Senator Jacqui Lambie served in the Australian Army for 11 years.
She also raised two kids as a single mum, battled alcoholism and after being medically discharged from the army, attempted suicide by throwing herself in front of a car.
But none of that you hear about.
Because of all the things that make up who Jacqui Lambie is – of all the stories she has to tell – the one we hear about most has to do with her conservative views on gay marriage.
Listen: Mia Freedman digs deep, into the nitty gritty details of Jacqui Lambie’s opinions on gay marriage, on No Filter. Post continues after audio…
The picture painted of her by the media is an unattractive one: an obnoxiously loud, basic politician with overly-conservative political views.
It’s a depiction that at times can seem completely accurate. “Anyone who supports Sharia law in this country should be deported,” Lambie said on Monday night’s Q&A on the ABC.
But in an exclusive interview with Mia Freedman on No Filter, the 45-year-old Tasmanian Independent Senator of the Jacqui Lambie Network political party proved not only to be an absolute delight to speak to… but also to be surprisingly forward-thinking politically.
Especially when it comes to her views on gay marriage, which aren’t as hardline ‘anti’ as they seem.
“I’ve made my views quite clear on that,” the Senator told Freedman. “When it comes to the word ‘marriage’, it should be between a man and a woman.”
Trump Appoints Former Competitor Into His Administration
The Quicky
Top Comments
So.. We should go with the "Biblical' interpretation written almost 2 millennia ago?.. Should we also wear head & arm coverings in Church?.. How about services in Latin while we're at it?.. Everything evolves, including religion... It amazes me when people trot out the Church over issues like this, yet when it comes just being nice to people there is a disconnect???... Marriage between consenting adults regardless of gender, end of!.. How can something that brings a family so much joy be denied because of gender issues?..
It's a plebiscite NOT a referendum. The referendum is reserved for changes to the Constitution and is legally binding. The change would be to the Marriage Act which requires legislation to change it so all a plebiscite would do is indicate to the parliament what the people want, but it is not legally binding. Surely the fact that the polls show a clear majority in support is enough without having to unnecessarily spend $160 million (considering they have been relied on as the reason to depose several prime ministers in the past - disgraceful how they can use justification when it's convenient for a power grab but not human rights).
I think what she was saying is that there should be a referendum which is legally binding instead of a plebiscite which is just "hey politicians this is what we want but you don't have to do it if you don't want to".
If we go polls, the people want government to save billions each year by ending refugee intakes, if we go by polls.
A referendum is limited to changes to our Constitution s128. There is no mechanism in Australia for a legally binding vote by the people to force a change in legislation.
The issue is a bit more complicated than changing a couple of words in one provision of Marriage Act. We have international treaty obligations to consider in relation to refugee policy.