|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: SSM by postal vote
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
lol. Nice work crikey.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Nice speech on the Irish experience of the Marriage Equality vote from some Irish guy at the National Press Club today.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mili
Shipmate
# 3254
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 1015 | From: Melbourne, Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
A big welcome back LATA.
We have no papers yet, looking forward to it though.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
Did you note the "All Welcome" words on their noticeboard? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif) Bloody liars.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kittyville
Shipmate
# 16106
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 291 | From: Sydney | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
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)
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Ian, I thought Albury-Wadonga was a special economic zone, like Hong Kong.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Ha ha. Perhaps that was the dream in the 70s...
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
Is that a comment on my creative grammar and expression?
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
What if Labor were to introduce an SSM bill? It may well get through the House and perhaps even the Senate.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
As a friend used to say, "From your lips to God's ear".
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
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...
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
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.
!!!
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dark Knight
Super Zero
# 9415
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
So don't ever call me lucky
You don't know what I done, what it was, who I lost, or what it cost me - A B Original: I C U
----
Love is as strong as death (Song of Solomon 8:6).
Posts: 2958 | From: Beyond the Yellow Brick Road | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
