Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the changing-tide dept.

Australians have voted 61.6% to approve of same-sex marriage, and the Turnbull-led government has said it would aim to pass legislation by Christmas:

Australians decisively support same-sex marriage

Australians have overwhelmingly voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage in a historic poll. The non-binding postal vote showed 61.6% of people favour allowing same-sex couples to wed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said. Jubilant supporters have been celebrating in public spaces, waving rainbow flags and singing and dancing.

A bill to change the law was introduced into the Senate late on Wednesday. It will now be debated for amendments. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said his government would aim to pass legislation in parliament by Christmas. "[Australians] have spoken in their millions and they have voted overwhelmingly yes for marriage equality," Mr Turnbull said after the result was announced. "They voted yes for fairness, yes for commitment, yes for love."

The issue only went to a voluntary postal vote after a long and bitter debate about amending Australia's Marriage Act. The result on Wednesday brings an end to what was at times a heated campaign. The vote itself had been criticised by same-sex marriage supporters, many of whom said it was unnecessary when parliament could debate the issue directly.

Related: (U.S.) Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage
One in Three People Globally Think Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Taiwanese Court Invalidates Ban on Same-Sex Marriage


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:20PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:20PM (#598647)
    Also: access to spouse in hospital and similar. You're normally not a close relative of the person you marry <insert humorous exceptions here>.

    For example if your spouse is unconscious and you're not legally married the close relatives who disapprove of you might succeed in denying you access.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:18PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:18PM (#598659)

    That's ridiculous. All of these benefits should be available without marriage, like by simply being able to specify who can visit you in a hospital. What an archaic, backwards society.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:41PM (#598669)

      THAT is the sort of things queers should have been fighting for - not this silly concept of "marriage". Cocksuckers really fucked it up - they could have fought for real freedom, instead they just fought for a different set of chains and bonds.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:43PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:43PM (#598670)

      And how do you prove that someone is who they claim? All manner of fraud and safety concerns come to mind.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @07:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @07:25PM (#598733)

        Your concerns are identical in the status quo of begging government permission to marry. Identification issues are an entirely separate matter from whether or not to beg government for permission to marry.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @06:42PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @06:42PM (#598714)

      That's assuming you set up such a list with the hospital beforehand, or are still conscious and capable of giving consent after admittance. Neither of which is guaranteed, hence the default of letting close relatives and spouses in.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @07:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @07:32PM (#598736)

      But those benefits should only be available to the person I choose. Since so many people want to grant these benefits to another of their choosing, we should make it a standard practice. We can have a standard contract that both parties can get without having to commission lawyers, worry about forgetting one or two of the list of benefits, etc. We'll have to also come up with a name for this practice. I propose we call it marriage.

    • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Monday November 20 2017, @12:38AM

      by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @12:38AM (#599075) Journal

      That's ridiculous. All of these benefits should be available without marriage, like by simply being able to specify who can visit you in a hospital. What an archaic, backwards society.

      Well, it's not always easy to get someone to make a list when they have just had a serious accident. You know, they might be all bleeding and the like, and no-one wants to have blood all over the paperwork. There was this one time, some guy managed to have his arm ripped off. I mean like totally ripped off his body. He couldn't even sign the form. Just amazing how many people don't learn to sign a matching signature with both hands. That's not even starting on all the patients that get brought into hospital that aren't even conscious - I mean that's just downright rude isn't it...

      *sips coffee*