NSW upper house backs gay marriage

ŠĒ• Sydney Morning Herald

The NSW Upper house is backing same-sex marriage. It is astonishing some of the arguments against…with no foundation in fact or reason:

The NSW upper house has passed a motion calling on the federal government to allow gay marriage, despite a Liberal MP saying that change could lead to polygamy.

Greens MP Cate Faehrmann’s private members’ motion passed 22 votes to 16 in the Legislative Council, with both major parties allowing a conscience vote.

NSW has now joined Tasmania and the ACT in having a parliamentary chamber call for the 1961 commonwealth Marriage Act to be amended to allow same-sex marriage.

Shortly before the vote, Ms Faehrmann likened a ban on gay marriage to the 1950s laws prohibiting Aboriginal men from marrying white women.

During the debate, Labor MP Helen Westwood described being in a lesbian relationship and having eight grandchildren.

”There’s just no evidence that my children or my grandchildren have been disadvantaged by being raised in a same-sex relationship,” she told the chamber.

But Labor’s leader in the upper house, Luke Foley, who hails from the party’s left faction, said that as a practising Catholic he believed civil unions were more appropriate for gay couples than marriage.

”I do believe that homosexual relationships are different to a married relationship,” he said, adding a ”procreative relationship open to the possibility of children” was an ”essential feature of marriage”.

Liberal member Matthew Mason-Cox argued same-sex marriage could lead to polygamy.

”Indeed, if one was to take the notion of equality of marriage to its logical conclusion, then there would be no reason to stand in the way of polygamist marriages, or other variants,” he said.

”This is the so-called slippery slope in this debate which has manifested itself overseas in some jurisdictions where same-sex marriage has been allowed.”

  • Random66

    “…the so-called slippery slope in this debate..”

    And don’t we all know when talking about a slippery slope that the first step is the hardest and from then on no problem, because it is all down hill.¬† The question here is what will we find at the bottom because I agree it’s hard to¬†argue the position that once you haved¬†allowed one marginalized group the right to marry you¬†can close the door to another.

  • Andrei

    For the slow – there is no such thing as GAY MARRIAGE. It is a political fiction, an Alice in Wonderland concept born in a dying culture with an empty headed political elite.

  • BJ

    Look at it like this – visualize a box of a certain shape called marriage: ¬†Marriage is a box of a certain shape designed to fit man+woman only – they fit together perfectly thats how they were made to ‘combine’ in a manner that fits in the box so named named marriage.¬†
    Man+Man or woman+woman do not ‘combine’ in a manner that fits into that particular box – so it can never be marriage. What they want to do is to change the shape of the box called marriage to fit them in it – but they can’t – they are another shape so will have to name it something else.

    • Le Sphincter

      Really , the bible is full of references to polygamy or more correctly polygyny- one husband many wives. Which was common at the time.

      Somehow what was then marriage became ‘re-defined’ ¬†from the time of Jesus.
      One man – one wife.

      Its time to redefine it once again

      Even so you wont find any references to the bible condemning polygyny

      • Random66

        The trouble here is no Christian should ever be happy with the prospect of someone coming along and re-defining that which was said by Jesus (on any subject).¬† If¬†He said one man to one woman¬†then¬†who am I, or you for that matter, to say, “Hey I can improve on this or¬†change that, or what He really meant was this..”.¬† You could¬†go ahead and¬†do it but don’t be under the illusion that it would be the right thing to do.¬†

      • Le Sphincter

        Trouble was  Jesus didnt explicitly condemn polygyny either.
        My view is that two person marriage only became ‘traditional’ because of the spread of Christianity throught the roman world where it was the norm.

        WE cant have the government in 2012 making rules based on the bible, otherwise we would still be stoning adulters or even like Family First who seem to want it made a crime again.

  • Mitch

    Christians dictating what other groups of people can and cannot do based on the re-interpreted version of an archaic book that promotes slavery, sexism, and the stoning of women and children for infidelity and insolence.

    How cute.

    Take your book and GTFO.

  • Groans

    Can We Have Some Sensible Discourse On This Please.  This will exclude W/O for a start

  • davewin

    There’s nothing so silly that a¬† New South Wales upper Chamber member has¬† not proposed it.

    Homosexuals and the NSW Upper Chamber deserve one another. I should have thought a more serious matter is a decision by a Federal Court in the USA to agree to abortions of children on the grounds their sex was not suitable to the mother. And then we bellow against China and the one child family policy?

    • Le Sphincter

      Are you referring to Fred Nile- a long serving member of the upper chamber.
      On 23 June 2010 Nile introduced a bill into the Legislative Council to criminalise the public wearing of any face covering which prevents the identification of the wearer,[19] including the burqa and niqab. 

      • davewin

         Among many others

  • ban_everything

    ” It is astonishing some of the arguments against‚Ķwith no foundation in fact or reason: ”

    Agreed. Not liking same sex marriage does not require a reason.¬†¬† I don’t have a reason.¬†¬† And so far at least there are no thought police, so I have no intention of feeling the need to invent a reason.

    Gays, enjoy your day in the sun.  Just stop telling me what I have to like and dislike.  Celebrate your difference.

    Gays, stop telling me I have to change to accept your difference.   You can fool yourself in to pretending you are no different to me.

    Gays,  I promise I will never force any of my views onto you.   You are constantly trying to force your views onto me, so FO.

    Gays, I promise I won’t discriminate against you by telling you what you must think about me.¬†¬† I actually don’t give a fuck what you think about me.¬† So STFU and stop telling me every day what¬† I’m supposedly obliged to think about you.

    Which btw isn’t a reason for my not liking you.¬†¬† I don’t like black cars either.¬†¬† Why?¬† Dunno, just don’t like them.

84%