Could Australia Have Marriage Equality By Mardi Gras / Feb 28th?



Marriage Equality:  It's only fair. LGBTI Aussies are doing our jobs across the country. Now it’s time for politicians to do theirs. Call for a parliamentary vote today at:


That's the quick and simple message being pushed this month by Australian Marriage Equality with the hopes of finalizing same-sex marriage as an equal right by the end of month, possibly making the Mardi Gras celebration on February 28th extra joyous.  If it were only that easy.

Labor party members are making a grand push to urge MPs that support marriage equality to gather and make a political move before the end of February.  It is believed that Liberal party MPs are considering pushing for a free vote in parliament and they will be looking for Labor supporters.

Several sources say that two thirds of Austrlians support marriage equality, which should make any vote a positive one, and there are others that are becoming sick over the fight and just want it over with, which would also result in passing same-sex marriage and moving on. 

Featuring national television commercials, billboards, and digital advertising, a new national campaign started yesterday pushing for a timely answer on marriage equality.  It's designed to pressure the government to allow MPs a free vote on the issue of same-sex marriage.


Australian Marriage Equality’s national spokeswoman, Shirleene Robinson, said the campaign reminded MPs that Australia had made up its mind and the issue was not going away.

“Two-thirds of Australians as well as a majority of politicians want every Australian to be able to marry the person they love,” she said.

“Marriage equality will not change anything for the vast majority of Australians but will make a profound difference to the status and dignity of many.


Many believe that if MPs and senators were able to openly vote on marriage equality the subject would be over, with a resounding yes. Others are holding onto the promise made by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull that the issue of marriage equality will be settled by a plebiscite and not a simple vote im parliament.  Isn't it time to move on from promises that are holding back the nation?

In which Rosianna shares some tips for how to contact your representatives, whether that's a senator, MP, congressperson, a phone call, email, or even fax. Subscribe:…

This is not the first time there has been a widespread media push for Australian Marriage Equality.  Back in November of 2011, this tear inspiring video was released stating "It's Time | Marriage Equality | GetUp! Australia"



So how do you get a hold of the right person to try and make a difference?

I found this informative video from Rosianna Halse Rojas shares some tips for how to contact your representatives, whether that's a senator, MP, congress person, and it it's by a phone call, email, or even fax.  Rosianna tells us what to include in a correspondence and even places a real phone call to her representative while we watch.



For those from the US, UK, and Canada and are looking for helpful web pages, head over to her YouTube post on this topic.  She also includes links for Australia on that page, but I've listed those below, since we are focusing on the land down under.

Will Mardi Gras be gayer than ever this year?  Well of course it will be, but it would be nice if we could celebrate Marriage Equality for Australians, too.

AUSTRALIA (Thanks The Other!)
– Find out who your respective local, state and federal representatives are (this website is in its 18th year of existence, run by the social enterprise Our Community):…
– ENROL TO VOTE (once you turn 16, you can enrol, so as soon as you turn 18 you can vote:. Just because you are underage doesn't mean your voice isn't important):
– Find information about recent debates in the senate and house of representatives, bills, committees and information on representatives (use the tabs at the top to look at different information). It's a non-partisan website run by volunteers:
– How does Australian Government Work?
– Refugee Council of Australia
– Where your MP Stands on Marriage Equality [Australian Marriage Equality] http://www.australianmarriageequality…



1 thought on “Could Australia Have Marriage Equality By Mardi Gras / Feb 28th?”

  1. There won’t be a conscience

    There won't be a conscience vote in parliament because the people voted for a plebiscite at the last federal election that has now been blocked by the Senate….and so the people don't want any other way of legalizing same sex marriage this term of parliament. For the left-wing activists to try a push through a conscience vote (which, by the way, the plebiscite is a conscience vote of the electorate so they would have got their conscience vote by having a plebiscite) is totally irrelevant and contrary to what the people want – the people don't like elitist activists forcing their arrogance and skewed version of reality on the rest of us. There is a high likelihood that the Coalition government will get re-elected as the right-wing voters stand up against the Marxist activists, thereby stopping homosexual marriage from ever happening in Australia. The homosexual activists are dead scared of a NO vote if the people ever have a say about legalizing SSM which is why they doggedly opposed a plebiscite.

    Marriage has always be equally available for everyone to use within it's legal provisions and restrictions….it's just that homosexuals don't like the provisions and restrictions (ie. in particular, they don't like the restriction that marriage is "solely between a man and a woman") and so they want to remove this restriction and add the provisions to include "same sex" couples. This is not anything to do with "equality" because the Marriage Laws have always applied equally to everyone. Same sex marriage is rather redefining marriage to include same sex couples. If you look at "marriage equality" in the way that you are saying it, then the word "marriage" should be allowed equally to any person/people who are "in love" with anyone/anything – in other words, your "marriage equality" should remove ALL provisions and ALL restrictions to marriage otherwise the pro-SSM people themrselves are being unequal in not allowing other people to marry their way because they are "in love" (more accurately, "in lust").. Of course, this is not what marriage means because through-out history, marriage has always been about biological parenthood. The fact that you need to say "same sex marriage" or "marriage equality" to describe homosexuals getting married instead of just using the word "marriage" by itself proves this point – people don't assume that homosexuals are included in "marriage" and so you have to say "same sex marriage" or "marriage equality" to include homosexuals.. Adding extra words to "marriage" also adds extra implications like children being raised without a father or a mother (ie. another "stolen generation"?), sexualised grooming of our young people and extra costs on society to tackle health issues specifically related to homosexuality.  Same sex couples weren't included in the definition of marriage (applied equally to everyone) because no one (including homosexuals) assumed marriage was meant to be anything other than heterosexual. It wasn't until very recently with the push to make homosexuality acceptable that suddenly homosexuals wanted to be "married". There is no "marriage equality" in doing so (because marriage has ALWAYS been applied equally to everyone), nor is it a "basic right" because homosexuals cannot do heterosexual marriage – their biology won't let them. Hence, allowing homosexuals to "marry" is  simply a nice sounding way to make homosexuality look acceptable and the word "marriage" becomes a meaningless word that departs from the millennia-old concept of parenthood into a completely new concept of self-gratifying love/lust/sexual attraction…..never before in the history of mankind has the word "marriage" been used this way.

    In Australia, before a definition clause was added to the Marriage Act in 2004, the Marriage Act (since it's inception in 1961) simply stated "two people" can get married – there was no gender distinction. So guess how many homosexuals availed themselves to legal marriage under the wording of the Marriage Act between 1961-2004?….ANSWER: none….and before the Marriage Act became law, there were marriages conducted at a social level without government recognition, and guess how many homosexual marriages occurred from 1788 (colonization) to 1961?….ANSWER: none…..and before that, how many aboriginal homosexual marriages occurred?….ANSWER: none.

    The "marriage equality" being pushed by the same sex marriage proponents denies other people the right to marry who "love" their family members, or under age children, or non-human animals/things/robots, or even people who "love" themselves and want to express this by "marrying" themselves – the homosexual lobbyists refuse all these people so-called "marriage equality". The "marriage equality" they preach is solely an emotive propaganda slogan and nothing more.  Even their "love is love" slogan is more accurately "lust is lust".

    Gay marriage then gargantuan divorce cost to follow[collateral traumatised kids from rent-a-womb inc]….The real problem is that it transforms marriage from being a social institution that protects children and families, to be a lust-driven trinket shared between sex partners. Children are simply a luxury accessary to their confected lifestyle. The romantic version of marriage hollows out the institution and makes it worthless.

    If homosexuals really wanted to keep "everyone's noses out of everyone else's bedrooms and private lives", then they wouldn't be asking parliament (a very public forum) to approve their bedroom conduct in the form of fake legal "marriage" or parading their sexuality in a public mardi-gras – they bare all for people to see and then claim that they want privacy. The public don't want their decandant conduct made public and would happily be left alone….but no, the homosexual activists keep thrusting it in our faces. Plus, redefining the word "marriage" affects EVERYONE who uses the word because EVERYONE would no longer be meaning the same thing as what they were meaning before the redefinition occurred – this is what happens when any word is redefined. The "marriage" that pro-SSM activists are proposing is totally different to the existing marriage and if they get the way, marriage would be so worthless that it shouldn't exist anymore. I, for one, think real marriage is worth defending before it is trashed beyond recognition.

Leave a Comment