Daffy Duck, where would you be if you could not dig out from Google some web link that supports your ideological viewpoint?

Rhosty: If the Christian lobby believe that their view is the majority view, then let them advocate for a referendum! Bring it on!

It is ironic that the gay lobby asserts that the majority of Australians support SSM, but then vehemently opposes any suggestion of holding a national referendum on the question.

>>Nine ACT politicians voted last week to legalise homosexual marriage on behalf of all Australians.<<

No they didn't. They are ACT parliamentarians so they voted on behalf of all Australian Capital Territorians. The ACT is home to about 1.6% of Australia's population. Under what novel mathematical theory does 1.6% = 100% ?

>>Its policy “affirms the fundamental right and deep emotional need of a child to have both a mother and a father; notes that same-sex marriage makes it impossible for children to have both a mother and a father; and therefore opposes the legislation of same-sex marriage.”<<

But the kids in single-parent families can get stuffed apparently. Obviously they don't need a mother and father or the QLD LNP would have policy that “affirms the fundamental right and deep emotional need of a child to have both a mother and a father; notes that single-parent custody makes it impossible for children to have both a mother and a father; and therefore opposes legislation allowing single-parent custody.” But they don't. And it's pretty obvious why: opponents of gay marriage aren't really concerned about children being motherless or fatherless. They're only concerned if children have twice as many mothers or fathers as other kids.

>>The constitutional larrikinism of Territories and States meddling with marriage needs to be quashed by the High Court.<<

It’s not ‘larrikinism’: under the Constitution marriage is a shared responsibility between the feds and the states and territories. Up until 1961 there were no federal marriage laws: marriage was governed solely by the states. The states and territories can enact a same-sex marriage law. The Constitutional question is whether such a law is inconsistent with the federal Marriage Act.

>>But beyond that, such a radical reordering of society would demand the ultimate democratic authority of a referendum.<<

A referendum on gay marriage is like a pet elephant or your own personal howitzer - it doesn't matter how badly you want it: in Australia you can't legally have it. Referendums are only held – and under the Constitution CAN ONLY BE HELD – for changes to the Constitution. Amendments to the marriage act are statutory changes: they occur by act of parliament. In order to hold a referendum on gay marriage you would first have to have a referendum to change the Constitution – either to allow referendums on non-constitutional matters, or to make gay marriage a constitutional matter instead of a statutory one. I don't think there's much chance a referendum like that would pass – historically referendums have a tendency to fail and I think Australians on the whole would be cautious about tinkering with their Constitution when it really isn't necessary.

You can have a plebiscite on gay marriage: a plebiscite is like a referendum but they're easier to pass and the result isn't legally binding. A government that ignored the result of a plebiscite would not impress the voters but other than that there's nothing stopping them from doing exactly that. Any changes introduced in response to a plebiscite would be normal statutory changes wrought through normal parliamentary procedures – changes which could be easily repealed by a new government without having to hold further plebiscites. Essentially a plebiscite is just a comprehensive opinion poll of the entire nation, but any government that can't accurately gauge public opinion without having to hold plebiscites on everything isn't worth its salt.

>> but then vehemently opposes any suggestion of holding a national referendum on the question.<<

Are you sure they ‘vehemently oppose’ a referendum? Or do you think it's possible that they paid enough attention to their civics lessons to know that a referendum is impossible as the Constitution is currently constituted?

Cheers,

Tony

As it is common knowledge that the majority of Australians favour same sex marriage then let there be a referendum.

What could homosexuals have to fear about a referendum?

>>As it is common knowledge that the majority of Australians favour same sex marriage then let there be a referendum.<<

Wow... what can you do but shake your head?

Cheers,

Tony