Thread: SSM by postal vote Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005701
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
Jesus wept.
Rainbow tears.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
In your position, I'd be advocating a boycott.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In your position, I'd be advocating a boycott.
But what if boycotting produces an anti-SSM majority?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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"
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
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.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
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.
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
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.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
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.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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.
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
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
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
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 ]
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
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
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
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.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
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.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I'm hoping the casually homophobic chuck the ballot in the recycling.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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?
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
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.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yes at some point amongst the myriad of thought bubbles holding it at the same time as an election was proposed.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
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.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
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]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Truly vile ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
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.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
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.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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 ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
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
Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on
:
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.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
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.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
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.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
lol. Nice work crikey.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Amusingly, the comments on the video have been disabled sometime today.
In typical ACL fashion they were unable to cope with the loud chorus of "your argument doesn't make the slightest sense" that was emerging in those comments (including from me).
Never mind. The Education Minister telling them it was nonsense is probably sufficient.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Nice speech on the Irish experience of the Marriage Equality vote from some Irish guy at the National Press Club today.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
This whole pile of shit has been particularly damaging for the transgender community, as this piece argues.
As someone personally who thinks the institution of marriage itself is of dubious merit, part of me would like to see the LGBTIQ community reject it in an attempt to transcend it, rather than embrace it. That being said, as a cisgender straight person who can marry if I want, I speak from a position of privilege on this. It seems that marriage equality has become a symbol of equality and rights, bigger than the institution itself.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Oh! The change in how marriage is viewed by people on the progressive side of things since the 1980's is stark! People who got married were viewed as irredeemably conservative or shockingly working class.
Still, I understand the cogent equality argument. It's about the right to be respected. Also, as Magda Subanzski reminded me through the medium of television the rights of same-sex partners when it comes to decisions around the end of life are severely curtailed. Imagine going to the funeral of your partner of 20 years and not being allowed to be involved in the planning, or participate in the service! Now that sort of stuff could be identified and changed across our eight (is it?) jurisdictions, but it doesn't get you past the basic cry for equal treatment.
But I'm preaching to the choir I expect. Suffice it to say that with the Court allowing this thing to proceed, I'm now answering the phone, "Say yes to same-sex marriage". It's been my wife both times so far, but I'm trying not to look at the caller ID.
Posted by Mili (# 3254) on
:
Who knew you could make such a catchy, inspiring song about a crappy plebiscite, damning the plebiscite but encouraging yes votes. Not hellish unless you count swearing or insults to political leaders:
Dear Malcolm by Josh Belperio
[ 11. September 2017, 10:26: Message edited by: Mili ]
Posted by Vulpior (# 12744) on
:
I dropped in with the expectation of lurking, but the sentiments expressed have cheered me so much that I was led to post. Not very hellish, but there you are.
At the football on Saturday an old bloke took hold of the rainbow end of my Rainbow Swans scarf, and said, "Good on you." I melted.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
Just wanted to say to Israel Folau - despite the unlikelihood of his reading this - you have said you love and respect all people for who they are, and you know, I might be prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on that. But I want to ask you, are you comfy in that bed you made for yourself, there, with a whole load of people who do not love and respect all people for who they are?
Are you ok with standing alongside them, being on their team? Are you going to show your love and respect for all people by calling them out on their lack of the aforementioned qualities?
You're allowed to vote any way you want, Israel, but it isn't sufficient to state you love and respect all people for who they are. You need to show it. I've read it. I'll remember it. I'll believe it when I see it.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
A good article in today's Guardian with Fr Andrew Sempell (St James King St) making it clear that the Australian Christian Lobby is not representative of the churches, nor is it religious.
Also good to read the Catholic Bishop of Parramatta saying that what's being discussed is the secular definition of marriage - and also saying that just as divorce legislation did not change the church's approach, neither does this proposed change. He's also quoted as saying that the issue for many people is not straightforward; we need to listen to what the Spirit is saying to us through the signs of our times. I read that as saying it's perfectly ok to vote yes.
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on
:
Well, I think it's ridiculous that the people we elect don't just pass the inevitable laws.
Having said that, I have had enormous satisfaction and joy in crossing the Yes box, enveloping the bit of paper and walking to the post box to send it back.
Stick that, Abbot. Stick it twice, Howard.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
A big welcome back LATA.
We have no papers yet, looking forward to it though.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
Still waiting for mine.
Bloody harmful waste of money.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
This is fucking ridiculous. I really can't think of any other way to describe it. The institution of marriage is now apparently under such threat of pollution from teh gayz that we can't even countenance heterosexual marriage, if said heterosexuals are sympathetic toward teh gayz. I. don't. even. get. it. It also skates very close to refusing service to someone on the basis of how they vote, which is, in my view, just a generally non-classy thing to do, in any situation, anywhere, anytime.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Did you note the "All Welcome" words on their noticeboard? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Bloody liars.
Huia
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
I hadn't noticed - but, yeah. Generally non-classy.
I was married by a priest, in a church. I wonder if they'd like to retroactively rescind the thing, given my unacceptable opinions (shared, I might add, by my real, actual, proper, husband).
My mother, on the other hand, was married by a civil registrar in the Holloway Road Register Office, being a lapsed Catholic at the time, and marrying an atheist (after having lived in a de facto relationship with him for a number of months) - not a sacrament in sight. Following their later conversion to Bible-thumping-ism, shortly before my birth, interestingly, no-one questioned the validity of their marriage.
I have never been able to make head nor tail of the church's position here, but I think the failure to adequately distinguish between marriage as a civil contract and marriage as a sacrament is contributing significantly to the panties-bunching that's going on at the moment.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
I have never been able to make head nor tail of the church's position here, but I think the failure to adequately distinguish between marriage as a civil contract and marriage as a sacrament is contributing significantly to the panties-bunching that's going on at the moment.
You'd think that at least the Catholic Church would regard this as familiar territory. They've got a long history of dealing with marriages that are valid in the eyes of the state that are not valid in the view of their denomination (i.e. marriages where at least one of the parties is previously divorced, with a spouse still living).
For pure entertainment purposes: an Australian pizza shop engages in some creative guerilla art.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
That's exactly the point being made by the Catholic bishop of Parramatta - a diocese that covers Sydney's western suburbs and then the Blue Mountains (neither a very affluent area). In a pastoral letter on the survey, Bp Nguyen points out that the Church's sacramental position on marriage has not been affected by the 1961 Marriage Act, nor by the 1974 Family Law Act (which deals with divorce and associated disputes). He draws the distinction you make between the secular and religious. I gave the link to the Guardian report a few days ago, the article also including reference to comments made by Fr Andrew Sempell, the Rector of St James King St Anglican church. It's worth noting this comment by Bp Nguyen:
“It should not be a matter of a simple answer yes or no to the postal survey. It should be an opportunity for us to witness to our deep commitment to the ideal of Christian marriage.
“But it should also be an opportunity for us to listen to what the Spirit is saying through the signs of the times.”
I read that as saying that it's quite OK to vote Yes, indeed almost encouraging it.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
I'm glad to learn from GeeD's signature that "not every Anglican in Sydney is a Sydney Anglican", as it now emerges that the Sydney Diocese donated a million dollars to the "vote no" cause in the so-called postal survey about same same sex marriage. The linked report does also say that at least some priests in the Diocese deplore this "executive" act by the hierarchy.
It sounds to me that it was too little too late, as even right-wing bully-boy Dutton (The Minister for Locking up Asylum seekers) is reported to be conceding that the "yes" vote seems to have won . Not that means the Government will move to change the Marriage Act accordingly, as the "survey" is not binding, and many MP's of the governing party have said that they would vote against any such legislation.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
I'm glad to learn from GeeD's signature that "not every Anglican in Sydney is a Sydney Anglican", as it now emerges that the Sydney Diocese donated a million dollars to the "vote no" cause in the so-called postal survey about same same sex marriage.
An alternate reading of Matthew 25:
Come into my kingdom! For I was in fear of teh gayz, and you funded my campaign against them...
1 million! I know it may be poor form to compare, but I wonder what else that money could have been used for. Not my church, but still a tad annoyed.
Posted by Kittyville (# 16106) on
:
It's an absolute disgrace and ludicrously self-indulgent. But then, given the poor behaviour of some from both sides, nothing surprises me now. This use of funds which could have been put to so many other more charitable uses still appals me, though.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
And still the process drags on. I think the opinion poll" closes on 7 November. ABS report that more than 2/3 of eligible voters have already put in their response. Most people think that with that size of response, the result will almost certainly reflect previous (one-day) polls, i.e. around 60% in favour of SSM. But the troglodytes are saying they don't believe it, and "no" voters are feeling so oppressed (repressed?) that they are not game to reveal their true "politically incorrect" feelings in public.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Oh the poor wee things.
I read that article and a couple of others about him in The Guardian. One issue he raised that I have never come across was in reference to Australian laws was about the rights of states in Australia to differ from Federal Law on major issues.
This may be due to my ignorance of the Australian legal system of course, but coming from a country where that doesn't have a federal system I'm always intrigued by the federal vs states divide.
Huia
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
And still the process drags on. I think the opinion poll" closes on 7 November.
Indeed...but we are being encouraged to post them back no later than this Friday.
Results will be known on November 15.
But November 15 seems to me to be a start to a whole other process... Interpretation and possible legislation formation. I hold out hope, but not in the politicians who planned this farce of a poll.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
This may be due to my ignorance of the Australian legal system of course, but coming from a country where that doesn't have a federal system I'm always intrigued by the federal vs states divide.
Whereas I can't see it any other way!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
Oh the poor wee things.
I read that article and a couple of others about him in The Guardian. One issue he raised that I have never come across was in reference to Australian laws was about the rights of states in Australia to differ from Federal Law on major issues.
This may be due to my ignorance of the Australian legal system of course, but coming from a country where that doesn't have a federal system I'm always intrigued by the federal vs states divide.
Huia
In theory it's simple. There are some areas - eg defence - which are exclusively federal. Some others such as marriage where states as well as the federal parliament may legislate. All others are state only. If the subject matter is an area where both may legislate, federal law prevails to the extent of any inconsistency. In technical terms, the question to be asked is whether the federal legislation covers the field. You may remember that a few years ago, the ACT government legislated to validate SSM. The High Court had vey little difficulty in deciding that the federal Marriage Act 1961 did in fact cover the field and that despite Orfeo's best efforts the ACT legislation was invalid. Sometimes new discoveries create problems. For example, an exclusive federal power was to legislate for posts and telegraphs. What about radio? Not mentioned in the Constitution as radio was then barely conceived, let alone born. The HIgh Court decided that it came under the posts and telegraphs power.
That's the theory. In practice federal power has increased substantially from WW II onwards. 2 main reasons. The first is that the states surrendered their powers to levy income tax to the federal government. Then particularly under Robert Menzies and Gough Whitlam, the federal government made use of its power to provide grants to the states for particular purposes, the so-called tied grants. As long as these apply equally to the states, they are legal. As the federal government has much the greater economic power following the surrender of the tax power, it can and does step into matters once thought to be state only.
The US has much the same system, which our constitution copied. AIUI though, the tied grant practice is nt followed as much as here, mainly because the states did not surrender their tax powers. The Canadian is the reverse - specific powers are given to the provinces, with all others belonging to the national government.
All very simplified of course.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Thanks Gee D.
Being a smaller country is obviously more straight forward. It was only when my brother went to live in the States and moved inter-state every few years that I realised how complicated it can be.
Huia
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Ian, I thought Albury-Wadonga was a special economic zone, like Hong Kong.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Ha ha. Perhaps that was the dream in the 70s...
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Tomorrow we find out if Barnaby and the rest of the conga line of suckholes who struggle with knowing their own citizenship status will get to stay MPs or not. If not, the govt loses its majority, and I guess we will return to the polls.
Should Labor win the ensuing federal election, they have pledged to enact marriage equality. And so this absurd opinion poll will be even less pointless than ever.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
And so this absurd opinion poll will be even less pointless than ever.
Glad to know it will not have served no purpose, then.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Is that a comment on my creative grammar and expression?
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Double negative, old son.
The nutter from the north Bob Katter will no doubt support the Govt until Barnaby gets back in the chair in New England. I reckon the Greens would even agree to support the Govt on supply in this situation.
Still, it's fun to speculate. It's a pity he wasn't a senator, then he would indeed be out until the next General Election, or until they managed to get his replacement to resign and him re-appointed.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
What if Labor were to introduce an SSM bill? It may well get through the House and perhaps even the Senate.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Double negative, old son.
Yes, I thought as much. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
I reckon the Greens would even agree to support the Govt on supply in this situation.
Why would you assume that?
Back to the issue of the thread - As Gee has speculated, in the meantime Labor could float a SSM marriage bill and perhaps get it through.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
As a friend used to say, "From your lips to God's ear".
Huia
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
MPs in favour of same-sex marriage reform are bracing for "a blizzard of amendments", or a rival bill, from Christian conservatives intent on delaying the legalisation until they have all the safeguards for religious freedom they deem necessary.
Article.
Well, we find out the result Wednesday.
And we find out Wednesday how those who do not want the legislation will act.
I have a suspicion this may play out for some time yet. May Mr "Disappointment" Turnbull grow some and prove me wrong.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Double negative, old son.
Yes, I thought as much.
quote:
I reckon the Greens would even agree to support the Govt on supply in this situation.
Why would you assume that?
Back to the issue of the thread - As Gee has speculated, in the meantime Labor could float a SSM marriage bill and perhaps get it through.
I don't assume it, but the Greens like to be seen as responsible and to cultivate the notion that they are not just Labor with a conscience.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
The soon-to-be irrelevant Bernardi floated the idea that they should delay any SSM bill until the citizenship thing is sorted out. Delay, confuse, delay...
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
What if Labor were to introduce an SSM bill? It may well get through the House and perhaps even the Senate.
Dean Smith ( a Liberal senator) has offered to save Labor the trouble of doing so. He has a draft bill to allow SSM ready to move as soon as parliament resumes and the result of the 'survey' is announced, which is due to be Wednesday. Since his bill is based on the report of an all-party parliamentary committee, both Labor and the Greens have said they will support it.
So it could pass the Senate by the end of the week, provided the government (i.e. Turnbull the piss-weak weathervane) allows Smith's "private members bill" to get on the parliamentary agenda paper.
So the real questio is whether 'Prime Minister' Turnbull will defer once again to his right wing, and allow their yet more delaying tactics to play out.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
One issue is some in the right will do anything to bring Turnbull down, and this is seen as one of "his" issues. And he got some pretty poor polling today (would probably improve if he stood up to them).
From Crikey:
quote:
The right’s James Paterson this morning unveiled his own, extraordinary bill which would legalise discrimination by anyone merely on the basis of what they claimed to believe.
!!!
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I would have liked a bit more detail from Bernard Keane to explain that assessment, Ian. I am reading the act at the moment, and I guess not seeing that.
As far as I can make out, Patterson's act is supposed to do enough to protect "religious freedom" that everyone calms the fuck down about it. Patterson does support marriage equality, after all. But Keane is right to be suspicious of the right.
Those two fucksticks Bernardi and Eric Abetz were on 4 Corners tonight. I swear, I can feel myself getting stupider listening to Abetz' moronic monotone.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
I missed 4 Corners last night. Doubt I'll watch the catch-up on iView.
Thanks for the information in the bill. Perhaps Bernard was a bit excitable and I read it with his comment in mind, agreeing it seems to go further than other bills. This is what the SMH states:
quote:
The Paterson plan would allow any person or business to refuse to co-operate with the staging of a same-sex wedding, protecting them from civil litigation under anti-discrimination laws.
It would override existing state and territory anti-discrimination laws, stating plainly that when the two come into conflict, the federal law would prevail.
...
Anyone who holds and expresses a belief that same-sex relationships are unholy or immoral would also be protected from anti-discrimination laws by the Paterson bill, as would anyone who believes "the normative state of gender is binary".
Furthermore, the proposal tells celebrants it is within their power to decide if a person is "a man or a woman", and allows them to ignore the legal status of an intersex or transgender person if they believe the person isn't really male or female.
Not sure what to make of it all.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
By that I meant not sure if the bill is saying that, or if much is being read into it. But I suppose if you can read into it what the SMH and Crikey got out, there are some big concerns.
[ 13. November 2017, 18:00: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I missed 4 Corners last night. Doubt I'll watch the catch-up on iView.
Thanks for the information in the bill. Perhaps Bernard was a bit excitable and I read it with his comment in mind, agreeing it seems to go further than other bills. This is what the SMH states:
quote:
The Paterson plan would allow any person or business to refuse to co-operate with the staging of a same-sex wedding, protecting them from civil litigation under anti-discrimination laws.
It would override existing state and territory anti-discrimination laws, stating plainly that when the two come into conflict, the federal law would prevail.
...
Anyone who holds and expresses a belief that same-sex relationships are unholy or immoral would also be protected from anti-discrimination laws by the Paterson bill, as would anyone who believes "the normative state of gender is binary".
Furthermore, the proposal tells celebrants it is within their power to decide if a person is "a man or a woman", and allows them to ignore the legal status of an intersex or transgender person if they believe the person isn't really male or female.
Not sure what to make of it all.
So such a marriage may be legal, but it's also legal to discriminate against it???
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Bloody weasels.
This is so wrong that I don't even have the words to express my reaction
Huia
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Is there any way we can plant dual citizenship on Abetz?
I am hoping the next election will deal with Bernadi. He is a very dangerous bloke, in my estimation.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I'll probably offend everyone on this post by stating that I support traditional marriage although I am happy for the same sex group to have civil unions but I don't consider that to be marriage. The venom directed by the left against the no voters has to have been seen to be believed and they have done their cause no service. The conversations from both side have been disrespectful and even if the result is SSM I fear that the 'war' will continue. You cannot force people to agree by legislating that they are to do so.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
No, you can't force them to agree. But you can force them to behave like decent human beings in public at the risk of a criminal sanction.
That's kind of how it works for the rest of us, too. Welcome to society.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
What Doc Tor said. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
And I am pretty over hearing about this "venom" directed against "no" voters. Apart from the fact that homophobia has a long and dark history, there has been plenty of venom from the other side in this debate. They have done their cause no service, to quote something I think I read somewhere.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
"Treat us like human beings!"
"Gays are icky!"
#bothsides
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Results are in. A vote for both sanity and compassion. Every single state over 50% yes. Overall score is 61% yes. On a nearly 80% turnout.
Backtracking in 3, 2, 1 ...
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I'll probably offend everyone on this post by stating that I support traditional marriage although I am happy for the same sex group to have civil unions but I don't consider that to be marriage.
Which brings us to the obvious question "so what?" A lot of people don't approve of other folk's marriages. Some don't consider whole classes of people to be "really" married, like the Catholic attitude towards the previously divorced or certain Americans towards inter-racial couples. What makes you so special that the law should cater to your whims?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Results are in. A vote for both sanity and compassion. Every single state over 50% yes. Overall score is 61% yes. On a nearly 80% turnout.
Backtracking in 3, 2, 1 ...
A good majority, but a pity it's not higher. The sort of silliness Michael Kirby engaged in at the start, and some others later on, would not have helped. Good to see that there was a higher than average Yes vote in Abbott's own electorate.
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Part of me s
Part of me wonders on the fact 2 in every 5 people I meet are not supportive of marriage equality. I suppose it could be worse.
I'll celebrate this YES!!!
Let's see how our weasel of a PM conducts himself in the coming days. I hope this helps him grow a backbone for the sake of all concerned.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Results are in. A vote for both sanity and compassion. Every single state over 50% yes. Overall score is 61% yes. On a nearly 80% turnout.
Backtracking in 3, 2, 1 ...
A good majority, but a pity it's not higher.
Who gives a shit? A simple majority is all that was needed, and that is what has been delivered.
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on
:
❤️🧡💛💚💙💜
Now I only hope the govt honours it.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Results are in. A vote for both sanity and compassion. Every single state over 50% yes. Overall score is 61% yes. On a nearly 80% turnout.
Backtracking in 3, 2, 1 ...
A good majority, but a pity it's not higher.
Who gives a shit? A simple majority is all that was needed, and that is what has been delivered.
No majority at all was needed to have legislation passed. A large majority was needed to drive home the equality message.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
No, it wasn't. I know you live in your own little world, but here in the real one, all that was needed was a simple majority. And this was not close.
'No' took their best shot, and lost. Mal has rejected the Patterson bill, which is good news.
This is a start, not an ending. But it certainly is a start. Well overdue.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
As I'd read some speculation about a victory for "No" I was with the news. I hope the legislation is a loud and clear support for equal marriage.
Well done Australia.
Huia
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
No majority at all was needed - nor was the survey. Simply an act of Parliament. But the larger the majority the better to make the equality point and to drive off the attempts to hedge around with exemptions.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yes, at the end of the day the only purpose here is to take the wind out of the sails of the people still attempting to stand in the way.
And goodness me does that wind need removing. It took no more than 10 minutes for the usual suspects to continue to be arseholes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
You cannot force people to agree by legislating that they are to do so.
And you can't force people to agree that the speed limit ought to be what it is. But that's the thing about laws, they're enforceable anyway. "I was driving 20km/h over the speed limit because I think the speed limit should be 20km/h higher" doesn't cut it.
You, like it seems an awful lot of people, don't seem to actually understand what laws are for or how they work. One wonders how you've got this far into your life without noticing that the world doesn't revolve around your personal opinions.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
The venom directed by the left against the no voters has to have been seen to be believed and they have done their cause no service.
Yeah, treat people like shit forever and they are not happy with you. Crazy, isn't it?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Could anyone comment on the vote breakdown? I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons: it seems these were concentrated in Sydney suburbs with high immigrant populations.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No majority at all was needed - nor was the survey. Simply an act of Parliament.
No fucking shit, Captain Obvious.
The point of this nonsense has been to give Mal a mandate to do this thing. He has proven completely unable to bring the hard right of his own party to heel, but now even they cannot deny this is what most people want. Even if they continue to be dicks about it.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
A curious question from the northern hemisphere: looking at some of the results by electoral district, one sees that some rural areas (but far from all!) had high No votes - SW Qld, for instance. For some electorates, but not all, the website news.com.au offers a breakdown by sex (defined as a binary polarity! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) and, separately, by age. In Lingari constituency, NT, one of the highest No votes is shown as being among the 20-24 year-olds - older folk were voting more Yesly; and there is a fairly clear gradient from younger=Noer ... older=Yesser. Is this a ’typo’? It goes very strongly against usual patterns in other jurisdictions!
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Could anyone comment on the vote breakdown? I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons: it seems these were concentrated in Sydney suburbs with high immigrant populations.
Yeah, OK, so what are the “right” reasons for bigotry?
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
For some electorates, but not all, the website news.com.au offers a breakdown by sex (defined as a binary polarity! )
Yes, even the ABC made this particular blunder. I think it is because demographers are creepily obsessed with gender.
That is an interesting result you have noted in Lingiari. I can't find the breakdown you are referring to - the aforementioned ABC breakdown only seems to show who returned their surveys, rather than how they voted. Can you give us a link?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, OK, so what are the “right” reasons for bigotry?
I don't know, but reacting like that to an honest request for clarification from people closer to the situation strikes me as hidebound bigotry of the worst kind.
By "right reasons" I meant that I guessed the "no" vote would be higher for reasons other than those suggested in the link.
[ 15. November 2017, 08:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Could anyone comment on the vote breakdown? I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons: it seems these were concentrated in Sydney suburbs with high immigrant populations.
Yeah, OK, so what are the “right” reasons for bigotry?
Not what Eutychus was saying or asked, at all. I see you haven't lost your ability to choose (un)righteous indignation over reading comprehension.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by keibat:
A curious question from the northern hemisphere: looking at some of the results by electoral district, one sees that some rural areas (but far from all!) had high No votes - SW Qld, for instance. For some electorates, but not all, the website news.com.au offers a breakdown by sex (defined as a binary polarity! ) and, separately, by age. In Lingari constituency, NT, one of the highest No votes is shown as being among the 20-24 year-olds - older folk were voting more Yesly; and there is a fairly clear gradient from younger=Noer ... older=Yesser. Is this a ’typo’? It goes very strongly against usual patterns in other jurisdictions!
The vote is broken down by gender because that's the data that the Australian Bureau of Statistics provided.
This being a survey, you see, not an actual vote. Let's not go over THAT again...
To go to your specific question, Lingiari is the electorate that covers most of the Northern Territory and one of its characteristics is that it has a much higher Indigenous population than the rest of the country.
Sadly, one of the characteristics of the Indigenous populations is that they are young, on account of Indigenous people having a much lower life expectancy.
I wouldn't be surprised if the No vote was high in the small Indigenous communities. For one thing, those communities are inherently somewhat conservative. For another, English is not their first language and the rest of the country often does a God-awful job of communicating with or caring about them. There was actually a story about one community that burned the first round of survey papers because they believed the proposal was to make same-sex marriage compulsory, i.e. to ban existing marriages.
[ 15. November 2017, 08:35: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Could anyone comment on the vote breakdown? I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons: it seems these were concentrated in Sydney suburbs with high immigrant populations.
What were your reasons, may I ask?
Not sure if I am reading your post incorrectly, but are you saying electorates with a large immigrant population voting No surprised you?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Could anyone comment on the vote breakdown? I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons: it seems these were concentrated in Sydney suburbs with high immigrant populations.
This is pretty much the take on it here as well, that the migrants were a significant factor. There was certainly some specific "no" campaigning targeting Muslim and Chinese communities.
It's also interesting because most of these electorates are also held by Labor, i.e. they are left-leaning within our political spectrum. But they are left-wing in the sense of working class, in favour of unions. The marriage debate has not fallen very neatly in line with the issues that tend to define our party politics.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
What were your reasons, may I ask?
On the basis of my immense expertise, which consists of a little over a week in Sydney*, reading Bill Bryson's Down Under, and the Australians I meet on here, I was expecting a strong "no" vote from religious conservatives, of whom I would have expected to find more among wealthier Sydneysiders than in remoter spots.
I was confused by the showing being in Labor-held electorates but orfeo's post immediately above explains that.
I hadn't thought at all about the consequences of voting by other culturally or religiously conservative groups, in particular immigrants.
For me, this finding highlighted the fact that however enlightened our thinking may have become on SSM in "western" countries, working out the implications for interacting with other nations and cultures in ways that don't reproduce cultural imperialism is non-trivial.
==
*Biggest shock: casual racism.
[ 15. November 2017, 08:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Ah, interesting, thanks. And good last point.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The Yes vote in our electorate was almost spot on the national vote; that in the neighbouring electorate was rather lower. A couple of possible reasons. Several of the suburbs there have a very high proportion of voters born outside Australia; in one of those, only a couple of stops further down (ie away from the city) somewhere about 2/3 of the population was born outside Australia, mostly in east Asia. They tend to be socially conservative young couples. I have no figures, but imagine that there's a high correlation of population and voting make-up. The religious make-up would also be more conservative with a higher proportion of those attending ethnic evangelical or Presbyterian churches with very few in the Anglican or Uniting churches.
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
Dark Knight requested the link for voter breakdown: it’s
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/how-australia-voted-on-samesex-marriage/news-story/856052cb744b25f734d04c1714e2 02e7
Scroll down to the bottom of the column for the interactive map.
The potential explanation in terms of an indigenous population with a young demographic profile and predominantly conservative values was already in my own mind - It parallels the situation in Canada. It seems to me that ’indigeneity’ as a status-of-life is perhaps inherently weighted to favour of conservativism in social values - not only because of cultural continuity, but because in most contexts, being ’indigenous’ means by definition belonging to a population significantly outnumbered and overwhelmingly out-empowered by population(s) who have arrived later and taken control. Change is therefore defined as the opposite of the traditional cultural integrity, and it becomes much more difficult to accept changes which only very indirectly depend on ethnicity, such as the current massive shifts in ’Western’ cultures over gender and sexuality.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's also interesting because most of these electorates are also held by Labor, i.e. they are left-leaning within our political spectrum. But they are left-wing in the sense of working class, in favour of unions. The marriage debate has not fallen very neatly in line with the issues that tend to define our party politics.
This is something we see over and over again - people (especially on the left) assume that people who agree with them on one issue will perforce agree with them on all issues.
It happened with Brexit, where there was an assumption that Labour-voting areas would support the EU because that's what left-wingers were supposed to do. It's happened in the last couple of general elections, where the left weren't overly bothered about the rise in UKIP support because it was assumed to be taking votes away from the Tories, but it turned out that an awful lot of the new UKIP voters were formerly Labour voters.
People assume that if someone's an immigrant they will support further immigration. They assume that if someone's in a minority they will support those in other minorities. They assume that if someone is economically liberal then they must also be socially liberal (or vice versa). None of those assumptions is actually valid. People aren't liberal or conservative as a single all-encompassing state of being that informs their stance on every issue, we are liberal on some issues and conservative on others. I wish more commentators would remember that.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, OK, so what are the “right” reasons for bigotry?
I don't know, but reacting like that to an honest request for clarification from people closer to the situation strikes me as hidebound bigotry of the worst kind.
By "right reasons" I meant that I guessed the "no" vote would be higher for reasons other than those suggested in the link.
I misread what you said. But your response is straight up bizarre. Even orfeo understood what happened, so how do you not?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Explanation.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Explanation.
This doesn't explain shit. It is fairly obvious that my reaction to you was caused by my misreading your post.
Stating that I got it wrong, accusing me of jumping to conclusions; anything like that would be a reasonable response.
Hidebound bigotry? Weird and inaccurate.
Of the worst kind? When we are taking about people voting to deny the rights of others, jumping to an inaccurate conclusion about what you said is the "worst"? Wow.
[ 15. November 2017, 17:30: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It seemed pretty obvious to me that your response implied bigotry on my part, because you thought I thought there might be some "right" reasons to vote no.
And throwing accusations of bigotry around before you've read for comprehension does indeed constitute bigotry in my view.
And I see that apologising for misreading is a bridge too far for you too, apparently.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Thanks keibat.
While I agree with orfeo's observations about the relative age of Indigenous people, I would be much more cautious in assuming the reasons for the seemingly conservative position taken by young Indigenous respondents (or anyone else in the electorate), sans more research. We non-Indigenous Australians already make waaaay too many assumptions about Indigenous people.
ETF Spelling
[ 15. November 2017, 23:50: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It seemed pretty obvious to me that your response implied bigotry on my part, because you thought I thought there might be some "right" reasons to vote no.
And throwing accusations of bigotry around before you've read for comprehension does indeed constitute bigotry in my view.
And I see that apologising for misreading is a bridge too far for you too, apparently.
Yes, my response indicated I inferred bigotry on your part. In my defence, given your history here this isn't an unreasonable reading, especially given what I thought you said.
I had thought about an apology, but given that you think that it constituted the worst kind of bigotry nixed that thought.
Personally, I think the worst kinds of bigotry causes real harm to people and isn’t a comment that hurts their widdle feewings.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Relying on caricatures of what a person thinks other people believe and throwing out aggressive responses to that caricature, instead of taking the time to ensure one has actually understood what those other people's viewpoint is, I would argue, the very definition of bigotry.
Bigotry expressed as physical harm doesn't come from nowhere, you know, and neither is it the monopoly (as we so often think) of "the other side".
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Relying on caricatures of what a person thinks other people believe and throwing out aggressive responses to that caricature, instead of taking the time to ensure one has actually understood what those other people's viewpoint is, I would argue, the very definition of bigotry.
Bigotry expressed as physical harm doesn't come from nowhere, you know, and neither is it the monopoly (as we so often think) of "the other side".
quote:
big·ot·ry
[ˈbiɡətrē]
NOUN
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself
Bold mine. That is a plural. Meaning group.
You do know that a caricature of a person exaggerates real things don’t you?
And you are trying to equate my opinion of you with oppression, enslavement, genocide and all the other real harms that have befallen because of actual bigotry?
Jesus Christ, what a self-important prick you are.
[ 16. November 2017, 14:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
My advice: stop digging.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My advice: stop digging.
You are doubling down, then? Still think you are the victim?
If you were half the person you [b]think[/i] you are, you'd be too ashamed too leave the house after that victim bullshit.
ETA: Even Jesus thinks you are a tool.
[ 16. November 2017, 16:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I've no idea what's getting you.
By your own admission, you accused me of bigotry due to a sheer misunderstanding on your part.
That was an insult, and in this context it was an entirely gratuitous one based on nothing but your own prejudice against me.
I'm not the only one to have noticed you preferring invective over comprehension.
When I point out to you that lashing out on the basis of one's own misconceptions is the very essence of bigotry, you seek to dodge the charge by the bizarre claim that one can only be bigoted towards a group.
The fact is, you were gratuitously rude, as attested to by at least one witness, and I called you on it. That is all.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
We're officially at the stage now where I get to say "Get a room"...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm too bigoted to take one.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
Isn't that one of the functions of Hell,to slug out animosities that have developed over several months and threads?
lilBuddha, I am usually arguing the same things you are, but when your arguments become this aggressive and personal it is difficult to continue supporting those points, particularly if/when they are against people I know and like, even if I don't agree with what they are saying at that moment.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha, I am usually arguing the same things you are, but when your arguments become this aggressive and personal it is difficult to continue supporting those points, particularly if/when they are against people I know and like, even if I don't agree with what they are saying at that moment.
In my time on the Ship, I've vehemently disagreed with people I like and completely agreed with people I do not much care for. I try to keep my ideals consistent, with hopefully room for growth.
Dislike me because of my posting style and it is understandable. I would be saddened, but not surprised.
Changing your support of any ideal because you do not care for my posting is a disappointment. quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've no idea what's getting you.
By your own admission, you accused me of bigotry due to a sheer misunderstanding on your part.
That was an insult, and in this context it was an entirely gratuitous one based on nothing but your own prejudice against me.
It was not prejudice, but based on your posting history. Not applicable in this instance, but one based on actual experience.
quote:
prej·u·dice
ˈprejədəs/
noun
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
Another definition pulled from the same "bizarre" source: The dictionary.
quote:
The fact is, you were gratuitously rude, as attested to by at least one witness, and I called you on it.
Wasn't gratuitous. Jesus, you really need a dictionary. The first post was mistaken.
quote:
That is all.
You claim insulting you is worse than, or at least as grievous as, racism and homophobia and sexism, etc. Which is ridiculous.
If you want to run rather than address that, go ahead.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
You claim insulting you is worse than, or at least as grievous as, racism and homophobia and sexism, etc. Which is ridiculous.
If you want to run rather than address that, go ahead.
You are simply making yourself look ridiculous with your other points, but let me address this one, because once again you are completely misunderstanding.
Nowhere have I suggested that a personal insult to me was worse than physical expressions of various -isms.
What I have suggested, and what you are singularly failing to grasp, is that the kind of bigotry you justly condemn is fuelled by people not listening to those on the other side properly, assuming they know what those on the other side think, and instead of engaging at any substantial level, lashing out against their own caricature of those on the other side.
That is exactly what you did when you lashed out at me, and your inability to see it is highlighting your own bigotry with every additional post you make.
You're not posting to seek clarification or resolve matters. You're posting to attack in line with your convictions, regardless of what anyone else might say.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'd have thought that neither attempting to understand voting patterns of "no" nor seeking to stand up for rights is really bigotry.
Throwing the term around here seems to devalue it.
But then misreading posts, seeking to see the worst possible interpretation of words, dragging up things said elsewhere, typing stridently in bold and seeking to show one is right by appealing to authority and/or having the last word is par pretty common.
I've done it myself of course. And just realised how bad it looks.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha, I am usually arguing the same things you are, but when your arguments become this aggressive and personal it is difficult to continue supporting those points, particularly if/when they are against people I know and like, even if I don't agree with what they are saying at that moment.
<snip> Changing your support of any ideal because you do not care for my posting is a disappointment.
Sorry, I wasn't clear there, I so should not post from a phone travelling. I did not mean to imply that I change my views, because I don't, but that I choose not to post in support.
I was thinking in particular about the David Walliams thread when it started discussing blackface. I had started developing ideas around different ways of doing this, with the example of Boggart's Breakfast, now we realise how offensive blackface is to many. But I chose not to continue pursuing that train of thought and stopped posting on the thread.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
CK it was abundantly clear to me at least that you were not changing your views.
To my mind it's entirely characteristic of LB's posting that aside from any substantive disagreement, her responses misconstrue, in a negative light, what that person's said.
If you address that, as I stupidly did, you get dragged down a kind of black hole of cultivated misunderstanding from which it's hard to climb out.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
In my WIP, I have one character remark (forcibly):
quote:
"You're right, but you're being a dick about it."
Let the reader understand.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I think pointing this out is well worth being called a dick, frankly.
As you can see, I'm not the only target of this behaviour. And I wouldn't be surprised if other people are intimidated by it and thus put off posting, which is detrimental to diversity on the boards.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
I wouldn’t dream of trying to engage with her. Disingenuous and deeply, deeply tiresome.
I think she views herself as a fighter of privilege wherever she finds it. Trouble is, she assumes that not herself being privileged (by which she means white and male) makes her right by default at all times and in all situations.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My advice: stop digging.
You are doubling down, then? Still think you are the victim?
If you were half the person you [b]think[/i] you are, you'd be too ashamed too leave the house after that victim bullshit.
ETA: Even Jesus thinks you are a tool.
Yeah, but Jesus died for the tools. He likes us better, and we're more fun on a night out.
The 'righteous'... well, not so much. After he tried to point out how unnecessary was that poker they kept up their arses, it was all downhill after that.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Sorry, I wasn't clear there, I so should not post from a phone travelling. I did not mean to imply that I change my views, because I don't,
This sounds more in keeping with your character, as I understand it. Not that you need my approval, of course. So apologies for inferring otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Yeah, but Jesus died for the tools.
I thought he died for everyone, so yeah.
quote:
He likes us better, and we're more fun on a night out.
Really?
quote:
The 'righteous'... well, not so much. After he tried to point out how unnecessary was that poker they kept up their arses, it was all downhill after that.
Seems otherwise to me. I think you mean self-righteous.
Which I hope I am not but it is not something easily judged by oneself.
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Disingenuous
Yeah, this one doesn't fit. I mean, there are a lot of negatives one could accurately, or at least reasonably, attribute to me. But not so much this one.
quote:
and deeply, deeply tiresome.
Not even going to argue this because, yeah, at least sometimes.
quote:
I think she views herself as a fighter of privilege wherever she finds it.
Nope. I argue here for what I think is right. Privilege can blind one to inequities, so it does enter into the discussion.
quote:
Trouble is, she assumes that not herself being privileged (by which she means white and male)
White and male, as categories, do confer privilege. This does not mean that no other forms of privilege exist, some of which I have.
quote:
makes her right by default at all times and in all situations.
Well, obviously I am going to argue the positions I think are correct. I've admitted here, sometimes grudgingly, being wrong. So I don't think this charge sticks.
Arrogant, pugnacious, contentious, stubborn, angry, sometimes mean...there are more, of course, appellations that fit me more accurately than I care for. Accuse me of something accurate at least.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What I have suggested, and what you are singularly failing to grasp, is that the kind of bigotry you justly condemn is fuelled by people not listening to those on the other side properly, assuming they know what those on the other side think, and instead of engaging at any substantial level, lashing out against their own caricature of those on the other side.
I wish I were a good enough person to take the high road and ignore this, but I am not.
This is a pattern for you: Make an egregious statement and then attempt to cover it when confronted.
I was wrong about what you said in this instance I will admit.
I maintain, though, that I am not incorrect in assessing your character.
Does this justify replying without confirming what I thought I read? No.
Are you getting an apology because of this failure? Also no.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
lilBuddha, I say this with all sincerity...
What the Fuck is wrong with you?
Seriously, the only sensible way to read Eutychus' original comment was that it was about the accuracy of Eutychus' guess.
Let's just replay it for the sane members of the audience:
quote:
I guessed NSW would have the highest number of electorates where "no" won, but not for the right reasons
See? "My guess was correct, but my reasons for the guess were not".
But no, you had to run with this bizarre reading of "I wanted people to vote "no", but people didn't vote "no" for the right reasons".
And from then on you just decided to froth at the mouth.
This is NOT the first time you've done this. This is not the first time you've gone on an extended tirade because no-one can get you to spend 5 seconds re-reading the thing you got completely wrong to begin with. And it's exhausting trying to get you to pause, breathe, and re-read.
And then, when you finally do, your attitude becomes "oh well, my reason for my anger might have been wrong but dammit I'll find another reason to be angry so that I don't have to back down".
No. Just no. Back down, apologise, and in this one situation please Shut The Fuck Up. You created this situation. You do not get to say that you're still somehow the righteous one in this situation. You got it wrong. Own your mistake.
[ 18. November 2017, 02:02: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
One hateful group calling its "warriors" to arms.
https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/hateful-grubs-are-brazenly-defacing-lgbtqia-street-murals-in-inner-sydney/
(Edit: sorry, on a phone and my URL tag stuffed up; can't fix it)
[ 18. November 2017, 06:07: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Seriously, the only sensible way to read Eutychus' original comment was that it was about the accuracy of Eutychus' guess.
I’ve acknowledged this. Several times.
I’m not marking a claim, implicit or explicit, of being righteous. I know how bad a person I am.
He made a ridiculous claim about bigotry that set me right off.
Ok, so the mature response would have been to apologise for the misread and then take him to task for the bullshit claim.
What is wrong with me? I’m angry and I’m tired.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He made a ridiculous claim about bigotry that set me right off.
In other words, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
[ 18. November 2017, 13:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
lilBuddha, I'm impressed. You actually chose to waste your own time 'analysing' an obviously flip, throwaway comment.
With the emphasis on the 'anal' of course.
Anyway, things to do...
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What is wrong with me? I’m angry and I’m tired.
Clearly that you're too arrogant to apologise when you've made a mistake. There's a good reason you're normally on my ignore list, but this thread's subject intrigues me and has quoted you so often I got curious.
[ 18. November 2017, 21:45: Message edited by: MarsmanTJ ]
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Ian - very troubling stuff. The call to arms aspect of it reminds me of the back and forth texting (before FB was the ubiquitous phenomenon it is now) that led to the Cronulla riots.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He made a ridiculous claim about bigotry that set me right off.
In other words, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Indeed, it does seem exactly the wrong complaint to make in context.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He made a ridiculous claim about bigotry that set me right off.
In other words, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Indeed, it does seem exactly the wrong complaint to make in context.
You think jumping to a conclusion, for whatever reason, is the same as racism, etc? Because however he tried to walk it back, that is what his claim entails.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He made a ridiculous claim about bigotry that set me right off.
In other words, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Indeed, it does seem exactly the wrong complaint to make in context.
You think jumping to a conclusion, for whatever reason, is the same as racism, etc? Because however he tried to walk it back, that is what his claim entails.
It doesn't matter what I think of the merits of the claim, the point is that the time to complain so vigorously about a "ridiculous claim about bigotry" is NOT shortly after you've made a ridiculous claim about bigotry yourself.
The very best position you can attain on that subject at the moment is somewhere around a draw, not a moral victory. Personally I don't really want to invest my time in deciding who made the more ridiculous claim about bigotry.
[ 19. November 2017, 04:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Of course, one MP thinks crocodile attacks are more important.
Light relief. But a bit odd.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
There is a reason "mad Katter" has entered the Oz lexicon.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
orfeo,
It isn’t bigotry by definition and isn’t in normal use. You work in the law, words have meaning.
Pedantry aside, I’m done hijacking this thread.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Starting to think the ACL might be so out of touch they are not actually in our epoch anymore.
Lyle Shelton has been obsessed with arguing the slippery slope for years. Given his tortured logic it is probably completely appropriate for the ACL to host a conference this past weekend in which the immortal phrase "anonymous masturbator" was uttered.
That is likely paywalled for most of you, here is an excerpt:
quote:
... lucky attendees got to hear the theories of German sociologist Gabriele Kuby, who denies the existence of homosexuality.
“There is no innate same sex attraction. It is not supported by scientific evidence. There is no innate gender identity. It is not supported by scientific evidence. Most children with gender dysphoria grow out of it. It is not supported by scientific evidence that all these children need some kind of hormonal measures of sex change, which I think is simply a severe abuse of children.”
She told the audience that allowing gay people to marry was a mistake.
“The next step is that they will be given the right to procreate”, leading to the “artificial production” of children using “sperm from an anonymous masturbator”, she said. Christians were now called to battle, she said.
[ 20. November 2017, 07:27: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Uttering the sentence "it is not supported by scientific evidence" provides great comfort, I'm sure, who those who wish to believe there is no scientific evidence.
And yet, there is still scientific evidence.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
German sociologist Gabriele Kuby
She's sure as hell no biologist... ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
And in good news, the bill to allow same-sex marriage has now passed one house of the Australian parliament. Suggested amendments to allow discrimination by anti-gay florists and bakers (supposedly in the name of "protecting religious freedom") were all rejected. It goes to the other house of parliament next week, with strong hopes that it will pass there - again without amendment. If so, it then becomes law - at last!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
The law actually WAS amended, so it's rather bemusing to see all the news reports that it wasn't.
But they were very technical amendments, designed to ensure there were no other laws that would not work correctly with the Marriage Act. Not the amendments that conservatives were looking for.
Clearly the actual amendments, which were supported by all the people supporting the Bill as a whole, were of no interest to the media because there was no fight about it.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
An e-sing-a-long is in order to celebrate:
Etta James: At Last
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
I had the news turned down low, but I heard an M.P propose to his partner ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Not often you hear really moving stuff on the news or broadcasts from Parliament where years of injustice are finally righted.
YaY
Huia
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Should be passing soon...
If only MPs would stop waffling and congratulating themselves in their speeches.
edit: though there were some odd ones. From those against.
[ 07. December 2017, 05:44: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
And we've, finally, joined the rest of the civilised world. It has passed.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Beat me to it - looks as if Dutton and Katter were the only 2 voting No at the end.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
In the end there were 4 MPs who voted no.
Most of the MPs who had spent the day trying to move silly amendments abstained from the vote in the end, including those arch-bastards Dutton and Abbott. Some justified their abstention by saying that although they opposed SSM and wanted more discrimination rather than less, the electorate (including their own constituencies) had clearly voted yes in the unnecessary and expensive "survey" that they had forced upon us in order to delay the inevitable.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Good to know that the bastards don't always win.
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
Yes, this is welcome, surprising, good news.
Posted by Dennis the Menace (# 11833) on
:
It's a pity the PM is taking all the credit for it. He would have done better if Parliament had voted for it instead of wasting money on the plebecite.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Well, colour me surprised. I thought the post vote was going to be a complete waste of time, and simply an excuse to kick SSM into the long grass.
I was wrong, and I'm glad I was wrong. Well done, you.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
My Aussie husband and I will be landing in Sydney on Jan. 2nd. Will our marriage (we got married in the US) be legally recognized in Australia by then? I know the timeline for same sex couples in Australia to marry but I cannot find information about when same sex couples married abroad will be legally the same as opposite sex married couples in Australia.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
I'm sorry, stonespring, I don't know. Hopefully the answers to these questions will be clarified in the coming weeks.
One of the MPs who voted no was David Littleproud. This story filed last year indicates he hasn't budged an inch from his homophobic position. Sucks to be him - farmer Dave can marry any bloke that'll have him now.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Hang on a minute - I just watched the brief video that Tukai linked to. It looks like marriages will be immediately recognised.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
My Aussie husband and I will be landing in Sydney on Jan. 2nd. Will our marriage (we got married in the US) be legally recognized in Australia by then?
Yep.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Marriage equality in Australia starts in 40 minutes.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Sorry to see Russell Broadbent was one of the four no votes in the Reps. He has been a tireless advocate for the humane treatment of Asylum Seekers since the Tampa tragedy. I haven't fact checked myself there, but I'm pretty sure I have the right bloke.
I have been glowering and grinding my teeth at the Pollies celebrating and trying to take credit for marriage equality. On the one hand, many of the people on the Liberal side supported Howard's amendment to the Marriage Act, and on the Labor side, many were members of the Gillard Govt, and decided that being in Govt was more important than enacting marriage equality. A pox on both their houses.
Also, fuck them all while they lock up people who come to Australia seeking asylum out of the country. They don't have the right to celebrate anything.
Congratulations go instead to everyone else in the country who did so much to ensure that this happened, and made sure we jumped through all the hoops put in our way by the politicians over the last 20 years. I say 20 years because that's my estimate of how long Australia has been ready for this reform, and how long these bastard politicians have made us wait.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I say 20 years because that's my estimate of how long Australia has been ready for this reform, and how long these bastard politicians have made us wait.
Well it's a lousy estimate that flies in the face of when SSM became legal anywhere. But don't let facts get in your way.
5 minutes.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
How long ago did Howard change the Marriage Act?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
To the surprise of almost no one, the couple who 'threatened' to divorce each other if same-sex couples were given the same legal right to marry as they enjoyed turn out not to have meant it after all, despite a generous offer of pro bono legal assistance.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Well, what an incredible surprise. Grandstanding galoots.
Are they related to the Sydney Jensens?
Brilliant move by the lawyer though. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Huia
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How long ago did Howard change the Marriage Act?
Also a lot less than 20 years. Google is your friend.
And the Parliament changed it. "Howard" did not. Right now I'm pretty annoyed at how few people actually understand the process by which legislation would be made, so it'd be great if you recognised that both major parties voted together to ensure that same-sex couples couldn't get married.
[ 08. December 2017, 22:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To the surprise of almost no one, the couple who 'threatened' to divorce each other if same-sex couples were given the same legal right to marry as they enjoyed turn out not to have meant it after all, despite a generous offer of pro bono legal assistance.
They were complete idiots because they had no insight into what the law actually said (already) about recognition of relationships.
Even if they went through the rigmarole of separating for a year, getting divorced, then got back together, they would still be a couple in the eyes of the government once they got back together whether they like or not. De facto couples are treated almost exactly the same as married couples.
And it's not just a question of whatever petulant little stance they want to take, the government has its own interest in knowing who is in a relationship because it affects a whole lot of financial interactions, including welfare payments and taxation.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
How long ago did Howard change the Marriage Act?
Also a lot less than 20 years. Google is your friend.
And the Parliament changed it. "Howard" did not. Right now I'm pretty annoyed at how few people actually understand the process by which legislation would be made, so it'd be great if you recognised that both major parties voted together to ensure that same-sex couples couldn't get married.
It was done in 2004, thirteen years ago. According to
this article it was done to stymie an application to the Family Court to recognise a same sex marriage in Canada. I reckon the action in the Family Court precipitated the amendment, but it is a good indication that there had been agitation for same sex marriage for some years prior. Howard's action was a finger-in-the-dyke job and I reckon my estimate of 20 years was not too far off.
I'm happy to accept your assertion that Labor backed the 2004 legislation. I will add that to my list of grievances against them on the issue.
I don't resile from my characterisation of the amendment as Howard's. Of course the Parliament passed the thing. The Governor-General assented to it too. I am getting more and more upset that the role of the Governor-General in the making of laws is ignored.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I am getting more and more upset that the role of the Governor-General in the making of laws is ignored.
Listen, mate, I'm a legislative drafter. What's your excuse?
Furthermore, I had the privilege of seeing the Governor-General's signature on the marriage legislation yesterday.
If I'm annoyed with you, it's because you simultaneously declare your knowledge of how this has all gone down while betraying your severe ignorance. Yes, I know when the Marriage Act was amended. Yes, I know it was in reaction to things happening in Canada.
No, it still does not make the SLIGHTEST sense to suggest that people were agitating 20 years ago for a reform that wasn't legally necessary until 13 years ago and which would have been unprecedented anywhere in the world until 16 years ago. You've answered it yourself, you just can't see it. The amendment to exclude SSM occurred at the time it first looked like a possibility that SSM would happen.
But thanks for all your vague thought bubbles and then handing in your homework assignment.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
If it's not a breach of any duty of silence, can you say if Turnbull was in attendance at the ExCo?
[ 09. December 2017, 07:25: Message edited by: Gee D ]
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
So, Big O, are you saying that people wouldn't have advocated for same sex marriage 20 years ago because it wasn't legally necessary to advocate for it then? If it wasn't legally necessary, why weren't same sex couples marrying back in 1997?
I'm sorry if my ignorance offends you. It must be difficult living in a world in which so many inferior people just go about expressing themselves.
Please forgive me for annoying you.
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on
:
Poll numbers from 1997 supporting your contention would go a long way.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Yeah maybe. But I reckon not many people who would have said in 1997 that they opposed same sex marriage would have voted against the party that introduced it for that reason. As it happens, Howard would never have done it.
But I am a very ignorant person. Please be gentle.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If it's not a breach of any duty of silence, can you say if Turnbull was in attendance at the ExCo?
It was on TV. Which is the only reason I know the answer is yes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I'm sorry if my ignorance offends you. It must be difficult living in a world in which so many inferior people just go about expressing themselves.
Please forgive me for annoying you.
It is indeed one of the great banes of my life.
It’d be easier to forgive you if you stopped doing it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
If it wasn't legally necessary, why weren't same sex couples marrying back in 1997?
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You've answered it yourself, you just can't see it. The amendment to exclude SSM occurred at the time it first looked like a possibility that SSM would happen.
I write these things, why? It's not like they're read.
Because, it had not occurred to anyone back in 1997 (i.e. your randomly chosen date that isn't based on any evidence beyond your fondness for round numbers) that the Marriage Act did not specify the gender of the couple and that the assumption everyone made about marriage was not actually part of the text.
Because nobody, but nobody, every actually reads the fucking law.
[ 09. December 2017, 21:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Do you think Peter Hanks read the law before he advised that couple to make that application to the Family Court? There's someone who knows the law. I remember him as a clever and modest bloke.
Orfeo, how do you think lawyers who want to do good in the world go about their business? Do they just think about how many billable units can fit on the head of a pin and only do the work when the client comes through the door? Or do they see the possibilities and ache for the client with the right set of facts to walk through the door?
I'm not talking about those Parliamentary do-gooders like Bookshelf Brandis, who teared up on TV the other day. I'm talking about activist lawyers who seek to bring about social change in the cut and thrust of private practice. Drafting has its place, certainly in the commercial world, but the real practice of law is in having and managing clients, in fearlessly pursuing their interests within your ethical limits, in manipulating the grey areas better than your colleagues so that your client gets the best possible outcome.
But I know that people all have different skill sets and some are just more comfortable doing clerical work.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Do you think Peter Hanks read the law before he advised that couple to make that application to the Family Court? There's someone who knows the law. I remember him as a clever and modest bloke.
Orfeo, how do you think lawyers who want to do good in the world go about their business? Do they just think about how many billable units can fit on the head of a pin and only do the work when the client comes through the door? Or do they see the possibilities and ache for the client with the right set of facts to walk through the door?
I'm not talking about those Parliamentary do-gooders like Bookshelf Brandis, who teared up on TV the other day. I'm talking about activist lawyers who seek to bring about social change in the cut and thrust of private practice. Drafting has its place, certainly in the commercial world, but the real practice of law is in having and managing clients, in fearlessly pursuing their interests within your ethical limits, in manipulating the grey areas better than your colleagues so that your client gets the best possible outcome.
But I know that people all have different skill sets and some are just more comfortable doing clerical work.
Do you think Peter Hanks did that in 1997?
No.
Does Peter Hanks give any support for your notion that everyone was ready for this reform in 1997?
No.
My entire source of irritation is your declaration that everyone was ready for this 20 years ago without one skerrick of evidence for this assertion. You are now busily pulling up evidence of what happened around 2003/4, when the law was changed, and yet somehow you are utterly oblivious to the fact that this doesn't provide the slightest bit of proof for YOUR claim.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
If it's not a breach of any duty of silence, can you say if Turnbull was in attendance at the ExCo?
It was on TV. Which is the only reason I know the answer is yes.
Thanks - we rarely watch the TV news as either we're not at home at the time it's on, or if we are, we're busy preparing dinner.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Ah yes. I thought you had very little idea about the process of social change.
Incidentally, do you know a bloke called Darren Olney? It literally took me this long to remember his surname after you mentioned that you were a clerk in the Parliament.
The last time I saw him he had just accepted a position doing legislative drafting in Canberra. That was back in the '90's, so it will totally freak me out if you do know him. I met him when he was President of Students for Christ at Monash waaaaaay back in 1985 or 1986.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Ah yes. I thought you had very little idea about the process of social change.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0