|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: SSM by postal vote
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Would you believe SSM is not legal in Oz?
And our ruling party, led by a man whose spine has been removed it appears, has decided a parliamentary vote is a no no, but a postal plebiscite is the best option.
A plebiscite that will not be run by our electoral commission but our statistics bureau (to get around a legal challenge I believe).
A plebiscite that will be not be binding. So a vote of no means no, as could a vote of yes.
All this because the conservatives in the party seem to have the PM by the balls. Assuming he has any.
I despair. This "campaign" will be toxic to LGBTQIA individuals. And is pointless, when our elected representatives could just vote. Poll after poll says the majority of Australians support it.
A former leader changed the marriage act to be between a man and a woman in his time in the early 2000s I think...surely a vote in parliament could change it.
Get on with it.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
A simple vote of Federal Parliament is all that is necessary. The definition of marriage in s.5 (1) needs to be amended so that marriage is not limited to a man and a woman. Even with a plebiscite or a survey, whatever you want to call it, this amendment is both necessary and sufficient.
There must be real doubts about the validity of the Government's actions. We are told that this is going to cost $122m (a figure I find difficult to understand) and there is no parliamentary sanction for the expenditure. Then there is a question of the ability of the Bureau of Statistics to conduct this plebiscite; it is not a census under the Census Act and what is being collected are not statistics under the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In your position, I'd be advocating a boycott.
But what if boycotting produces an anti-SSM majority?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
To qualify as a potentially fair vote, it has to have certain qualifications. ISTM that from what's been said that this poll (for it is little more than that) is an excellent way of stirring up hatred and can't possibly achieve SSM.
Rob it of its faux-legitimacy and don't play.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
This is fucked. Given the polling results, most Australians support SSM. Roughly 55% to 60%.
If the vote is no, then the result is no because: "It is a clear mandate"
If the vote is yes, then the result is no because "It isn't a clear mandate"
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To qualify as a potentially fair vote, it has to have certain qualifications. ISTM that from what's been said that this poll (for it is little more than that) is an excellent way of stirring up hatred and can't possibly achieve SSM.
Rob it of its faux-legitimacy and don't play.
It's not anything like that simple. The hatred will be stirred up anyway, whether us progressives "play" or don't. It has already started.
Labor and the Senate cross-bench have refused to play along, so this absurdly expensive, non-binding opinion poll is supposed to be happening by post now. Given the way the ABS fucked up the census, I'd be surprised if costs don't blow out further. For what? As lb said above, the fuckers in the govt can just ignore it.
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's Brexit all over again. Avoid letting Parliamentarians earn their keep by debating the issue. Skip any requirement to clearly define the options (though, in the case of equal marriage the options are a lot clearer than Brexit). Don't bother about a decent campaign arguing for/against the options, just let the tabloids run whatever bollocks they want. Hopefully you avoid the sight of senior politicians riding around the country in a bus with a massive lie emblazoned down the side.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
In the DH thread, stonespring argued that seeking a public vote is providing a cover for conservative MPs who want to keep the support of the old-and-bigoted. Which makes it very much like Brexit - Cameron proposing a referendum when he was confident that the public would support remaining in the EU in order to appease the anti-EU members of his party.
Only the referendum went the other way, and now the UK has to deal with the consequences.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To qualify as a potentially fair vote, it has to have certain qualifications. ISTM that from what's been said that this poll (for it is little more than that) is an excellent way of stirring up hatred and can't possibly achieve SSM.
Rob it of its faux-legitimacy and don't play.
Indeed. The poisonous rhetoric is already started. The Australian Christian Lobby, had publicity all prepared and hit the newspapers running. It may be a Lobby but Christian is definitely not the right word. Vitriol.
[ 09. August 2017, 22:16: Message edited by: Lothlorien ]
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
To qualify as a potentially fair vote, it has to have certain qualifications. ISTM that from what's been said that this poll (for it is little more than that) is an excellent way of stirring up hatred and can't possibly achieve SSM.
Rob it of its faux-legitimacy and don't play.
What sort of qualifications? Given that it is coming about by a dubious administrative procedure, any qualifications would make the result even more suspect. Then we have the news in morning's ABC site suggests that electors will have to enrol to be able to participate in the opinion poll - quite a change from the standard procedure here of compulsory voting.
As I've pointed out on the Dead Horses thread, this is not really a party political point here - there's no equivalent to the US religious right. We have openly gay parliamentarians on both sides and have for years. The present government could easily get out of its problems by allowing a free vote in both the House and the Senate. If that were done, the amendment would sail through.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What sort of qualifications?
Free. Fair. Open.
If it doesn't even tick those boxes, then fuck it six ways to Christmas.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I understand that there is a High Court challenge in the wings. The bloke from Marriage Equality on the radio was hopeful it would be lodged today.
My first-blush feeling is that a boycott wouldn't play well. I think many people who are not committed advocates one way or the other would have a negative view of a boycott. I think they would see this as a chance for people who want marriage equality to push their case.
I heard Antony Green on the radio at about 9:15am saying that as he understood things, they were going to use the Electoral Roll for the mailout, and that there was not going to be a separate registration process. I imagine this will be clarified as the news cycle rolls on.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
As I've pointed out on the Dead Horses thread, this is not really a party political point here - there's no equivalent to the US religious right. We have openly gay parliamentarians on both sides and have for years. The present government could easily get out of its problems by allowing a free vote in both the House and the Senate. If that were done, the amendment would sail through.
Then could you, as an Aussie in Oz (my husband stopped being interested in Australian politics long ago) explain what, if not a lobby resembling the US Religious Right, only much smaller, is preventing Turnbull (who himself supports SSM) from calling a Parliamentary vote and allowing Liberal MPs to cast a conscience vote? There must be some kind of Religious lobby in Australia, but it may be less wedded to one political party than in the US. I know Australia is a much more secular country than the US but *something* has prevented Turnbull from letting his MPs have a conscience vote.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothlorien
Ship's Grandma
# 4927
|
Posted
Stonespring you may be interested in this ariticle by David Marr. Link here.
I am not a fan of his, I found his biography of the novelist Patrick White rather dreary and that has coloured my ideas since. However, he is a respected journalist down here. It will give you some background over the years.
--------------------
Buy a bale. Help our Aussie rural communities and farmers. Another great cause needing support The High Country Patrol.
Posts: 9745 | From: girt by sea | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Stonespring, there is undoubtedly the desire of many to keep control, and a lot of bigotry around as well. But not the political link to the right that there is in the US. The bigotry and so forth is pretty much as strong in the Labor Party.
[ 10. August 2017, 03:39: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
For example, both the Anglican and Catholic Archbishops of Sydney are strongly opposed to SSM. They are just as strongly opposed to the stance of the Government on migration policy in general and refugees in particular. They are both for a liberal reworking of the social security system and an increase in the funding of a wide range of community service measures. SSM here is much more complicated than a simple left/right question.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Stonespring, there is undoubtedly the desire of many to keep control, and a lot of bigotry around as well. But not the political link to the right that there is in the US. The bigotry and so forth is pretty much as strong in the Labor Party.
No, it isn't.
There is a strong "wet" faction in the Federal Liberal party - Malcolm Turnbull himself is ostensibly a "dry", but he has really demonstrated himself to be largely a nothing ever since his rise to mediocrity. The former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is the most prominent of the conservatives in the Liberal Party, and has been doing his best to white-ant Turnbull's leadership for ages. He is on the lookout for anything he can claim as a wedge issue, in order to be seen to be speaking for the conservatives in "middle Australia" (whatever that is).
Despite Gee's (unsubstantiated) claim, there is no similar phenomenon in Labor, where prominent powerbrokers such as Penny Wong (in the video I linked above) represent the view of the overwhelming majority of Labor and Green politicians - that marriage equality should be legislated by parliament, rather than through this ridiculous charade of a plebiscite.
No one really knows why Turnbull is so pathetic on this and so many other issues, where the perception is that he is being held hostage by the conservatives in his own party. The most likely reason is that he nearly fluffed the election, when he was exalted as the redeemer of the Liberal party after Tony Abbott's largely ineffectual and very unpopular term. But when he only barely won the election, he was beholden to the right of his own party to maintain unity and power, and they have hijacked much of the policy debate ever since. They are despicable on asylum seeker policy (in that regard Labor is pretty much as bad), doing everything they can to mismanage the welfare state into oblivion, and are committed to tax cuts for the best off Australians, as if everyone with any sense doesn't know that trickle-down economics was and is a total failure and gross lie.
Anyway, I could rant about this for ages. Sorry. This mob make me feel ashamed.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Michael Kirby, a retired High Court judge, has indicated that he will be boycotting the postal ballot. Among other things, he says:
quote:
It wasn't done in the case the advancement of the legal rights, equal rights of the Aboriginal people, it wasn't done in respect of women's advancement of legal rights, nor in the demolition of 'White Australia'.
Full Article
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Michael Kirby is s quite right that there is no precedent for what is being done; he's also right that the procedure is of very dubious legality. I don't agree that should the poll go ahead it should be boycotted. SSM needs to have a strong vote in favour both to express the public opinion, and to send a strong message to Parliament that the necessary legislation must be passed. Every vote counts.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
What if it doesn't get up? A boycott would allow the next ALP PM to say it could be ignored. But I am genuinely torn on the issue. I think personally I won't boycott, but I am torn.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
We have to do what we can to ensure that it does not fail, and an easy part of that is to express and opinion in favour of SSM. If this were a proper referendum, I'd expect it to pass by a very comfortable margin; with the odd procedure and the voluntary nature of it, I'd not be anywhere near as certain. Basically it may well be a case of every vote counting - assuming that it goes ahead.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
What if it doesn't get up? A boycott would allow the next ALP PM to say it could be ignored.
I thought Labor were committed to having.a vote in parliament within 100 days of being elected? Or am I misremembering?
I liked Guy Rundle's description in Crikey:
quote:
Truly, we are a laboratory for democracy, but it’s the laboratory in the film The Fly. Remember the half-man, half-fly’s plaintive cry at the end of that? “Kill me … kill me … kill me …” In a small voice. We’ll all be saying that in a few weeks.
[ 10. August 2017, 10:27: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Yeah that's right. I don't trust the ALP with anything. In my opinion, they will say or do whatever they think is popular to get elected or stay in Government.
Witness Bowen decrying the actions on the Howard Govt on refugees and then implementing a very similar programme as Immigration Minister. Result: the Libs go even further to the right.
No, the only thing you can trust the ALP to do is anything that will get or keep them in Government. The structures and culture of the party prevent principled stances. Even on industrial relations they screwed themselves and union members by weakening the Award system in the early 1990's. Blairite scum who showed Blair how its done.
Sorry, they might do it. I hope they do if the current Liberal strategy succeeds in stymieing internal support for reform. I just hate the bastards for what they have done (or haven't done) over their last two periods of Government. I mean, why the fuck are we in this position now? Why didn't the Gillard Govt reform marriage laws? Answer: They thought it would sink them quicker.
/rant dissipating
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
There must be real doubts about the validity of the Government's actions. We are told that this is going to cost $122m (a figure I find difficult to understand) and there is no parliamentary sanction for the expenditure. Then there is a question of the ability of the Bureau of Statistics to conduct this plebiscite; it is not a census under the Census Act and what is being collected are not statistics under the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act.
I will be watching the court challenge with great interest, partly from personal "hey, can I get married?" interest but far more from professional interest as to the scope of a government to get around Parliament.
Both sides are claiming they have legal advice. I'm sure both sides have legal advice saying there's a valid argument that they're in the right, but how strong that advice is in terms of chances and risks I've no clue. Because in some respects this is highly novel territory.
The thing is, though, there are certain aspects of this that are very well set up for the High Court to slap the government and declare they have no authority to do this. And the repercussions could extend far beyond this particular issue, in the same way that the cases on the school chaplaincy programme affected much more than school chaplaincy.
That's just the legal repercussions. The political repercussions of this vote being declared unconstitutional... well, when you're trying to defuse an issue, that's a hell of a grenade to go off in your hand.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I'm sure that both sides have legal advice - mad if they had not - but you wonder who wrote that for the Government - Brandis or Donaghue.
As to your last paragraph, I'm not so sure. A loss in the High Court could let Turnbull off the hook. To both sides, he could say that he tried to let the people of Australia let their opinion be known, but here he is stymied by the pedantic lawyers on the High Court.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I'm sure that both sides have legal advice - mad if they had not - but you wonder who wrote that for the Government - Brandis or Donaghue.
As to your last paragraph, I'm not so sure. A loss in the High Court could let Turnbull off the hook. To both sides, he could say that he tried to let the people of Australia let their opinion be known, but here he is stymied by the pedantic lawyers on the High Court.
True. The large proportion of fools who understand nothing about elections or the rule of law might well believe they've been robbed of their democratic right.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
My sister-in-law in Australia, who is very pro-gay-rights but for whatever reason likes Tony Abbott (she doesn't like Turnbull and likes Labor even less), thinks that to save money a plebiscite on same sex marriage should be on the ballot at the next general election.
Does the law or constitution in Australia allow for this? She said it was proposed and she said Labor was hypocritical for rejecting this while protesting at the $200 million price tag of a separate plebiscite. Was anything like this ever proposed?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The constitution has provision for referendums to cover constitutional amendments, but not otherwise. No provision at all for plebiscites. That does not mean that Parliament could not legislate for one, but the Government can't get the necessary legislation through the Senate.
Good to see that Michael Kirby has publicly recanted his previous boycott. Why he did it, I can't understand. Still, he got a few more headlines for it.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Oh I hadn't seen that about Kirby. He might have been speaking to the press while he was still very upset about seeing another opportunity to marry his partner of many decades slip away. Alternatively, he might have been upset about the LGBTI community once again being the victims of blatant discrimination. In any event, I'm glad he's reconsidered his view, as people like me are wont to take very seriously the views of people like him.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
I've been reading, couldn't look away but wish I could, a topic on this on another bulletin board where I thought there may be reasoned discussion.
Fat chance. Nothing offensive as I was suspecting, at least not yet, but just odd. One person even gave their reason against as "life isn't fair" and when challenged repeated life wasn't fair, giving the example of him paying more tax than others not being fair!?!? Where are these people's minds? Or compassion? I know I'm not the sharpest tack in the box, but what an odd argument. I think arguments like this worry me...this is someone who will go out to vote, and for the lamest of reasons.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
I'm hoping the casually homophobic chuck the ballot in the recycling.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
My sister-in-law in Australia, who is very pro-gay-rights but for whatever reason likes Tony Abbott (she doesn't like Turnbull and likes Labor even less), thinks that to save money a plebiscite on same sex marriage should be on the ballot at the next general election.
Does the law or constitution in Australia allow for this? She said it was proposed and she said Labor was hypocritical for rejecting this while protesting at the $200 million price tag of a separate plebiscite. Was anything like this ever proposed?
Labor was not merely protesting the price tag. The price was simply ONE of the reasons for objecting to the plebiscite. Labor's position is that there shouldn't be a plebiscite, full stop.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I've been reading, couldn't look away but wish I could, a topic on this on another bulletin board where I thought there may be reasoned discussion.
Fat chance. Nothing offensive as I was suspecting, at least not yet, but just odd. One person even gave their reason against as "life isn't fair" and when challenged repeated life wasn't fair, giving the example of him paying more tax than others not being fair!?!? Where are these people's minds? Or compassion? I know I'm not the sharpest tack in the box, but what an odd argument. I think arguments like this worry me...this is someone who will go out to vote, and for the lamest of reasons.
Saying that life isn't fair when you are being explicitly handed the power to make it fairer is indeed bizarre.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Two of the worst of the Liberal wets, Abbott and Howard, are teaming up for the No campaign. I have heard this somewhere before.
This "plebiscite" is a disgrace, but we had best win the fucking thing. Kirby's position leaves me cold.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
My sister-in-law in Australia, who is very pro-gay-rights but for whatever reason likes Tony Abbott (she doesn't like Turnbull and likes Labor even less), thinks that to save money a plebiscite on same sex marriage should be on the ballot at the next general election.
Does the law or constitution in Australia allow for this? She said it was proposed and she said Labor was hypocritical for rejecting this while protesting at the $200 million price tag of a separate plebiscite. Was anything like this ever proposed?
Labor was not merely protesting the price tag. The price was simply ONE of the reasons for objecting to the plebiscite. Labor's position is that there shouldn't be a plebiscite, full stop.
I know that. I'm not saying I agree with her. Does anyone know if the option to have a plebiscite vote on the same day as a general election was ever proposed?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
I didn't hear it.
Though I think it would be a brave government who would make this the election issue. Because I think it would be. Or at least right up there.
Poll after poll says it is not very high on the list of the average voter's priorities (health, education ...), but support for is definitely larger than support against overall.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Yes at some point amongst the myriad of thought bubbles holding it at the same time as an election was proposed.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
My sister-in-law in Australia, who is very pro-gay-rights but for whatever reason likes Tony Abbott (she doesn't like Turnbull and likes Labor even less), thinks that to save money a plebiscite on same sex marriage should be on the ballot at the next general election.
Does the law or constitution in Australia allow for this? She said it was proposed and she said Labor was hypocritical for rejecting this while protesting at the $200 million price tag of a separate plebiscite. Was anything like this ever proposed?
Labor was not merely protesting the price tag. The price was simply ONE of the reasons for objecting to the plebiscite. Labor's position is that there shouldn't be a plebiscite, full stop.
I know that. I'm not saying I agree with her. Does anyone know if the option to have a plebiscite vote on the same day as a general election was ever proposed?
Well, I reckon you can find that out as easily as anyone else.
Here is what I managed to unearth. If you scroll down the page, you can see under "Timing of the plebiscite" the various arguments for and against holding the plebiscite at the same time as the election.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Such a respectful debate...
Homosexuality a "curse of death", "a curse of family sonlessness".
Marriage equality will lead to "no separate public toilets" [!?!?!] and rapists will mask as transexuals to use the female toilets...
[I think they're confusing issues as well as being ignorant.]
And going for the Chinese vote too.
[Hurstville in a suburb in Sydney with a high Chinese-Australian population]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Truly vile ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Alan's right. You'll probably soon have a huge bus emblazoned with the news that keeping SSM outlawed will save Medicare Australia AU$600 million a week.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
90,000 new voter enrollments for the Claytons Plebiscite. Hmmm, wouldn't like to be in a coalition marginal seat. The kids might get to like this voting caper.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Just a tip for the Australians, if somebody wants to give you literature for the 'no' campaign, you say something like, "Great! Hey, do you have a few of those? I'm going to my Bingo Night tomorrow and I could hand them out there." The receptionist at my wife's work didn't think quick enough when somebody asked to leave them at the front counter. Don't repeat her mistake.
Also, if you can bear it, engage them in conversation for as long as you can.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The receptionist should have asked for a double sized bundle, then put them (politely and discreetly of course) in the bin under her desk.
[ 29. August 2017, 10:39: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
The first TV ad of the No campaign is up, and it's the usual pathetic "think of the children" rubbish.
Only it's more "think of the homophobic parents of the children who can't tell the difference between homosexuality, being transgender, and being generally terrified of difference".
Marriage consequently gets almost no mention.
For your viewing, not your pleasure
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pangolin Guerre
Shipmate
# 18686
|
Posted
Until this thread, I was completely ignorant of this going on in Australia. As Mr Spock might say, Fascinating. Religious conservatives would seem to be much more strident, and numerous, in Australia than in Canada. Not that we didn't have our share of right wing loons when we were going through the SSM debates.
As to the advert itself - nice use of ominous chords. Very disturbing, indeed. I did find it very interesting that the talking heads were all women. I suppose that it's easier to sell the "No" from a maternal, caring angle rather than a father who might beat the crap out of his besequined son.
I find these "no" campaigns all a bit ridiculous. I didn't see two guys holding hands - let alone exchanging rings - until I was 19, and I knew that I was queer waaaaaay before that.
Well, anyway, best of luck with that mess.
Posts: 758 | From: 30 arpents de neige | Registered: Nov 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Crikey has done some investigation on the concerned mums in the video. May be behind a paywall.
quote:
...we’ve had a quick look into some of the “concerned mums” fronting the ad. The first is a familiar face to Victorians. Cella White made a video after she dramatically removed her son from Frankston High last year because a teacher allegedly told him he could wear a dress to school next year if he wanted. News then emerged this mum was backed by Lyle Shelton’s Australian Christian Lobby. White is back in the new ad with the same story.
The last mum in the ACL ad is Heidi McIvor, who has quite the resume. Heidi is a former staffer for Family First senator Steve Fielding, and previously worked for two Liberal politicians and a National. But sure, an average mother. If her LinkedIn profile is anything to go by, McIvor worked for Stephen “creationism” Fielding for three years, and describes him as “one of the most influential politicians in the Australian Parliament”. A gentle reminder here that Stephen Fielding compared same-sex marriage to incest in 2007.
...
Ivor also appears to be long time pro-life, anti-feminist activist who is Facebook friends with ACL chief Lyle Shelton himself. But again, a regular Aussie mum with no agenda.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Are you sure that a teacher allegedly told him he could wear a dress to school next year if he wanted? I was sure that the teacher had said that the boy had to wear a dress to school to show solidarity with the transgender section of the community. You know how ideologically correct teachers are.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
