I see Tanya Plibersek has now got slapped down by just about every labor power broker.

What a surprise!

Plibersek is typical of the career politicians who got there riding a wagon and are legless whenever they depart from their script. She and others like her are fortunate that the media hounds, the ABC in particular, constantly allow her free runs and never lay a glove on her. Penny Wong is the same. Wong could talk under water with her mouth full of marbles, but soon failed to impress when she was elevated to the role of Finance Minister, where she has to be accountable.

Tania Plibersek is urging MPs to work for reform,
not argue over the process. Her argument seems
to be that Labor votes as one on all equality
issues - except marriage equality.
Whereas Mr Shorten's view appears to be that it's
best to convince than force.

Senator Sinodinos supports a Coalition free vote
on marriage equality. This is a basic Liberal
principle - freedom of individual conscience.

Clearly discussion of a Labor Party marriage equality
has not dampened the debate on a Coalition free vote,
as some people feared, but has inspired further debate
about the Coalition's and Labor's stance.

Perhaps a conscience vote will eventuate out of all
this.

david f,

of course the definition of marriage has been changed many times, so what?

We are talking about the definition in Australia today and as one who entered into the contract under a certain definition I think that all citizens of voting age should be consulted regarding any change to the contract's definition,

Let the people decide; why is there such an apparent fear of democracy?

Dear Is Mise,

I have no objection to a referendum. I have already stated that I object to forcing the Labor members to vote contrary to their conscience.

As far as the definition changing it will not affect my marriage at all if people of the same sex get married. When I got married it was not a question in my mind about the definition of marriage. I don't see how people of the same sex getting married will affect my marriage to a person of the opposite sex. If you are married I don't see how it will affect your marriage either.

david f,

It won't affect my marriage but it will alter the definition of marriage, therefore the definition of my marriage will be changed and this is what I object to.

As far as I'm concerned homosexuals can get up to all the perversions that they care to but their unions are not marriage.

They told us for years that they were different, that they wanted to be different and now they desperately want to be the same.

I do wonder how homosexuals get on in Muslim areas.