http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/denmark-to-approve-gay-weddings-in-church/2011/11/23/gIQAPMRnnN_story.html

 

http://news.advocate.com/post/13324191023/possibly-the-most-beautiful-ad-for-marriage-equality

 

Polls in Australia show support for marriage equality has increased to almost two-thirds of voters. But Prime Minister Julia Gillard remains opposed, arguing that “the institution of marriage has come to have a particular meaning and standing in our culture and nation and that should continue unchanged.”

 

Very strange coming from an atheist woman. Maybe some Australians here can expand on why the government is dragging its feet on this, because I'm not very familiar with your politics.

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TBd-UCwVAY]It's time. - YouTube[/ame]

They think gay marriage is wrong still deep down I guess.

but why?

I have no idea, I wish they would hurry up and make marriage equal here too because I really want to marry my gf:embarrassed:.

-takes 100 points from Australia and gives them to Denmark-

 

 

Very strange coming from an atheist woman. Maybe some Australians here can expand on why the government is dragging its feet on this, because I'm not very familiar with your politics.

 

 

I don't think it's strange at all.

 

I can't speak for Australians. But at a guess, I'd say that while culture and history are in part of course determined by any influence by state religion, the result will still be that many non-religious people will be inextricably tied to the history and traditions, no matter how they came about.

So the why is that it has been man/woman for so long that it shouldn't get changed although the majority wants it changed anyway?

 

I really want people that love eachother to be able to confirm this in marriage if they want that, no matter what race or gender.

:(

At the moment Labor is behaving like the conservative party (Liberal), which is... odd. We generally have disdain for Gillard's refusal to tackle the issue. My personal opinion is that its just to appease the higher ups.

 

Btw - as far as I know gays can get civil partnerships, it's just not called a marriage

Thanks for that insight, Cobalt.

 

And the same thing is happening in the US - the Democrats are acting like Republicans. :P

First of all, a lot of us need to realise that politics isn't as simple as "this person is in power so they make decisions". Nor is it as simple as "the majority of people want this to happen so it has to happen".

 

There is a lot of inner workings and inner conflict that goes on behind the scenes that no one (other than those involved) have really any idea about.

 

In specific regards to Australia - I like Julia Gillard. She's made some progressive changes and I think she's a fantastic person and a great leader. But she's not wonder woman. I would put a million euros on the fact that she, in her person life, is all for same sex marriage and would love to see it happen.

 

But it can't. Why? Well, there is the fact that New South Wales, by far the most influential state in the country, has a huge private economic sector that is almost entirely run by right wing devout Catholics. Gillard can't move on the issue. For many issues, the country run itself. Sure, Gillard is able to do little things here and there. But she lacks the power to change the definition of marriage and she certainly lacks the will. There are people behind her that will not allow it. She's a puppet. I'm not saying that in a bad way - I'm saying that in a realistic way. That's what politics is these days. You can say the same for Obama, by the way.

 

Notice how Obama was Mr Progressive and Mr Change before he was President, but after being elected he seemed far more like Bush than we all thought? Why did that happen? Same reasons. The country runs itself. There are things at stake that are more important that the person views of the face in charge. Just look at how the US are so biased towards Israel. It is clear Obama, like all sane minded people, realises the fact that the Israeli governance is full of evil bastards - but he can't do anything about it because the US needs Israel as an ally in the area. If he where to impose sanctions on Israel and say "stop being douchebags!" he'd be either kicked out of office or be "told" to "retire" before he got the chance.

 

I was lucky enough to live in Australia for two months and for the most part - it's an amazing country. It's that good of a country that it makes France look sub par in nearly every way.

 

However, I couldn't help but notice the lag between the generations that exists there. The youth seem to be quite progressive, yet the baby boomers who represent them are cynical, fun hating bastards. The media was appalling too. There isn't a chance in hell that a show such as A Current Affair would let alone air in France - let alone become one of the most popular programs in the country.

But it can't. Why? Well, there is the fact that New South Wales, by far the most influential state in the country, has a huge private economic sector that is almost entirely run by right wing devout Catholics. Gillard can't move on the issue.

 

I hear this "he's powerless to act!" line a lot here in America, in reference to Mr Obama.

 

It's nonsense.

 

Presidents and prime ministers have the power to lead the country and get things done. Just a cursory glance at history shows this. For instance, Julia Gillard got the idiotic "carbon tax" passed even though it was unpopular both in her own party and overall - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/8644592/Julia-Gillards-popularity-slumps-amid-carbon-tax-plans.html

 

Obama invaded Libya and expanded the war in Afghanistan even though most Americans were against these things.

 

The corporate and bank bailouts occurred in the US even though over 80% of Americans were solidly against them, and were screaming for them to not go through.

 

If you think presidents and prime ministers are too weak to accomplish big things, you're being fooled by statist propaganda. Because if anything, presidents and politicians have way TOO MUCH power.

I hear this "he's powerless to act!" line a lot here in America, in reference to Mr Obama.

 

It's nonsense.

 

No, it's not.

 

Presidents and prime ministers have the power to lead the country and get things done.

 

In theory yes. In actuality, no they don't. The Israel example I used earlier is very poignant here. Obama is powerless to scorn Israel and impose sanctions on them. Absolutely powerless. Israel act like bullies and the USA give them the resources and money to do it. They are a huge trade partner and a strong ally in one of the most anti-US areas on Earth. Israel and the USA HAVE to be friends, and a president trying to break up that agreement would get a thorough talking to and wouldn't hold office for a second longer.

 

For instance, Julia Gillard got the idiotic "carbon tax"

 

Your using opinion here. I'm less likely to take your posts seriously when you use weasel words.

 

passed even though it was unpopular both in her own party and overall

 

Yet you have ignorned the positive political praise Australia has gained from the United Nations and the EU, and the several deals they are in process of making due to the decision. The fact the public didn't want it means nothing. The public didn't want Australia to go into Iraq either - or Afghanistan - and look what happened.

 

There are things at work that matter more. Strengthening relationships with the USA for reasons that don't concern Australia matters more than Australian lives to the government. This is clear. It didn't matter who was in power in 2001 and 2003, Australia was going to war with the USA. Just like they did in the 60s - for an equally as strange reason.

 

A Prime Minister who threatens to break the ANZUS treaty and not follow the USA into a war would be thrown out immediately.

 

Obama invaded Libya.

 

No he didn't. The USA was part of a join strike force team commanded by the French and the United Nations that strove to incapacitate Qaddafi's regime. The USA itself did not act independently at all. France played a far greater role.

 

and expanded the war in Afghanistan even though most Americans were against these things.

 

I suggest you read my post again. You're misinterpreted me. I actually mentioned that public opinion means very little most of the time. What matters is the inner workings going on in the pentagon and on wall street.

 

It proves my point that before he was elected, Obama was talking about bringing the troops home in Afghanistan. He gets elected, and sends 15,000 more there almost instantly. And you can't realise what has happened here? It's very clear that countries run themselves and some decisions HAVE to happen. The President's personal view is irrelevant. I'm confident that Obama is against the war. I'm also confident that Gillard is for same sex marriage. Both can't really do much though.

 

The corporate and bank bailouts occurred in the US even though over 80% of Americans were solidly against them, and were screaming for them to not go through.

 

Once again, public opinion doesn't mean anything. Because you didn't read my post, I'll just paste what I said here:

 

"First of all, a lot of us need to realise that politics isn't as simple as "this person is in power so they make decisions". Nor is it as simple as "the majority of people want this to happen so it has to happen".

 

 

If you think presidents and prime ministers are too weak to accomplish big things, you're being fooled by statist propaganda.

 

Once again, this just makes me not want to discuss with you. Don't put words in my mouth - I never said that. Plenty of heads of state accomplish huge, amazing things. I gave examples of what Gillard has already done. Obama has accomplished some already too.

 

What I said is that there are some things that public opinion and public perception don't matter as much as reality. If Gillard legalises gay marriage, she has to deal with the Australian equivalent of Wall Street campaigning to get her out of parliament. She has to deal with the Australian equivalent of Wall Street pumping millions of dollars into the Liberal Party and a huge smeer campaign that would, without a doubt, ruin Labor's credibility for the next five years.

 

In Australia, with that much pressure from people with that much money, the Governor General can ask the PM to leave. That's what Gillard would be risking.

 

Besides, the Australian people are largely very laid back about the whole thing. They know that not allowing gay marriage for a few more years won't do anything and won't lead to anything so they don't really care.

Obama is powerless to scorn Israel and impose sanctions on them. Absolutely powerless. Israel act like bullies and the USA give them the resources and money to do it. They are a huge trade partner and a strong ally in one of the most anti-US areas on Earth. Israel and the USA HAVE to be friends, and a president trying to break up that agreement would get a thorough talking to and wouldn't hold office for a second longer.

 

I encourage you to research alternative views on Israel. Israel and the US can continue to be friends, but the US doesn't have to feed Israel billions of dollars a year. The US doesn't need 900 overseas military bases. Obama doesn't need to expand the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Uganda, Pakistan, Yemen, yadda yadda yadda.

 

There is no physical force that's keeping him from ending the disastrous and unpopular "War on Drugs". There's nothing keeping him from pardoning hundreds of thousands of fathers who were convicted of non-violent drug-related offenses, so they can be home for Christmas with their families. There's nothing keeping him from cutting spending, which would be a supremely popular move for any president to do right now. There was nothing keeping him from NOT bailing out the corporations and banks. Nothing at all.

 

It's funny how your "reality vs popular opinion" theory only works when it exonerates your favorite politicians, and not when it indicts them.

 

You're basically admitting that Ms Gillard thinks her re-election is more important than the right of millions of gay Aussie couples to be married.

Oh boy... :escaping2:

I encourage you to research alternative views on Israel. Israel and the US can continue to be friends, but the US doesn't have to feed Israel billions of dollars a year. The US doesn't need 900 overseas military bases. Obama doesn't need to expand the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Uganda, Pakistan, Yemen, yadda yadda yadda..

 

Yes, he did. Also, can you stop acting like the USA have aggravated or have even done anything remotely akin to expansionism in Libya? You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Just so you know - Libya was a UN mission. The USA played a backseat role. France and several other nations did far more than they did. The US simply worked in a UN mission. Like they normally do.

 

There is no physical force that's keeping him from ending the disastrous and unpopular "War on Drugs".

 

Uh, yes there is actually. It's called the CCA and the hundreds of other branching organisations that make profit from it.

 

You obviously don't know about it, so I'll fill you in.

 

The CCA and their partners are responsible for the wholesale privatization of the US prison system. Literally every prisoner they get makes them money, which in turn makes the US government billions of dollars. The CCA lobby for political candidates in the USA, and have spent over 2,000,000 US dollars doing so. They virtually put cash straight into the White House's pocket.

 

In a report the CCA published to the US government this year, it said this:

 

.... For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them

 

So yeah, it's either drop the war on drugs or cost your countries trillions of dollars in reworking the entire prison system after the CCA cleans you out for all your worth.

 

And you think this is a real choice Obama has to make?

 

And you also think that pissing off one of the most powerful corporations with millions of sectors and sibling corporations wouldn't do anything? You can't see how the democrats wouldn't be fucked for the next ten years because of that?

 

Can you really not see that? You still wanna act like this is all just some "choice" where he can either do one thing or the other?

 

If so, I'm not interested in talking to you. If you are still claiming that Obama can just roll in and say "STOP TEH WAR ON DR_GZ" and everything will be fine then you're being willfully ignorant. You're objectively wrong. This has nothing to do with opinion. It's about influence and hard cold cash.

 

 

There's nothing keeping him from pardoning hundreds of thousands of fathers who were convicted of non-violent drug-related offenses, so they can be home for Christmas with their families.

 

There is nothing keeping him from doing that? Sure, I guess you're right if you see a few trillion dollars and the entire countries law enforcement system as "nothing".

 

Dunce.

 

You're basically admitting that Ms Gillard thinks her re-election is more important than the right of millions of gay Aussie couples to be married.

 

Err yes, yes, of course she thinks that. 100% she thinks that. There is not one part of my mind that doubts for a second that she thinks that.

 

Especially when it would also result in her party never holding office for ten years and especially when it would result in Tony Abbott coming into power and undoing the law straight off the bat.

 

So yeah, of course she thinks that.

 

You're arguing from an objectively wrong position here buddy. Julia Gillard, before she took office, was a huge human rights activist and lobbied numerous times for greater recognition and rights towards same sex partners when Howard was in power. She gets in power, and changes her tune. Similiar things happened to Obama about foreign policy. And you can't see the pattern here?

 

It is blatantly clear that a lot of the "decisions" leaders of states make aren't "decisions" at all. Obama stopping the war on drugs isn't a 50/50 "decision". You have no idea about the amount of power and the amount of influence that is looking over every decision he makes. If they pull the plug, he drowns. So does the county.

 

These little decisions you view so simply actually carry mammoth amounts of repercussion that you clearly have no understanding of. Politics isn't just about someone making decisions because of their personal feelings. It's also about making sure the financial giants that make sure the gears of your country keep turning are happy. You kick them out, and the WHOLE country suffers. As evil and as twisted as corporations like the CCA or Blackwater are - they are fucking powerful and they control what politicians do. Hell, they finance a lot of their operations.

Also, can you stop acting like the USA have aggravated or have even done anything remotely akin to expansionism in Libya? You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Just so you know - Libya was a UN mission. The USA played a backseat role. France and several other nations did far more than they did. The US simply worked in a UN mission. Like they normally do.

 

Barack Obama started an unconstitutional and unpopular war with a sovereign nation called Libya.

 

You can dress this up all you want, but it doesn't change this simple fact.

 

So yeah, it's either drop the war on drugs or cost your countries trillions of dollars in reworking the entire prison system after the CCA cleans you out for all your worth.

 

And you think this is a real choice Obama has to make?

 

Yes, I do.

 

What you're telling me is that Obama's sympathies lie with the Judges, Police, Prison guards, Lawyers, etc. rather than the American people. If that's the case, he is a despicable, cruel person.

 

If so, I'm not interested in talking to you. If you are still claiming that Obama can just roll in and say "STOP TEH WAR ON DR_GZ" and everything will be fine then you're being willfully ignorant. You're objectively wrong. This has nothing to do with opinion. It's about influence and hard cold cash.

 

Well then I guess you won't be talking to me anymore.

 

Yes, Obama can say that. He can issue an executive order and promise to veto all government spending on it. He can order his attorney general, Eric Holder, to cease prosecution of drug "crimes". He can rally the American public around this incredibly popular position, and explain to them that it would save taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

 

Stop making excuses for Obama.

 

There is nothing keeping him from doing that? Sure, I guess you're right if you see a few trillion dollars and the entire countries law enforcement system as "nothing".

 

Dunce.

 

Let's try to refrain from name-calling here.

 

I see most law enforcement activities as LESS than "nothing". I see them as counterproductive, a net-drag on the economy and the quality of life for the average American. And there is a LOT of evidence to back my position.

 

Err yes, yes, of course she thinks that. 100% she thinks that. There is not one part of my mind that doubts for a second that she thinks that.

 

Especially when it would also result in her party never holding office for ten years and especially when it would result in Tony Abbott coming into power and undoing the law straight off the bat.

 

So yeah, of course she thinks that.

 

Yeah, I'm sure voters will really feel the burn when gay marriage is legalized. Gosh, she could raise taxes on CARBON of all things, but if she legalizes gay marriage... her descendants will be spat upon for generations. Right.

 

Party over principle, every time.

 

You're arguing from an objectively wrong position here buddy. Julia Gillard, before she took office, was a huge human rights activist and lobbied numerous times for greater recognition and rights towards same sex partners when Howard was in power. She gets in power, and changes her tune. Similiar things happened to Obama about foreign policy. And you can't see the pattern here?

 

Yes I can. They're using "wedge issues" to get elected, and then acting like typical statists once they've got power.

 

It is blatantly clear that a lot of the "decisions" leaders of states make aren't "decisions" at all. Obama stopping the war on drugs isn't a 50/50 "decision". You have no idea about the amount of power and the amount of influence that is looking over every decision he makes. If they pull the plug, he drowns. So does the county.

 

That sounds scary, but I don't see any evidence for it. In fact, I think the country would be much better off economically without the War on Drugs.

 

Many presidents in the past have done things that are strikingly out-of-line with popular opinion. One president even started a war which resulted in the deaths of nearly 700,000 Americans! Just to hold the "union" together. Another president slaughtered thousands of cattle and burned fields of wheat, just to hold up the price of farm goods (Roosevelt). He also issued an executive order to confiscate all Americans' gold.

 

So no, presidents have A LOT more power than you give them credit for.

 

It's also about making sure the financial giants that make sure the gears of your country keep turning are happy. You kick them out, and the WHOLE country suffers. As evil and as twisted as corporations like the CCA or Blackwater are - they are fucking powerful and they control what politicians do. Hell, they finance a lot of their operations.

 

Heh. Right. Those damn corporations. If only they didn't have so much power! If only the government were STRONGER. Maybe then we'd be more free, happier, etc.

 

Nevermind the fact that governments have the power to tax, print money, imprison anyone they want, and even CREATE the legal structures corporations exist through. Nevermind the fact that CCA and Blackwater couldn't even exist without government funneling taxpayer money to them.

 

In summary: I think you've fallen for the myth of "political capital".

I'm not going to respond to the bulk of what you've said because you've managed to misinterpret nearly everything I've said.

 

But I will ask you to stop assuming I'm a huge Obama fan. I'm not at all and never have been. I dislike his politics immensely.