Featured Image
Australian Prime Minister Tony AbbottPhilip Minnis /

CANBERRA, Australia, March 24, 2015 ( — The push for same-sex “marriage” in Australia has suffered a setback in what has been optimistically described as a “stall.”

The Abbott federal government was set to have a party room discussion today on whether to have a conscience vote on the issue, which, if passed, would have allowed members of the government party to vote in favor of same-sex “marriage.”

The government had gone to the last election with the policy of supporting traditional marriage, meaning that the government MPs would be bound to vote against same-sex “marriage” on a party basis if a bill is put forward.

Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm had hoped to bring forward debate on his “Freedom To Marry” bill if the push for a conscience vote was successful.

However, in the party room meeting today, the issue of a conscience vote was not listed on the agenda nor raised by any government member of Parliament.

Continuing what has been a change in momentum against the gay “marriage” lobby for the past two weeks, over two million emails were sent to members of Parliament in response to a campaign by the Australian Christian Lobby and other pro-family and traditional marriage groups.  The volume of correspondence generated in support of traditional marriage was four times that of the gay marriage lobby.


Commenting Guidelines
LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.