Australians Say ‘Yes’ to Same-Sex Marriage, Clearing Path for Legalization

“This is our proudest moment as gay and lesbian Australians,” said Chris Lewis, 60, an artist from Sydney, who waved a large rainbow flag he bought in San Francisco about 30 years ago. “Finally I can be proud of my country.”

But many Australians said it was also late in coming.

Annika Lowry, 42, who brought her 4-year-old daughter to the celebration, said the vote revealed a widening gap between Australia’s political class and voters who have been demanding same-sex marriage legislation for years.

“It was not just about us,” she said. “It’s for our kids, so that they know equality is important.”

Alex Greenwich, a state lawmaker from New South Wales and the co-chairman of Australian Marriage Equality, an advocacy group, said the vote “shows that Australians have truly come together in support of their gay and lesbian mates and have said that everybody should be able to have the freedom to marry.”

In calling for the national survey, Mr. Turnbull sought public backing for a shift in social policy that was opposed by many members of his center-right Liberal Party.

Mr. Turnbull voted yes, and he urged other Australians to do so as a matter of fairness, seeking to blunt opposition from far-right members of his party.

Lucy and I are voting YES because it’s fair. Make sure you have your say too by returning your survey form. pic.twitter.com/6xhaDYC7pQ

—
Malcolm Turnbull (@TurnbullMalcolm)
Sept. 23, 2017

“My commitment was to give every Australian their say,” Mr. Turnbull said after the results were announced. “That has been done, they have spoken.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

He added: “Now it is up to us, here in the Parliament of Australia, to get on with it — to get on with the job the Australian people have tasked us to do, and get this done, this year, before Christmas.”

Dean Smith, a federal senator from the Liberal Party, who is gay, said that he would immediately introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage. He said on Tuesday that he believed he had the votes to pass the legislation in the Senate and send it to Parliament’s lower house for approval.

Lyle Shelton, a Christian lobbyist who was the “no” campaign’s most outspoken advocate, said he would begrudgingly “accept the democratic decision.”

“Millions of Australians will always believe the truth about marriage, that it’s between one man and one woman,” Mr. Shelton said. “It could take years, if not decades, to win that back.”

The record of subjecting same-sex marriage to a public vote remains mixed.

In 2015, Ireland was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage by referendum, but the same year, voters in Slovenia rejected a law legalizing such unions.

Photo

In the United States, numerous states outlawed same-sex marriage in referendums; in 2012, Maine, Maryland and Washington became the first states to legalize such unions by referendum. The United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage across the nation in 2015.

The survey in Australia was controversial, not only because it placed such a thorny issue at the whims of direct democracy but also because of its cost.

As the deadline approached for citizens to mail in their ballots, passions were inflamed by heartfelt pleas and vitriolic attacks.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Many supporters of same-sex marriage opposed the survey, saying that human rights should not be a matter for an up-or-down vote and urging Parliament to decide the matter.

Estimates put the cost of the survey around 122 million Australian dollars, or $97 million. The poll was not a legally required step for changing the law.

Activists in September challenged the survey’s legality, arguing that it was an unconstitutional use of tax money, but Australia’s High Court allowed the poll to proceed. In the end, the response rate was higher than supporters of same-sex marriage anticipated, showing both frustration with parliamentary inaction and the extent to which mainstream opinion has shifted in support of sexual minorities.

Although legalization is not guaranteed, the results announced on Wednesday make the country’s path to same-sex marriage much clearer.

Mr. Greenwich said the outcome delivered “an unequivocal mandate for Parliament to legislate for this bill as soon as possible for a fair bill this year.”

Focus has already shifted to that bill, and what form it will take.

“After a cost of 122 million, and over two months of campaigning and years of public discussion, it makes no sense to delay a parliamentary debate,” Mr. Smith, the Liberal senator, said in an interview. “Australians upheld their end of the bargain by voting en masse. Now it’s time for Parliament to uphold its end of the same deal.”

Mr. Smith’s bill provides for some religious protections and allows members of the clergy to refuse to solemnize marriages that conflict with their beliefs.

“That bill is obviously manifestly inadequate,” said Mr. Shelton, the opponent of same-sex marriage, who added that it focused on wedding ceremonies. “The ‘yes’ side should make good on its promise that no one else’s freedoms would be affected. They’ve maintained this all along. They’ve said that our concerns about freedom of speech and freedom of religion are red herrings.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Shelton said Mr. Smith’s bill would affect Muslim and Christian schools that wish to teach that marriage is between one man and one woman. “We’re worried about bakers and florists being taken to court, as has occurred in the United States,” he added.

An alternative bill, proposed by another Liberal Party senator, James Paterson, has more robust religious protections. His bill would allow service providers like bakers and photographers to refuse service to same-sex couples, without facing legal action. His bill would provide additional anti-discrimination protections for religious people and businesses opposed to gay marriage. Reflecting the national debate that often centered on the well-being of children, Mr. Paterson’s bill would allow parents the right to take their children out of classes that “conflict with their values.”

However, within hours of the survey’s result being revealed, Mr. Paterson took to Facebook to announce that he would be working on Mr. Smith’s bill.

“It is clear the majority of senators believe my colleague Senator Dean Smith’s bill is where we should start,” Mr. Paterson wrote.

In the dwindling days of the campaign — with “yes” looking more and more likely to prevail — many conservatives on the opposing side pushed for Mr. Paterson’s bill, saying that it provided the best protections for free speech and religion. But Mr. Turnbull said he did not believe Mr. Paterson’s bill could pass Parliament. “I don’t believe Australians would welcome, and certainly the government would not countenance, making legal discrimination that is illegal, that is unlawful, today.”

At least seven members of Australia’s Parliament have publicly committed to voting against any bill to legalize same-sex marriage, according to a report from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Most lawmakers, however, said they would support such a bill.

“There’s no denying that this has been tough for many people. This has been a campaign which has gone on for more than 10 years,” said Mr. Greenwich, the same-sex marriage advocate. “This result is a reflection of the leadership that’s been shown by everyday Australians during this campaign. It shows that Australians truly did have the opportunity to shape our nation as a fairer and more equal place.”

Continue reading the main story

Share and Enjoy

Sessions denies lying to Congress about Russia contacts

Attorney General Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsCurtis wins Chaffetz’s former Utah House seat Overnight Cybersecurity: What we learned from Carter Page’s House Intel testimony | House to mark up foreign intel reform law | FBI can’t access Texas shooter’s phone | Sessions to testify at hearing amid Russia scrutiny FBI can’t unlock Texas shooter’s phone MORE on Tuesday denied that he lied under oath about contacts with Russia even as he acknowledged his interactions with a low-level Trump campaign adviser who offered to broker a meeting with Moscow.

During six hours of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Sessions faced repeated questions about a meeting that included the former Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos, who is now cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

Session acknowledged that he participated in the meeting with Papadopoulos and other Trump campaign officials last year. 

“I do now recall the March 2016 meeting at Trump Hotel that Mr. Papadopoulos attended, but I have no clear recollection of the details of what he said during that meeting,” Sessions said. “After reading his account, and to the best of my recollection, I believe that I wanted to make clear to him that he was not authorized to represent the campaign with the Russian government.” 

Court documents unsealed by Mueller at the end of October revealed that Papadopoulos, a volunteer foreign policy adviser, pleaded guilty in October to lying to FBI agents about his contacts with Russia-connected individuals during the campaign. 

Documents released by Mueller showed that Papadopoulos sought for several months to set up a meeting between the Trump campaign and Moscow, helped by an intermediary identified in the indictment as a professor in London. 

Sessions walked a fine line in his testimony, simultaneously insisting that his recollection of a meeting with Papadopoulos was foggy while insisting that he “pushed back” on any possible meeting with Russia.

The attorney general also refused to challenge former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page’s account of a June 2016 conversation during which he says he informed Sessions of an impending trip to Moscow. At the same time, Sessions insisted he did not recall the interaction, which Page recounted to House Intelligence Committee members earlier this month.

The developments fueled charges from Democrats that Sessions lied under oath during his confirmation hearing when he said he had no knowledge of contacts between Trump campaign associates and Russia.

“That is exactly the opposite answer you gave under oath to the U.S. Senate,” said Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.). “Either you’re lying to the U.S. Senate, or you’re lying to the U.S. House of Representatives.” 

Sessions was defiant.

“My story has never changed,” Sessions said. “I have always told the truth.” 

Tuesday’s testimony is likely to generate further scrutiny of the attorney general.

In January, Sessions told the Senate Judiciary Committee he was unaware of interactions between Trump campaign surrogates and Russian government “intermediaries” and that he himself “did not have communications with the Russians.” 

Later, it surfaced that Sessions met twice with Russian ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak — once at the Republican National Convention in July 2016 and again in his Senate office in September. Sessions is also alleged to have met with Kislyak a third time in April 2016 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

The developments resulted in Sessions recusing himself from all Russia-related investigations, including the one that Mueller is now conducting as special counsel.

On Tuesday, Sessions continued to defend his statements during his confirmation hearing as truthful, explaining that he was specifically addressing a news report cited by Sen. Al FrankenAlan (Al) Stuart FrankenOvernight Tech: Senate panel subpoenaed ex-Yahoo chief | Twitter gives all users 280 characters | FBI can’t access Texas shooter’s phone | EU wants tax answers from Apple Week ahead: DHS nominee heads before Senate | Ex-Yahoo chief to testify on hack | Senators dig into election security Feinstein: Sessions should re-testify on Russia meetings MORE (D-Minn.) about continuing contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. 

“My focus was on responding to the concern that I, as a surrogate, was participating in a continuing series of meetings with intermediaries for the Russian government,” Sessions said. “I certainly didn’t mean I had never met a Russian in the history of my life.”

“My response was, according to the way I heard the question, as honest as I could give it at the time,” Sessions said later. 

Democrats said Sessions was simply shifting his story.

“It’s difficult to take your assurances under oath when you seem to change your testimony each time new evidence emerges,” said Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalFemale Dem lawmaker posts video of GOP chairman ‘mansplaining’ bill to her Dem introduces measures calling for Trump to fire staff who have backed white supremacists MORE (D-Wash.).

Republicans on the committee at times tried to deflect from the Russia questioning by pressing Sessions on the possibility of appointing a second special counsel to investigate matters related to Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonGOP rushes to cut ties to Moore Papadopoulos was in regular contact with Stephen Miller, helped edit Trump speech: report Bannon jokes Clinton got her ‘ass kicked’ in 2016 election MORE.  

The hearing took place just weeks after the special counsel’s office revealed Papadopoulos’s guilty plea, as well as a slew of financial-related charges against former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Robert Gates.

Trump and his associates have described Papadopoulos role in the campaign as minimal. 

Sessions said Tuesday that he has not consulted with Mueller or anyone at the FBI about his interactions with Papadopoulos. 

Share and Enjoy