyst posted:

Eh. Our politicians are spineless, but a positive plebiscite will be something worth celebrating, just like it was worth celebrating in Ireland. Let's make the best out of it instead of moaning through the whole thing, maybe.

Mithranderp posted:

The Irish referendum was binding and actually removed the constitutional discrimination against same sex marriage. Here, it'd obviously be worth celebrating, but it would really only confirm what most of us already know. It wouldn't be binding at all.

Amethyst posted:

Ok but I don't think even the coalition would be brazenly stupid enough to hold a plebiscite and then just flat out ignore it.

Mithranderp posted:

I imagine they'd say "okay the plebiscite passed but there are other things to consider, etc, etc, etc", spend a million years consulting with the ACL so we don't end up offending too many homophobes, and then MAYBE get around to it before the next election as a nice vote-booster.

open24hours posted:

Our politicians are already well aware of public sentiment on the issue. If they wanted to make it a proper referendum and alter the constitution then it might be worth celebrating.

open24hours posted:

Couldn't they take the power to legislate away from the states at the same time? Or make it illegal for a state to have a marriage act that excludes same sex couples?

QUACKTASTIC posted:

Christian Lobby: government has met us over gay marriage 'no' campaign


http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/feb/15/with-gay-marriage-people-could-think-im-gay-says-christian-lobby-head

open24hours posted:

Couldn't they take the power to legislate away from the states at the same time? Or make it illegal for a state to have a marriage act that excludes same sex couples?

Zenithe posted:

Wow.

"My holy book forbids it, and I believe everybody should follow its' rules"

Was that so hard? That is the most insane response to same sex marriage I think I have ever heard. Except maybe that pastor who said if he got invited to one he'd stand at the entrance smearing himself with poo poo.

Zenithe posted:

Wow.

"My holy book forbids it, and I believe everybody should follow its' rules"

Was that so hard? That is the most insane response to same sex marriage I think I have ever heard. Except maybe that pastor who said if he got invited to one he'd stand at the entrance smearing himself with poo poo.

chyaroh posted:

I would't agree that it's an insane response. In fact, it's a distillation of exactly why most religious organisations are against changing the Marriage Act. Biblically, it says a man and a woman shall join together and become one flesh - ie, marriage is to be solely between a man and a woman. Now, of course, there wasn't supposed to be divorce either, but that came in with Moses and has flowed through ever since.

I also take exception to the blanket idea that "against marriage equality = hatred/homophobia etc etc". Just because we may not agree with the change for reasons of our firmly held religious belief does not mean that we want to burn everyone else at the stake. Well, it certainly shouldn't at any rate. I personally think that there should be a separation of the secular and religious issues here - in a secular society, which arguably we are, rather than a theocratic state or similar, I can see why there should be marriage equality. Just don't expect most religious organisations to agree, nor to be willing to enact same-sex weddings.

Lizard Combatant posted:

Hoooooold up, I'm going to need a link for this!

Zenithe posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pLobWHDdVw

Oh poo poo, I forgot about the smiley face bit.

chyaroh posted:

Just because we may not agree with the change for reasons of our firmly held religious belief does not mean that we want to burn everyone else at the stake. Well, it certainly shouldn't at any rate.

chyaroh posted:

hooman posted:

Ian Macfarlane, the former cabinet minister who unsuccessfully tried to defect from the Liberals to the Nationals, will bow out of parliament at the next election.

Suck it you shilling piece of poo poo.