Marriage equality advocates have expressed their disapointmentl over Tony Abbott’s claim that the cross-party marriage equality bill may not come to a vote any time soon because it is a private members’ bill.
In a statement Australian Marriage Equality national director, Rodney Croome, said,
“The Prime Minister said he wanted a bill that is ‘owned by the whole parliament’ and that is what this bill is.”
“Now he’s lifting the bar by effectively saying only government legislation will be prioritised, but by definition a government bill would not be ‘owned by parliament’.”
“The millions of Australians who supporter marriage equality want to see a parliamentary debate sooner rather than later and they want the Prime Minister to smooth a path to that debate rather than put obstacles in the way.”
“I call on the Prime Minister to return to his simple and straight forward pre-election promise which was to allow a party room debate on a free vote whenever Coalition members want that debate.”
Mr Croome also dismissed concerns raised by Senator Eric Abetz that marriage equality will lead to polygamy.
“The one advantage to Australia falling behind twenty two other countries on marriage equality is that we can see the impact overseas, including that not one single polygamous marriage has occurred.”
“When opponents of marriage equality like Senator Abetz resort to these kinds of scare tactics it shows they have no legitimate arguments left.” Mr Croome said.
Australian Marriage Equality and Get Up! are holding a rally for marriage equality in Perth on Sunday July 5th at 1pm in Russell Square.Â
OIP Staff
It’s terribly ironic that polygamous marriages are a heterosexual religious practice, and religious belief being the driver behind the belief systems of those who oppose same sex couples to legally commit themselves to one another. Despite the fact that these comments are completely off point, as at no point in the same sex equality argument is it suggested that marriage should be granted to multiple persons in the one relationship, only that TWO people, two individuals should be legally recognised as married regardless of what genitals they possess.
Denying people this right is as stupid as saying that a man who lost his penis in an accident is no longer a man and therefore could not marry a woman.
What right does a government have to pass judgement on such a thing.
Cue the “panty-check” bill, do you have a ding-dong or a hoo-haa, because in this day and age apparently it still makes a difference!