When will Germany and Australia legalize gay marriage?

[Blue3]

Ironically, the major developed countries that haven't legalized gay marriage yet are the old Axis powers: Germany, Japan, and Italy. And Australia, for whatever reason.

Italy probably won't legalize SSM for a while, for religious reasons.
Japan and Asian culture in general doesn't seem to have really registered it yet as a social issue.
But what about Germany? When will it legalize same-sex marriage? Why hasn't it yet?

And when will Australia?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

In order

Germany when Merkel leaves power (she obviously doesn't care, but she saw the kerfluffle in France and the UK, and she has the Bavarians to keep happy.

Austria, probably a while seeing as the FPO and OvP will probably be in too many governments to leave power. Heck Switzerland will probably legalise it before the Austrians at this rate lol.

Italy wants to, but the Democrats are very divided in the issue. Funny news: berlusconi apparently supports gay marriage now.

Taiwan and Nepal will be the first Asians to legalise it. I don't see the LDP moving on it in Japan (although Abe's wife supports it).

Australia, when the ALP go back into power or following some useless plebiscite.

[Vega]

Turnbull supports gay marriage, or at least an open vote on it, right? Australia will probably be the first domino to fall.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

He doesn't want to ruffle feathers though. Remember a lot of LNP members still think he's a prick.

[politicus]

Austria, probably a while seeing as the FPO and OvP will probably be in too many governments to leave power. Heck Switzerland will probably legalise it before the Austrians at this rate lol.

Despite the 2013 referendum I could see Croatia going before Austria, at least they have a centre-left that is committed to fighting for Social Liberal causes.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I agree politicus, the Croatian left is one of the few Eastern European lefts that seen like good eggs.

Actually I'd wager that Switzerland would pass gay marriage via referendum by a surprisingly healthy margin. Yes I know it's Switzerland, but I think opinions in Western Europe have changed so dramatically I imagine even in the most conservative of countries it would grab a majority.

[politicus]

I agree politicus, the Croatian left is one of the few Eastern European lefts that seen like good eggs.

Actually I'd wager that Switzerland would pass gay marriage via referendum by a surprisingly healthy margin. Yes I know it's Switzerland, but I think opinions in Western Europe have changed so dramatically I imagine even in the most conservative of countries it would grab a majority.

There were two polls conducted in February. One showing 62% of women and 46% of men in favour (with a straight Yes/No question) and one with 71% favourable or somewhat favourable towards gay marriage.
It seems the gay community thinks a referendum is too costly and demanding. They prefer  parliament to agree on a constitutional amendment to grant legal protection for all couples, independent of their sexual identity. The Green Liberals have gotten it through committee in the National Council and will submit the proposal to the Council of States in November. So the process is already under way. I guess it could happen in 2016. You need a majority in both houses incl. a majority of cantons in the Council of States.

There are 46 councillors. 40 from 20 full cantons and 6 from 6 half cantons (Obwalden, Nidwalden, Basel-Stadt, Basel-Landschaft, Appenzell Ausserrhoden and Appenzell Innerrhoden), so 24 councillors representing 14 cantons will be required. So the small Conservative cantons will be the problen.

(though I might be wrong about the details)

[Cranberry]

Austria, probably a while seeing as the FPO and OvP will probably be in too many governments to leave power. Heck Switzerland will probably legalise it before the Austrians at this rate lol.

Despite the 2013 referendum I could see Croatia going before Austria, at least they have a centre-left that is committed to fighting for Social Liberal causes.

I can see a lot of countries legalising SSMs before Austria; and it should be very clear that Austria will definitely not be faster then Germany on this issue - we never do anything unless the Germans do it before. Not wanting to go full Tender there, but our political establishment quite suck at this issue.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I wonder whether the ECHR could start forcing country's hands on the issue? I'll admit I don't know much about the exact powers of that court...

[politicus]

This (somewhat distorted..) map is pretty illustrative. You got West/North with gay marriage (with some oddities like NI and the Faroes), Central with civil unions (+Estonia, which is an extension of the Nordic area). And then Italy and Eastern Europe with neither (Poland and (Northern) Slovakia being quite Eastern on this).

Estonia, Slovenia and Switzerland will go before both Austria and Germany; Czech Republic and Croatia before Austria as well.  Maybe even Latvia, but not Hungary. No idea about Italy and NI - Italian politics is too chaotic to predict and NI is, well, NI.

Malta is a joker because they have civil unions with 100% identical rights to marriage incl. adoption rights -so they may not bother to pass the last hurdle for a decade or so, given that it is purely symbolic.

Everything else later.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Does anyone remember when the PM of Albania randomly came out in favour of gay marriage completely unprompted? That was odd.

[Cranberry]

I wonder whether the ECHR could start forcing country's hands on the issue? I'll admit I don't know much about the exact powers of that court...

At this point, I'm pretty much hoping for some kind of action from the ECHR. I don't have a clue either if that's possible, though.

[Barnes]

Just a little more explanation on Australia.

The Labor Party has officially supported SSM but promised a conscience vote to its members since the 2011 federal party conference.  At the last conference this July, that position was reaffirmed with the added proviso that the position will become a binding vote to support SSM in two parliaments' time.

The Coalition is, of course, officially opposed; the Liberals are pretty severely divided on the topic, and all put one National MP opposes it.  This past August Tony Abbott convened a formal joint party room meeting of the Liberals and the Nationals to address the issue.  As you can imagine, this move rightly outraged the SSM supporting Liberals and many accused the former PM of "branch stacking" a meeting on Liberal Party policy.  This bad blood helped contribute to Abbott's ousting this week.

From that meeting, the Coalition retained its offical whip against SSM but promised to hold either a plebiscite or a referendum on the matter after the next federal election, which is schedule for late 2016.  

The distinction between a referendum and a plebiscite is very important.  In Australia, a referendum is a formal constitutional mechanism whereby the people vote on a proposed amendment to the Constitution.  The Australian Constitution specifically grants the federal government the sole power to legislate on the subject of marriage, and any such referendum would be superfluous and a bit of a farce.  

A plebiscite is a non-binding vote that polls the opinion of the public; only three have been held in the 114 years of Federation.  Two during the First World War on the subject of conscription, and one in 1977 on the National Anthem.  Any result of a plebiscite would not bind the government in any way.

A Senate inquiry on this topic released its report on Monday and condemned both the referendum and plebiscite proposals as a waste of time and money - judging the former to be totally unnecessary and illogical, and the later to be a needless expense.  

That leaves us with the option of legislation.  The new PM, Malcolm Turnbull, has long favored the legalization of SSM but in a bid to win the leadership has pledged to hold the Coalition's line and hold a plebiscite after the next election.  Even in that case, it's unclear if the Liberals and Nationals would allow a conscious vote on the matter.

So, as you can see, this issue will take a considerable amount of time under the present government and would probably only be resolved by the end of this decade.

[Ebowed]

Turnbull won't change the Coalition policy, which means that if they win, there would be a $160 million plebiscite - a wasteful, divisive campaign intended to delay marriage equality and stall the process as long as possible.  Under the present government, this means the soonest it could be achieved is some time in 2017.

They certainly didn't need a plebiscite to ban same-sex marriage.  I wonder why they need one now.

[Barnes]

Turnbull won't change the Coalition policy, which means that if they win, there would be a $160 million plebiscite - a wasteful, divisive campaign intended to delay marriage equality and stall the process as long as possible.  Under the present government, this means the soonest it could be achieved is some time in 2017.

They certainly didn't need a plebiscite to ban same-sex marriage.  I wonder why they need one now.

Holding the line is one of the reasons he was able to swing enough Liberals over to his side in the spill, and he will certainly do what he can to remain as leader, so the position will certainly not change anytime soon.

In addition to the proposed plebiscite being a needless waste of money and open to a potentially brutal and divisive campaign, it is very frustrating to see people (MPs and Senators) who are supposed to act for the public, make decisions for the common benefit on their behalf, decide to totally abdicate all authority and responsibility as elected representatives of the people.   

[politicus]

In addition to the proposed plebiscite being a needless waste of money and open to a potentially brutal and divisive campaign, it is very frustrating to see people (MPs and Senators) who are supposed to act for the public, make decisions for the common benefit on their behalf, decide to totally abdicate all authority and responsibility as elected representatives of the people.  

It is a common way to decide big issues (and despite Atlas posters seeing it as a natural and obvious step same sex marriage is a big step culturally) in lots of countries. Nothing wrong with asking the people and financial costs shouldn't be figured in as a serious argument when we are talking about democratic polls in first world countries.

[DavidB.]

Its a common way to decide big issues (and despite Atlas posters seeing it as a natural and obvious step same sex marriage is a big step culturally) in lot of countries. Nothing wrong with asking the people and finanial costs shouldn't be figured in as a serious argument when we are talking about democratic polls in first world countries.

I'm not sure. If you consider the equal treatment of each citizen by the government a fundamental right, then these rights shouldn't be subject to other people's vote. I don't really like 50%+1 being able to decide it is okay that minorities are being refused equal treatment. (Although I totally agree that the costs shouldn't be an argument against a referendum.)

[politicus]

It is a common way to decide big issues (and despite Atlas posters seeing it as a natural and obvious step same sex marriage is a big step culturally) in lot of countries. Nothing wrong with asking the people and financial costs shouldn't be figured in as a serious argument when we are talking about democratic polls in first world countries.

I'm not sure. If you consider the equal treatment of each citizen by the government a fundamental right, then these rights shouldn't be subject to other people's vote. I don't really like 50%+1 being able to decide it is okay that minorities are being refused equal treatment. (Although I totally agree that the costs shouldn't be an argument against a referendum.)

Well, to me that would depend on how basic those rights are, and the right to get married is not a fundamental human right. Especially not if you already have civil unions. As much as I support gay marriage this is not like voting on banning a religion or disenfranchising people on welfare or something like that.

[DavidB.]

Well, to me that would depend on how basic those rights are, and the right to get married is not a fundamental human right. Especially not if you already have civil unions. As much as I support gay marriage this is not like voting on banning a religion or disenfranchising people on welfare or something like that.

I don't see marriage as a right in and of itself, but I do see equal treatment by the government as a right. Even if there are civil unions which are 100% the same as marriage, such as in Malta (and IIRC this used to be the case in Denmark before SSM was introduced?) there is no equal treatment: why give it another name? Of course it's not as bad as banning a religion, but it's still a form of discrimination. It is important that governments treat citizens equally, regardless of religion, ethnicity, "race", and sexuality. No referendum should be needed in order to give a minority the rights that the majority have.

(This also begs the question if one can consider something a "right" if a simple majority can take it from them.)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't have an objection to the idea of ballots on gay marriage per se, but it seems very arbitrary. Parliaments and legislatures pass bills worldwide with far greater impact and relevance to the population every other day; why is this the issue that suddenly makes them big believers in direct democracy?

Incidentally NI may have a referendum on the issue IIRC.

My thoughts are with Latin America actually. Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina have passed it; and Mexico sorta has; but what about the others? Chile is very conservative of course, and only just passed civil unions; but I think Bachelet once mused about introducing it. In Peru, I think the right support it (at least Fujimori and Toledo supported civil unions last election, but Humala didn't) - maybe it's a classic western Ukraine eastern Ukraine dichotomy?

And of the leftist populists, I don't think any of them have really supported LGBT rights. Apparently in April, both the opposition and governing parties of Bolivia indicated an "openness" (does anyone remember when Morales once said that eating chicken makes you gay?) Chavez and Maduro have weird histories with it as well (obviously Venezuela has bigger issues atm though lol). Correa signed civil unions but opposes gay marriage.

In Central America, I would imagine Costa Rica is the best bet - socially liberal, has a libertarian (!) party in its parliament, a left-leaning Pres, an urbane and educated population etc.

Tbh the whole region has a fairly strong and open LGBT community, so I'm pretty sure the leaders will be muscled into it eventually. The ominous sign is the ever-rising evangelism (damn Protestants ruin everything) I guess.

[DavidB.]

Vietnam was about to introduce it, but decided it was too controversial. Still, I could see them doing it in the near future, even though it's always hard to tell with such a regime.

[Barnes]

In addition to the proposed plebiscite being a needless waste of money and open to a potentially brutal and divisive campaign, it is very frustrating to see people (MPs and Senators) who are supposed to act for the public, make decisions for the common benefit on their behalf, decide to totally abdicate all authority and responsibility as elected representatives of the people.  

It is a common way to decide big issues (and despite Atlas posters seeing it as a natural and obvious step same sex marriage is a big step culturally) in lots of countries. Nothing wrong with asking the people and financial costs shouldn't be figured in as a serious argument when we are talking about democratic polls in first world countries.

It certainly is not the case in Australia. As I said in my post, there have been three plebiscites in 114 years of federation - two on conscription in the First World War, and one on the national anthem in the '70s. At the state level the only instances that I can immediately recall are plebiscites about daylight savings time.

As I said, very, very rare in Australia and not a part of the political culture in any meaningful way.

[politicus]

In addition to the proposed plebiscite being a needless waste of money and open to a potentially brutal and divisive campaign, it is very frustrating to see people (MPs and Senators) who are supposed to act for the public, make decisions for the common benefit on their behalf, decide to totally abdicate all authority and responsibility as elected representatives of the people.  

It is a common way to decide big issues (and despite Atlas posters seeing it as a natural and obvious step same sex marriage is a big step culturally) in lots of countries. Nothing wrong with asking the people and financial costs shouldn't be figured in as a serious argument when we are talking about democratic polls in first world countries.

It certainly is not the case in Australia. As I said in my post, there have been three plebiscites in 114 years of federation - two on conscription in the First World War, and one on the national anthem in the '70s. At the state level the only instances that I can immediately recall are plebiscites about daylight savings time.

As I said, very, very rare in Australia and not a part of the political culture in any meaningful way.

Yeah, I remember that, but to me something being alien to your political culture is not in itself an argument against using it - especially if it is widely used in other developed democracies. There is no reason why plebiscites could not become more common in Australia, just because they haven't been used much historically. Political cultures evolve. If you establish a norm where it is seen as morally unacceptable to go against "the will of the people" as expressed in a plebiscite, they are as good as referendums.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The thing is now with polling firms we now have accurate (well, somewhat accurate) reflections on how the public feels anyway. Isn't a plebiscite just a glorified poll?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Vietnam was about to introduce it, but decided it was too controversial. Still, I could see them doing it in the near future, even though it's always hard to tell with such a regime.

Vietnam did a strange step, by repealing a ban but not legalising. That was actually how I used to make fun of people who moderate on issues for literally no reason "I support decriminalisation of gay marriage but full legalisation is TOO FAR"; and then the Vietnam Communist Party decided to undermine me, the bastards.