the postal vote/survey/plebisite

[hihosland]

The parlimentry system in 2001 decided without a full vote to send our troops into danger in Afghanistan. A decision that has never been an issue at any of the elections since.

 

Yet that same system cannot decide to decide what action to take re same sex marriage. They need to throw it back on the people and in the process is opening us up to the potential of a very savage and divisive anti-yes anti-no campaign.

 

What an abrogation of responsibility!

 

the whole point in a democracy is to elect people to make decisions!

 

Unfortunately it would seem that now days the only business of politicians is to ensure their re election by slagging off the other side.

 

Someone convince me that this is a better system than the coif's penchant for unilateral decisions in the early hours of the morning.

 

 

[storchy neil]

decisions by some elected politicians to keep this country safe when gays are more important than the price off power our borders cost of living I don't trust em give the people a full plebiscite not a half baked idea stuff the costs neil

 

 

[Marty_d]

What a joke. The conservative rump wagging the dog.

 

 

[nomadpete]

It didn't take a plebicite nor any consultation with voters for the government to make marriage law "anti same gender" by changing the old law from a gender neutral "between two people", to say "between a man and woman". At least, that's what seems to have happened.

 

Why should it take such expensive processes now that it has become obvious that the majority of public want it changed BACK to say "between two people". ?

 

It looks to me like the age old political plot of making a ridiculous smoke screen out of a trivial issue, in order to keep public focus away from the real issues not being attended to by our government.

 

 

[facthunter]

The problem we are "curing" is dissention in the ranks of the LNP. They are stalling this, not trying/able to fix it and it's doing them a lot of damage, the longer it runs. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

If it is so obvious that the majority of people want gay marriage, why was the original idea of a plebiscite stopped?

 

Our military are sent off to all wars without any discussion in parliament and that is wrong in my view.

 

The gay lobby want Gay Marriage, but the definition of marriage has always been accepted as being between a man and a woman. Why do we need to re define Man, woman, Husband and Wife now.

 

I feel strongly that Gay marriage should not be legalised. I cannot see any advantage to gay couples, except them being able to say they are married. I can see that if it is legalised there could well be a push to legalise multi partner marriages such as the Muslim religion allows. Do the gays want that?

 

 

[nomadpete]

Yenn,

 

As I see it, we need to redefine marriage law in order to protect couples.

 

Personally, I am very cynical about the general value of marriage. I have not seen much to indicate that a marriage certificate causes a couple (regardless of gender) to treat each other with respect nor even to be nice to each other. Quite the opposite. I have seen many cases where marriage seems to confer some bizarre right to unethical and hurtful behaviour to a partner. But changing law won't help with that.

 

I think marriage is an over glorified social habit that has been hijacked by the religious right for their own purposes. After all, marriage only got into the churches because the local priest was likely the only bloke around who could write and keep records - so was originally the only person who could witness and later verify if a marriage had actually occurred. In the old days it was a personal contract between two people (accepted back then as a male and female because two gays were unlikely to have their kids fight over inheritance).

 

My reason for accepting gay marriage is the same as the reason I remarried (not gay in our case!). My wife and I had made our commitment to each other ten years before deciding to get married. Her word is good enough for me. But the way the law is at present, when I drop from the perch, one of my offspring who might be considered a little more mercenary than most, had every right to challenge my will, to prevent my partner (had we not married) from getting my estate, on the grounds that my offspring is basically closer related to me than my partner is. At least, that is roughly the situation in my words. I believe that the marriage certificate confers other rights to one's partner as well.

 

However, once married, my new wife suddenly has more rights financially. I wished to protect our joint wealth that we had accumulated together long since kids had flown the coop. And I can understand that any couple might want that protection (and if they want social recognition that they made a commitment to each other, that's fine with me)

 

Nobody is suggesting writing up the marriage law to include polygamy. I don't think there is much need for laws to do that anyway - it's self limiting. Nobody I know can afford to keep more than one wife (or husband). I can hardly afford any flying with only one wife!

 

 

[Cosmick]

Ch 5 § 116 The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

 

 

 

Religious belief is not a factor in determining Law as that it would be discriminatory against those of other religions or those who do not believe in religion. The right to believe in a particular Religion or lack of is our right as an Australian. I believe It is not our right to impose our beliefs on others, I have the right to not have you breath fire and brimstone down my throat.

 

I agree with pete above. This discussion is about all persons rights being equal, which of course they are not.

 

 

[octave]

To me, it is quite simple. My sister has been in a same sex relationship for about 30 years. I have no idea whether or not she will get married when it passes (either this time or at the next change of government. I would presume that having the right to marry is better than not having that choice available therefore her rights will have been improved and equalized with other members of society. At the same time, I will not have lost any rights.

 

 

[spacesailor]

What does came after the "gay" marriage act, marriage laws to include polygamy for those of other faiths, & after that, the next group will be wanting to legalize under-age (as we know it now, pedophile).

 

Just because we don't invoke the nasty word for illegitimate children, doesn't mean it wont be used in future, especially in school. ( I went to a school that had "different" kids, they came from the big orphanage behind Our school. "Railway children's orphanage")

 

spacesailor

 

 

[facthunter]

There's no illegitimate children They are real. The parents produce them and the progeny have no say in who their parents are and how "they" behave . After the gays you have bestiality pedophiles etc RUBBISH It's unconnected. There's no absolute gender. or clear divide .People count more than putting them in boxes. Do your thing and don't force your concepts on others. We are all different. Nev

 

 

[old man emu]

Unfortunately for those who support the idea that the government has no place in inter-personal relationships, the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 merely enshrined in statute what has been accepted as the Common Law since time immemorial. The Common Law held that a marriage involved two persons of the opposite sex.

 

One could argue that this Common Law concept, which came into being in ages past where same sex relationships were totally unacceptable to the majority of the population, has been amended because the majority of the population either approves of same sex relationships, or (for the silent majority) doesn't give a damn about the composition of a relationship. So is the Common Law of ancient times still the Common Law of the 21st Century?

 

Nomadpete is correct in saying that the raison d'etre for the Marriage Act in the first place is to clarify the laws of inheritance. That is an important thing, and therefore we deserve a law that defines how a marriage contract is created. It still does not create the requirement to restrict the persons who may enter into that contract. In keeping with the concept of separation of Church and State, the Marriage Act should be seen as another Act which deals with contracts. After all, we have another massive Act which deals with the breaking of the marriage contract. It is the Family Law Act 1974, and apart from permitting fault-free divorce, it has spawned a billion dollar industry.

 

And the replacing the words, "a man and a woman", with "two persons" will not release hordes of drooling, sex-crazed individuals onto our street and playgrounds. (Unless we are referring to young adults turned out of licensed premises for over-imbibing.)

 

Old Man Emu

 

 

[Marty_d]

Tim Minchin, as always, says it far better than I ever could.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsfyPG4DUHQ

 

 

[storchy neil]

gee I got some queer friends according to some 5 are voting no so that makes 6 including me one don't doesn't give a rats but the majority of persons want ssm go figure that neil

 

 

[Marty_d]

I'm interested in why people would vote "no".

 

If you're going to vote "no", what's your reason?

 

 

[facthunter]

Perhaps they feel threatened. There's plenty of homosexuality in the bible and way back in history in other places. I don't see any reason to persecute people for their sexual preference.

 

Hardly a mark of tolerance and being civilised. 50 years ago we persecuted anyone of this inclination, openly.

 

YOU can still get married in a church if that's your way of doing things. Some churches will perform the ceremony but many (most )probably won't. That's their right but I'd be reluctant to give them the final say on these matters without a non frantic debate. There should be no forced marriage ceremonies by religious groups , and it's not proposed to do that..

 

The forces of Flint, Howard and Abbot will combine to put their views out there, as they did with t he Monarchy and Republic debate. The deliberate distorting of the issues then weren't something to be proud of, and we'll see if the same technique is applied in this matter. It's the same group which opposed Dying with Dignity RU 487 etc. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Yes, Abbott in particular seems to be frothing at the mouth about this. Apparently voting "no" will not only uphold all that is good and right in the world, but also strike a blow for free speech, stop the rise of political correctness and bring Australia back to where it should be... (the 1950's, presumably).

 

 

[facthunter]

Think he wants to do a Trump when he has his second coming, after his resurrection from the (politically) Dead. Oueers make him feel uncomfortable, so he says. Bet his sister just loves his views. A perfect example of the modern, enlightened, educated, free thinking man.. NOT.

 

Back to the swamps. God will get you all. Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

Perhaps they're afraid it will be made compulsory.

What, like heterosexual marriage is?

 

 

[kgwilson]

The whole thing is pathetic. $122 million to placate the hard line right wing of the LNP & we have to front up with the taxes to pay for it when that entire cost is simply avoided. If labor had a decent charismatic leader the Libs would be gone. Malcolm doesn't seem strong enough to deal with the dorks in his own mob. Australia is the laughing stock of the western world when it comes to marriage equality. The only country that has an elected government that won't make a decision to have a free vote in parliament on such a simple issue. Even the super conservative deeply devout catholic Ireland, along with 22 other countries allow same sex marriage. Crikey this is not 1817 or 1917. I really hope that the high court challenge to this postal vote legality is successful & eventually a parliamentary decision is made. After all this is what the system is there for.

 

 

[facthunter]

Mal Come spends a lot of time and (your)money trying to vilify and discredit Shorten so he must be worried about his ability to send him packing at the next election, to be bothered. Some mud always sticks so Shorten's popularity is somewhat below what it would have been had the attacks not been made. Turnbull, (the STRONG leader) Is still at getting stuck into Bill although the next election is a fair distance away. I know who's coming out on TOP at the moment and it's NOT Turnbull and I doubt this tactic is working for him long term either. We will see what the next Polls say. I doubt they will make good reading for Mal. He has performed well below what most expected, and the Abot waits for the RIGHT time to come. Or the time of the right re emerging. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

If they go ahead with this postal vote, the $122 million should be charged to all the right wingers in the LNP who voted for it. If they knew it would cost them 2 or 3 million each, They would be in with a free vote in parliament like a rat up a drainpipe.

 

 

[facthunter]

This is how you make the leaders /party's problem the taxpayers problem. It's not a genuine attempt to address the issue either. The Plebiscite was a stalling move and there was no requirement to bind the party to honor the vote either. This is pretty poor form from a government that's tearing itself to pieces rather than being able to govern. It's a HEADS I win, TAILS you lose deal. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

If marriage is all about protecting inheritance. Which I don't think it is. Why is it possible for a marriage partner to make a will expressly with the intent of denying the partner any benefit?

 

I have three grandchildren. Two are parents and living with a partner. The other is married, with no intention of having kids. I am sure they will all be waiting for the plebiscite with bated breath.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Yes, you can write your will to exclude any of the "usually" included family members. When I tried to do that, ( one mercenary daughter had tried to defraud her mum out of $100k), I was told that although it gave me some comfort, after I drop off the perch, that individual can challenge the will in court on the grounds that it isn't fair (to them). I was informed that my intention was not likely to be carried out unless I insert my historical evidence into the will ready to be used in the court challenge.

 

None of the above problem is going to be solved by allowing gay marriage. Although a marriage certificate does give more credibility to my partner's needs.

 

The gay marriage issues are that just because of a gender issue, the gay individuals are not able to have as much rights as couples, as hetero couples get from marriage. Apart from inheritance, consider that a gay partner cannot make important organ donor decisions for their mate. The hospital has to contact some next of kin in spite of the fact that in many of these cases the next of kin is difficult to find, out of touch, or hostile. If there is a marriage, then the next of kin is automatically the spouse, who will probably act in the better interests of their partner than some distant relative.