the postal vote/survey/plebisite

[Marty_d]

So this it is lying to the centre link can't trust emKnow all about de facto and centre link 35years ago when moved in with my current partner she did inform centre link got dobbed in quite a few times

 

Should anything happen to me she gets me gold card neil

Yeah, 'cos hetero defacto couples never lie to Centrelink...

 

 

[old man emu]

I've been a wild rover for many's the year

 

I've spent all me money on whiskey and beer

 

But now I'm returning with gold in great store

 

And I never will play the wild rover no more

 

And it's No, Nay, never,

 

No, nay never no more

 

Will I play the wild rover,

 

No never no more

 

I went in to an alehouse I used to frequent

 

And I told the landlady me money was spent

 

I asked her for credit, she answered me nay

 

Such a customer as you I can have any day

 

And it's No, Nay, never,

 

No, nay never no more

 

Will I play the wild rover,

 

No never no more

 

I took up from my pocket, my Cashless Debit Card bright

 

And the landlady's eyes opened wide with delight

 

She says "I have whiskeys and wines of the best

 

And the words that you told me were only in jest"

 

And it's No, Nay, never,

 

No, nay never no more

 

Will I play the wild rover,

 

No never no more

 

I'll go home to my parents, confess what I've done

 

And I'll ask them to pardon their prodigal son

 

And, when they've caressed me as oft times before

 

I never will play the wild rover no more

 

And it's No, Nay, never,

 

No, nay never no more

 

Will I play the wild rover,

 

No never no more

 

 

[Bruce]

Storchy, you are only right to the extent that it would be easier to convince the average centerlink clerk that 2 guys were not in a "relationship".

 

But I know a young woman who is doing just the same thing. Mind you, her guy has to be careful cos he claims to be living elsewhere. I think he does for a few days of the week.

 

Stupid rules huh.

 

 

[facthunter]

Tell me ..I'll keep it a secret. Nev

 

 

[Bruce]

I heard of a house inhabited by 5 families of refugees where the welfare money coming in to that house was $20,000 a fortnight.

 

Gosh I hope it isn't true.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

The Social Security Act recognises same sex relationships for the purpose of determining benefits.

Yet another Act that is in conflict with the Marriage Act!!

Should it not read, Yet another act the Marriage Act is in conflict with?

 

Poignant sign:

 

 

 

[old man emu]

Should it not read, Yet another act the Marriage Act is in conflict with?

The ending of a sentence with a preposition is a proposition up with which I will not put.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Sounding like Yoda you are, or else German you may be.

 

 

[willedoo]

This whole thing seems a bit crazy to me. The so called plebiscite is an ABS voluntary survey of public opinion.

 

So what happens then? The Government gets some meaningless data and dithers some more. It beats me why they don't have the nous to just do it through parliament and get it over with.

 

Personally, I don't think the opinion of the public matters. Who are we to decide who has the right to be married? It's like sticking your nose into other people's business. Objections of religious types and churches only have any validity among those of their faith. They don't speak for non religious people and certainly don't have the right to dictate who can or can not get married.

 

The whole thing's a big wank and a waste of money. The only reason they've done it this way, is that the left of the coalition is scared of being rolled by the right side. I'm in my 60's, and in my entire life have never before seen such a dearth of talent and imagination among our elected representatives.

 

 

[Marty_d]

We've been through this. If it wasn't for the hard right, who don't want gay marriage at any cost because of their religious beliefs, it would have been a done deal already.

 

Plus Malcolm hasn't covered himself in glory - the man needs to stand up and be a goddam LEADER, not led around by the conservative rump.

 

 

[spacesailor]

BUT

 

It's so nice being "Asked",

 

Almost like being in a Democracy.

 

Don't you think so.

 

spacesailor

 

PS. Just like the Republican debate, we say NO, so do it again, to see if we've changed our mind!.

 

If we say NO, we can do it again.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[old man emu]

I still reckon the cost of this survey should be deducted from the purse from which the pollies are paid. They aren't doing the job they were elected for (making a decision one way or the other), so they should have their pay docked!

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

It raises the question about finding the balance between when a government should and should not refer to a formal "opinion" poll.. dammed if they do and dammed if they don't...

 

I agree Spacesailor - it is jolly nice of them to ask - but is it really of such fundamental but not constitutional changing nature that Aus needs to spend £122m or whatever the number is, or use more informal techniques like speaking to their constituents, listening to the various representative groups and sifting though the BS to get to the real issues and make a decision?

 

Is it really that fundamental an issue - or would you rather that money go onto roads, schools, hosptials, defence, policing, or, dare I say, allowing Bronnie her rotor rides...?

 

 

[willedoo]

BUTIt's so nice being "Asked",

 

Almost like being in a Democracy.

 

Don't you think so.

 

spacesailor

It's a new one on me. This is the first time any government has asked me to cast judgement on someone else's marital rights. The concept of that is wrong, in my opinion. It's a political cop out.

 

If they've stooped this low, what next?

 

 

[willedoo]

As an edit to the above post, maybe the other side of the coin is that it gives the public a chance to show support for a minority's right to equal rights.

 

Either way, I still don't feel comfortable with the idea that I'd be judging someone's rights, yes or no. But I guess in the 1967 referendum, that's what people had to do to get a good result.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Trouble is, if we say No, we get to do it again, just like the "Republic debate".

 

But if yes: can we get a second chance, just incase we change our minds later.

 

NZ voted for "abstinence", then the next vote reversed that result, and every one happy!.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[willedoo]

Trouble is, if we say No, we get to do it again, just like the "Republic debate".But if yes: can we get a second chance, just incase we change our minds later.

 

spacesailor

Yes, good point, spacesailor.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Why not - it may not invalidate those married at the time, but, if for some reason, the consequence of allowing something was unexpectedly repugnant to general society, then why can't it be reversed? In this case, it's wholly within the government's authority to change (or ignore) and if there is a perception of societal ill as a result, they can change it without a plebiscite.

 

 

[old man emu]

I still reckon the cost of this survey should be deducted from the purse from which the pollies are paid. They aren't doing the job they were elected for (making a decision one way or the other), so they should have their pay docked!

OMG

 

Five 'agrees' since 18:00 last night. I finally managed to generate some degree of consensus amongst you lot.

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't see a No vote as judging peoples marital rights. There has never in the past been marriage for same sex couples. As far as I am concerned marriage was for a woman and a man, and the prime reason was to provide for children. It is just a new way of re defining man, woman and marriage.

 

I noticed last night on ABC TV I think that some gay people said that they would vote No.

 

I also noticed Turnbull saying that Labor is putting up irrelevant things to discuss, but doing nothing about N Korea.

 

His beef was mainly the nationality problem which shows that Turnbull has nothing but contempt for our constitution.

 

Wouldnt it be fun if there was a vote on gay marriage in parliament, it was passed and then had to be rescinded because the politicians were not legally elected due to foreign allegiance?

 

Of course there will be no debate in parliament on N Korea. Turnbull has already said we would be there far sooner than the yanks would ever come to our aid.

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

@Yenn - Although the institution of marriage in your eyes is for making children, its legal development was for different reasons - primarily protection of the fairer sex in a historically judgemental and sexist society. It was essentially a contract that afforded the woman (generally a non-breadwinner - and where they did earn a crust, compared to men, it as literally a crust) in terms of material and social security. At law, a woman could sue for specific performance or damages, a man who engaged and subsequently rescinded to carry out the promise of marriage. For religious reasons, again usually to do with the welfare of the child/children, morality - but not the law - required children to be born in wedlock (there may be some religious requirement, but as far as I read, no legal requirement although out of wedlock children certainly had less rights to estate and provisions than in-wedlock children - though I may be corrected on this point).

 

However, society has moved on since the good old days and the law recognises to varying degrees in different jurisdictions the same or similar obligations and rights of marriage to unmarried partners and doesn't differentiate between in and out of wedlock children. In Europe, children born out of wedlock is claimed by Wikipedia to have risen to 40%; in Australia from 22% in the 90s to 34% in 2010 (Nocookies). The children I (knowingly ;-)) have are born out of wedlock - I was engaged once (not to partner), but never married. As fa as I can tell, we lead a more or less normal/stereotypical family life. The thing is even in marriage were orginally for just having children, society has progressed and itself is not hanging onto it as a necessary institution other than formalising legal protection and obligation to couples. And denying this to same sex people is discrimination...

 

I agree the whole thing is being blown out of all proportion as a smokescreen for other issues affecting Australia. However, I would agree that the government make decision with respect to N Korea. God forbid democracy requiring a plebiscite to exercise it's democratic right to defend its realm (proactively if required).. By the time polling came around, there would be no one to place their votes.

 

Gays - like heteros - are entitled to their opinion. Some may not want SSM - like you, it's their democratic right. Doesn't mean Aus needs a plebiscite for it.

 

 

[old man emu]

The whole "marriage to confirm inheritance rights" is thrown out of the window in NSW by the PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1984 which defines relationships thusly:

 

4 DE FACTO RELATIONSHIPS

 

de facto relationship is a relationship between two adult persons:

 

(a) who live together as a couple, and

 

(b) who are not married to one another or related by family.

 

(2) In determining whether two persons are in a de facto relationship, all the circumstances of the relationship are to be taken into account, including such of the following matters as may be relevant in a particular case:

 

(a) the duration of the relationship,

 

(b) the nature and extent of common residence,

 

© whether or not a sexual relationship exists,

 

(d) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between the parties,

 

(e) the ownership, use and acquisition of property,

 

(f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life,

 

(g) the care and support of children,

 

(h) the performance of household duties,

 

(i) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.

 

 

 

3) A reference in this Act to a child of the parties to a domestic relationship is a reference to any of the following:

 

(a) a child born as a result of sexual relations between the parties,

 

(b) a child adopted by both parties,

 

(c1) where the domestic relationship is a de facto relationship between two women, a child of whom both of those women are presumed to be parents by virtue of the Status of Children Act 1996 ,

 

 

 

So it seems that women can have have same sex defacto relationships, but men don't have that right at law.

 

 

 

The "living with another person" scene gets murkier and murkier.

 

 

 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Ultimately, this would have to be tested in court because the above acts cited may be deemed amended in terms of who can constitute a defacto couple by way of the Marriage Act (except, there is an explicit reference to women in (C1)... And I haven't read the Ststus of Children Act (yet).

 

However, it makes a mockery of the powers of state v federal governments - how can you have a system within a country where each state decides what is a family of the country.. Can you then arbitrage what state laws you are subject to (don't like the NSW law, sell up, move to another state that has laws more akin to what you want)... Crazy!

 

 

[Bruce]

That has actually happened in Australia jerry. People moved to Qld to die because there was no inheritance tax there.

 

Yep, crazy.

 

 

[Yenn]

I thought that they came here because the general concensus is that Qld is dead already.