Post by: vox nihili on August 07, 2017, 04:54:23 pm
Moderates on the left of the party are advocating a free vote in parliament, whereas conservatives on the right are persisting with this idea of holding a plebiscite. Some conservatives (namely Cormann, Dutton) are advocating a postal ballot as a potential compromise, as a plebiscite is likely to be knocked down by the senate but a postal ballot may not need parliamentary approval.
Just now it's been suggested that the leadership of the party wants:
1. One more crack at a plebiscite
2. If that doesn't work a postal vote
3. A free vote by the end of the year (meaning all of this would have to happen very quickly)
What are your thoughts?
Post by: CaitlinSavins on August 07, 2017, 04:58:59 pm
As seen by other countries legalising it, I think it's an inevitable thing that will occur sooner rather than later tbh.
Post by: strawberries on August 07, 2017, 05:04:30 pm
it's pointless, waste of efforts/time/money
we elect our representatives - it's their duty to get the job done
if we had a plebiscite for this, why don't we have a plebiscite on basically every other legislation?
offtopic
(and also, why should I get a say on how someone else's lifestyle choice that won't affect me?)
and yes, you did go to the election with that promise but that the idea is stupid anyway
soz for my language
/out
Post by: brenden on August 07, 2017, 06:22:57 pm
Post by: Microsoft Word on August 07, 2017, 06:31:30 pm
Regardless of the ethical connotations, same-sex marriage isn't at the top of the list for things i'd, and most people, would like to get done. Issues like terrorism and the decentralisation of infrastructure should be taking the cake for federal deliberation.
Post by: brenden on August 07, 2017, 07:22:26 pm
Labor knows a majority of the public would vote against same-sex marriage if a plebiscite were to be undertaken. They're just stalling for time.This is inconsistent with virtually any poll on the subject. Prominent politicians from both parties have publicly said they believe the plebiscite would be carried.
Post by: Microsoft Word on August 07, 2017, 07:28:43 pm
This is inconsistent with virtually any poll on the subject. Prominent politicians from both parties have publicly said they believe the plebiscite would be carried.
This whole plebiscite dilemma was an issue months ago. If both parties had reached an agreement, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
Post by: brenden on August 07, 2017, 07:32:30 pm
This whole plebiscite dilemma was an issue months ago. If both parties had reached an agreement, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.Yep, that's true. We're having this discussion now because both parties haven't reached an agreement?
Post by: Microsoft Word on August 07, 2017, 07:44:47 pm
We're having this discussion now because both parties haven't reached an agreement?
Correct.
Post by: brenden on August 07, 2017, 07:48:13 pm
Correct.Sorry, the question was asking your point, not clarifying a fact.
Post by: good_stuff on August 07, 2017, 08:05:54 pm
I'm strongly for equal marriage, definitely but can't help thinking that a plebiscite would be a massive waste of money and paper, etc. Surely the Australian nation would vote in favour? But in the event that we don't (RIP faith in humanity), or some sketchy background business goes on, it would all go to waste, and the equal marriage bill might be pushed back. AGAIN.
Post by: vox nihili on August 07, 2017, 09:28:28 pm
The government is doing exactly what I said in the first post. Sticking with the plebiscite and going to a postal vote if that doesn't work. They're expecting this issue to be "dealt with" by the end of December.
Somewhat sadly, only seven Liberals voted for a free vote. Tellingly, they weren't given the chance to cast their votes in a secret ballot, which would likely have seen key moderates (à la Pyne, Brandis, Payne et al.) vote for a free vote.
Post by: vox nihili on August 09, 2017, 04:17:41 pm
Plebiscite has failed to pass the senate, so now we're onto a postal plebiscite.
Some fun facts:
-the Australian Bureau of Statistics will be in charge of this one, because it makes it harder for the postal plebiscite to be challenged legally
-it is estimated to cost in excess of 100 million dollars
-if the majority votes yes, the Liberal party will have a free vote (i.e. can vote yes or no according to how they want to); whereas, if the majority votes no they won't get a free vote...in effect the results of the plebiscite are non-binding and even if we vote yes we may not get marriage equality
-Tony Abbott has come out today in opposition to marriage equality, saying "if you don't believe in political correctness, vote no"
Post by: Joseph41 on August 09, 2017, 04:22:31 pm
-Tony Abbott has come out today in opposition to marriage equality, saying "if you don't believe in political correctness, vote no"
What does this even mean? ???
Post by: brenden on August 09, 2017, 04:51:01 pm
What does this even mean? ???It means that he's a manipulative scoundrel who's smarter than the media makes him out to be.
This entire charade is a mockery of our political process >:(.
Post by: EEEEEEP on August 09, 2017, 04:59:56 pm
What does this even mean? ???Tony Abbott is saying that "It is socially and politically acceptable to say that you like same sex marriage and it is not acceptable to disagree against it".
He is kind of right in saying that (... In this day and age some things are not allowed to be said or you essentially get ostracized by society...) , but the political wind tides have changed. The amount of arguments against SSM, can be fluffy at best.
Post by: Joseph41 on August 09, 2017, 05:47:01 pm
It means that he's a manipulative scoundrel who's smarter than the media makes him out to be.
This entire charade is a mockery of our political process >:(.
Yeah, definitely a clever ploy IMO.
Post by: elysepopplewell on August 09, 2017, 08:40:00 pm
Post by: vox nihili on August 09, 2017, 11:16:00 pm
Boycott the postal plebiscite or not?
Some are advocating that it should be boycotted by supporters of SSM. What are your views?
Post by: Aaron on August 09, 2017, 11:26:12 pm
Given it is public opinion, I expect there to be a significant campaign from opponents of SSM (and hopefully campaigning from those in the pro-SSM camp).
I imagine the result of this will be used in every media outlet and used as evidence towards a particular argument... so it would be irresponsible to boycott it.
In a way, this will at least paint a decent picture as to the current views on the issue. Although I don't like how it's a voluntary postal vote (it is voluntary... right)..... don't think the data will be truly representative of the population. And the cost... don't get me started on that.
That's my view on the postal plebiscite issue, anyway.
My view on the whole SSM topic: should've just allowed a free vote in parliament and got on with it. The "we took it to the people" argument used by the Libs is getting old. They barely won government, they only hold a 1 seat majority.. so their victory is hardly convincing.
Post by: K888 on August 09, 2017, 11:54:43 pm
Point for discussion:I don't think boycotting will achieve anything good - all it will do is make the non-SSM camp harp on about how Australia obviously doesn't want SSM.
Boycott the postal plebiscite or not?
Some are advocating that it should be boycotted by supporters of SSM. What are your views?
I'll personally vote, because change starts with me. The fact is, I want SSM to be allowed, and participating is the only way I can currently have any impact on that (even if the result is non-binding).
Like Aaron said, I dislike the fact it is voluntary (I mean, I dislike the fact it's gonna happen in the first place, but yeah).
Seriously, they should just have a free vote and be done with it. The government is elected to represent the people and their views - so they should represent, and get a fucking move on with it.
Edit: I just realised, I don't even know where the nearest postbox is. Or how much stamps cost. Do I have to pay to send my opinion on equality? Or do I get the privilege of postage paid?
On a tangent - re: representing the people, my local federal member actually changed his stance on SSM to one of support (with subsequent backlash from his party), after listening to the views of his constituents. I really respect that, because that's what representing the people is all about.
Post by: strawberries on August 10, 2017, 07:30:54 am
Point for discussion:I was actually considering this but I don't think it helps.
Boycott the postal plebiscite or not?
Some are advocating that it should be boycotted by supporters of SSM. What are your views?
The thing is, I DON'T want a say though. It's not my choice - it's the job of the elected representatives.
Edit: I just realised, I don't even know where the nearest postbox is. Or how much stamps cost. Do I have to pay to send my opinion on equality? Or do I get the privilege of postage paid?surely it'd have to be paid?
I don't think that anti-SSMers would be willing to pay to send their opinion though.
Post by: vox nihili on August 10, 2017, 10:26:35 am
The major concern with the postal ballot is that it's unlikely to provide an accurate view of support for SSM in Australia. There are a few reasons:
-younger people usually have more flexible living arrangements and are less likely to be enrolled at the right address
-younger people have been shown, time and again, to be much less likely to participate in non-compulsory ballots (the differential has been 70% in the past)
-young people are much more likely to support SSM
My concern about the postal ballot is that we could see a similar thing happen as happened in the UK with Brexit. There, the vast majority of people supported remain; however, because the turnout was only 50% (i.e. Only half the population voted) Brexit won, in spite of the fact it didn't have majority support. Had it been a compulsory ballot, remain would have almost certainly won.
The same concerns are valid in Australia. Personally, I would like to see a mass boycott. But it would need to be supported by the lobby and get popular support. Individual boycotts are silly.
My reason for this is two fold:
1. It's the least risky path because the yes vote may fail due to the circumstances of the ballot
2. It sends a clear message that this plebiscite is a farce
Irrespective of your views on SSM, it is absolutely unarguable that this plebiscite is in poor form. We already know that Australians support SSM because multiple polls over multiple years have consistently shown that. The chance that these do not represent Australian's views on this issue is astronomically small.
This plebiscite, on the other hand, is unrepresentative of our views (see above) and is thus a horrendously expensive way to get the wrong answer to a question we answered long ago.
I mean, 100 million + to settle a factional war within your party is absolutely shameful. That's 100 million dollars of money that everyone in this country worked to make that's going to be pissed up against the wall.
Post by: brenden on August 10, 2017, 12:27:44 pm
Point for discussion:I don't understand why prominent people would encourage a boycott. If you wanted to get on your philosophical high-horse:
Boycott the postal plebiscite or not?
Some are advocating that it should be boycotted by supporters of SSM. What are your views?
1. The postal vote is wrong and should be condemned (true)
2. By involving ourselves in the postal vote, we are tacitly supporting it (maybe)
3. We should not tacitly support condemnable processes (true)
C. We should not involve ourselves in the postal vote.
And I can empathise with the righteousness... but realistically, boycotting the postal vote decreases the chances of SSM being legalised in 2017-2018. If you're an advocate for SSM, you just shouldn't act in a way that decreases its likelihood - greater commitments to democratic ideals be damned.
Certainly won't be boycotting, and I'd encourage everyone else legally able to cast their vote.
Post by: EEEEEEP on August 10, 2017, 12:37:57 pm
How long have we banging on about this for in Aus? For a long time.
Yes it's an important issue, but gosh we have so many other issues to deal with.
I cannot remember an issue that has taken this long to deal with recently.
.....
This may be semi relevant.. but I think it is highly hypocritical for Penny WOng to make that emotional speech when.. http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/wong-on-song-with-labors-gay-line-20100725-10q38.html
""The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."
Senator Wong said she respected Labor's view of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman."
Wouldn't you roll your eyes at that? The WHOLE labour party has done a backflip and so has Penny Wong..
Post by: vox nihili on August 10, 2017, 01:20:12 pm
I don't understand why prominent people would encourage a boycott. If you wanted to get on your philosophical high-horse:
1. The postal vote is wrong and should be condemned (true)
2. By involving ourselves in the postal vote, we are tacitly supporting it (maybe)
3. We should not tacitly support condemnable processes (true)
C. We should not involve ourselves in the postal vote.
And I can empathise with the righteousness... but realistically, boycotting the postal vote decreases the chances of SSM being legalised in 2017-2018. If you're an advocate for SSM, you just shouldn't act in a way that decreases its likelihood - greater commitments to democratic ideals be damned.
Certainly won't be boycotting, and I'd encourage everyone else legally able to cast their vote.
There are perfectly fair practical reasons for trying to encourage a mass boycott. Even without a boycott this postal vote could turn over a majority no vote. If turnout is so low because so many have boycotted, then that result won't count for much and marriage equality advocates can say that. However, if turnout is over 50% and it still turns over a no vote (completely possible), then SSM will be dead in the water for years to come.
Worst case scenario though is that there isn't agreement among SSM advocates to boycott. So some do, some don't. That way you still get reasonable turnout, but still see the no vote prevail because SSM advocates are selecting themselves out. If there's going to be a boycott, it has to be agreed among the major lobby group, and the major political parties (Labor and Greens on this side of the issue). If not it will be a disaster.
As I said, I think it's a conservative and sensible course of action for the lobby/parties to push. It's the most low-risk approach. If, however, they decide to campaign for a yes vote, then advocates for SSM who boycott are fools.
The addition that it also punishes the Liberal party for being so profligate and irresponsible in the way they spend their money shouldn't feature in the discussion about whether to boycott. It's just a nice addition
AYayayayay.
How long have we banging on about this for in Aus? For a long time.
Yes it's an important issue, but gosh we have so many other issues to deal with.
I cannot remember an issue that has taken this long to deal with recently.
.....
This may be semi relevant.. but I think it is highly hypocritical for Penny WOng to make that emotional speech when.. http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/wong-on-song-with-labors-gay-line-20100725-10q38.html
""The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."
Senator Wong said she respected Labor's view of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman."
Wouldn't you roll your eyes at that? The WHOLE labour party has done a backflip and so has Penny Wong..
Labor have a shameful history on this issue. Their opposition is rooted in the fact that one of the sub-factions of the Labor Right (the SDA) has maintained steadfast opposition to SSM. Indeed, that faction is known for being socially conservative and has pushed socially conservative policies at Labor conferences for years.
Given the way Labor operates, even the majority of those in the party who don't support the SDA's views have to support them (this is draconian and worthy of criticism). However, my understanding is that the SDA has a reasonable amount of weight, particularly in SA and in the Senate. Given that the socially conservative faction of the Labor party once split from the party (leading to 23 years in opposition), Labor has always been a bit timid on this issue.
Personally, I'm disappointed that they didn't legislate SSM in Rudd-Gillard years; however, I think that the Liberal party deserves criticism in this case for:
a. Legislating a fundamentally illiberal change to the Marriage Act during the Howard government
b. Breaking with decades of Liberal tradition by denying their members a free vote on what is a matter of conscience
Post by: Calebark on August 10, 2017, 01:23:58 pm
AYayayayay.
How long have we banging on about this for in Aus? For a long time.
Yes it's an important issue, but gosh we have so many other issues to deal with.
I cannot remember an issue that has taken this long to deal with recently.
.....
This may be semi relevant.. but I think it is highly hypocritical for Penny WOng to make that emotional speech when.. http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/wong-on-song-with-labors-gay-line-20100725-10q38.html
""The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."
Senator Wong said she respected Labor's view of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman."
Wouldn't you roll your eyes at that? The WHOLE labour party has done a backflip and so has Penny Wong..
It seems reasonable to me that a person's views can develop and mature so much within 7 years.
Post by: elysepopplewell on August 10, 2017, 01:36:49 pm
It seems reasonable to me that a person's views can develop and mature so much within 7 years.
Similarly for me. I HOPE that politicians change their stance on things over time. It's a trait of the politicians I like least to maintain the same views through their long political career, even when the world around them changes.
Post by: EEEEEEP on August 10, 2017, 02:04:57 pm
Labor have a shameful history on this issue. Their opposition is rooted in the fact that one of the sub-factions of the Labor Right (the SDA) has maintained steadfast opposition to SSM. Indeed, that faction is known for being socially conservative and has pushed socially conservative policies at Labor conferences for years.
Given the way Labor operates, even the majority of those in the party who don't support the SDA's views have to support them (this is draconian and worthy of criticism). However, my understanding is that the SDA has a reasonable amount of weight, particularly in SA and in the Senate. Given that the socially conservative faction of the Labor party once split from the party (leading to 23 years in opposition), Labor has always been a bit timid on this issue.
Personally, I'm disappointed that they didn't legislate SSM in Rudd-Gillard years; however, I think that the Liberal party deserves criticism in this case for:
You are totally right! I am very disappointed in not 1, but both parties. Both parties are indeed guilty.
I suspect that nothing will come out of this debacle in the coming months (In re: SSM progression).
There may be a leadership spill though.
Post by: Joseph41 on August 10, 2017, 02:09:01 pm
There may be a leadership spill though.
Merely for the sake of my own academic research, I hope that this occurs hahaha. #morespills #moretheses
Post by: heids on August 10, 2017, 02:57:46 pm
*imagines church friends and family reading this and cringes slightly*
Post by: Joseph41 on August 10, 2017, 02:59:54 pm
I have nothing more to say than the very obvious: this whole thing is bullshit. SSM is gonna happen anyway, why oppose it, marriage as the institution it used to be isn't a thing anymore, why the big deal, it doesn't hurt you to allow it. Your personal/religious views on same-sex relationships don't really have anything to do with it. Big fuss and expense and argument over nothing, just save us all by passing it already. ::)
*imagines church friends and family reading this and cringes slightly*
But... the political correctness?!?!?!?!
Post by: geminii on September 29, 2017, 02:24:31 pm
Personally I think SSM will be legalised, just speaking to people I know, most of whom are voting yes. But of course my friendship group and acquaintances aren't representative of Australia. People have been fighting for SSM for so long here in Australia which is why I think it's going to be legalised.
I have friends who will vote yes, friends who will vote no, and friends who are on the fence, all of which are perfectly fine.
What do you guys think?
Post by: elysepopplewell on November 15, 2017, 10:22:37 am
Post by: Natasha.97 on November 15, 2017, 10:24:40 am
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Finally! It’s been a long time coming :D
Post by: vox nihili on November 15, 2017, 10:44:00 am
Post by: elysepopplewell on November 15, 2017, 11:17:39 am
What an appalling waste of money. So glad it’s finally a yes vote, but we really didn’t need this horrible campaign.
Absolutely not! The euphoria of hearing majority of Australians say YES doesn't outweigh the vitriol this campaign brought out in a lot of cases.
But, Turnbull says it's a before-Christmas priority???
Post by: Willba99 on November 15, 2017, 11:22:09 am
But, Turnbull says it's a before-Christmas priority???
Wouldn't it be nice
Post by: Glasses on November 15, 2017, 11:23:30 am
What an appalling waste of money. So glad it’s finally a yes vote, but we really didn’t need this horrible campaign.
I certainly agree that it was unnecessary and a waste of money - but at least the positive is that it (re)affirms to conservatives/no voters and members of the LGBTIQA+ community that the Australian people clearly support and welcome marriage equality. (Even though I still disagree with the validity of same-sex relationships being judged by those who aren't actually in those relationships).
Post by: vox nihili on November 15, 2017, 11:24:14 am
Absolutely not! The euphoria of hearing majority of Australians say YES doesn't outweigh the vitriol this campaign brought out in a lot of cases.
But, Turnbull says it's a before-Christmas priority???
I’m so conflicted to be honest. To see my gay friends so happy is really an incredible feeling, but at the same time, it comes on the back of months of misery.
It will be done as soon as they can. He’s already demonstrated fairly strongly this week that he’s not happy to have the conservatives run amok on this after the vote. Indeed, his comments in response to the Patterson bill were about the only time Turnbull has shown any strength in a really long time.
Post by: appleandbee on November 15, 2017, 11:54:03 am
Post by: geminii on November 15, 2017, 12:09:27 pm
I hope this doesn't impact on free speech like it has on America and Canada, although it very likely will. I am not at all opposed to gay marriage, but I am opposed to the repercussions that may arise as a result of the ruling.
Hope most of you were happy though! :)
Post by: peterpiper on November 15, 2017, 12:56:49 pm
I am disappointed in the outcome...however, I accept that it was a democratic vote. In that sense I am glad Australia has had it's say, and it would be wrong to create laws based on the minority
That's a really problematic view. Not gonna lie ??? I've heard your opinions about this. And I've shared my opinion, so have others...Why do you still think it's wrong?
Post by: Bri MT on November 15, 2017, 12:57:36 pm
I have mixed feelings. It's great that the Yes! vote won, but if estimated figures are true that roughly 30-45% voted 'No', that is pretty concerning and nothing to be proud of. That that many people felt so strongly against LGBT rights, to vote 'no'. Of course for now, people are absolutely right to celebrate the Yes! vote prevailing, but the bigger picture is still a bit disappointing.
The manner of participation was weighted towards demographics more likely to vote no, and I think most Australians who didn't vote would choose yes, if they had to select an option, but don't really care about it that much.
I also think that it says a lot that the no campaign was mainly based around conflating SSM with other topics such as politically correct language, sex ed etc.
I completely get what you're saying, but try not to be too disheartened
Post by: geminii on November 15, 2017, 01:02:44 pm
That's a really problematic view. Not gonna lie ???
Of course we shouldn't ignore the minority (especially in this case when it was actually pretty large - 38.4%, I read). Both sides' views should be taken into account. I'm part of the minority too, and I'm certainly not advocating for the government to completely ignore my views. May I ask what your opinion on SSM is?
Now that same sex marriage is legalised, we still need to take into account that a lot of people are still against it. To acknowledge this we need to make sure that schools and churches aren't forced to teach about SSM - some schools/churches can, while some don't have to, and whichever one you send your children to is your choice. SSM is legalised, yes - but kids should not be forced to learn about it if their parents or family don't approve.
Post by: Calebark on November 15, 2017, 01:05:51 pm
Now that same sex marriage is legalised, we still need to take into account that a lot of people are still against it. To acknowledge this we need to make sure that schools and churches aren't forced to teach about SSM - some schools/churches can, while some don't have to, and whichever one you send your children to is your choice. SSM is legalised, yes - but kids should not be forced to learn about it if their parents or family don't approve.
Religious schools still receive funding from a secular government. They can teach SSM.
Post by: Bri MT on November 15, 2017, 01:11:51 pm
Of course we shouldn't ignore the minority (especially in this case when it was actually pretty large - 38.4%, I read). Both sides' views should be taken into account. I'm part of the minority too, and I'm certainly not advocating for the government to completely ignore my views. May I ask what your opinion on SSM is?
Now that same sex marriage is legalised, we still need to take into account that a lot of people are still against it. To acknowledge this we need to make sure that schools and churches aren't forced to teach about SSM - some schools/churches can, while some don't have to, and whichever one you send your children to is your choice. SSM is legalised, yes - but kids should not be forced to learn about it if their parents or family don't approve.
"Kids shouldn't be forced to learn about [marraige]." ??
It's also not legalised yet, that process still needs to occur in parliament.
Post by: Deonyi on November 15, 2017, 01:14:48 pm
Post by: peterpiper on November 15, 2017, 01:19:50 pm
Of course we shouldn't ignore the minority (especially in this case when it was actually pretty large - 38.4%, I read). Both sides' views should be taken into account. I'm part of the minority too, and I'm certainly not advocating for the government to completely ignore my views. May I ask what your opinion on SSM is?
Now that same sex marriage is legalised, we still need to take into account that a lot of people are still against it. To acknowledge this we need to make sure that schools and churches aren't forced to teach about SSM - some schools/churches can, while some don't have to, and whichever one you send your children to is your choice. SSM is legalised, yes - but kids should not be forced to learn about it if their parents or family don't approve.
But schools should teach what Australia says about marriage, and if SSM is legalised, it should be taught as exactly as SSM defines marriage because it's a fact...it's like schools teaching kids how women have no rights because in the past they didn't, when they do in society today - whether or not they agree with it as a matter of principle. Contraception is freely available as well as taught (well, taught as part of a topic of sex-ed) at some catholic schools. Some catholic schools don't even touch the subject of sex-ed (marginally but putting very little emphasis on it anyway). Principally, Catholicism doesn't agree with the use of it, but it's there anyway. It's legal and Australia says it's fine to be used, so it should be taught that way. It also doesn't prevent Catholic schools with providing alternative views for its controversial material. So their freedom of speech isn't restricted. In fact, contrarily, I think it opens a lot of room for debate.
Also, personally I don't think parents/families always know what's best for their kids. Parents can't shelter them from what is at large what is the legal definition of marriage (if SSM is legalised): and what's the harm in them knowing that the term is as what it is? Even if it conflicts with their religious beliefs?
ALSO *RANT* Why do people have so little faith in the critical minds of kids in general? Not all kids are that impressionable that their opinions are fodder of hostile opinions fed through singularly and only by educators with malicious intent. The whole argument your putting it as sounds like a re-enactment of hitler's youth. Like do you really think SSM endangers people to such an extent that it could be viewed so divisive a topic that it should not be taught because it is something akin to anti-religion propaganda??
Post by: vox nihili on November 15, 2017, 01:50:42 pm
I am disappointed in the outcome...however, I accept that it was a democratic vote. In that sense I am glad Australia has had it's say, and it would be wrong to create laws based on the minority . However it does not mean that I am glad of the outcome, but I am not surprised either - I think we all had a pretty good idea it was going to be legalised (or at least, everyone around me did).
I hope this doesn't impact on free speech like it has on America and Canada, although it very likely will. I am not at all opposed to gay marriage, but I am opposed to the repercussions that may arise as a result of the ruling.
Hope most of you were happy though! :)
One could make the very reasonable argument that allowing an anachronistic definition of marriage grounded in Christian thought is tantamount to "creating laws based on the minority", given that Christians are now a minority religion. It could also be said that changing the Marriage Act, something we now know with certainty is supported by the majority, is quite the opposite of creating laws based on the minority.
Post by: geminii on November 15, 2017, 02:05:39 pm
One could make the very reasonable argument that allowing an anachronistic definition of marriage grounded in Christian thought is tantamount to "creating laws based on the minority", given that Christians are now a minority religion. It could also be said that changing the Marriage Act, something we now know with certainty is supported by the majority, is quite the opposite of creating laws based on the minority.
And this is exactly what my post said - those opposing same sex marriage are the minority, so it should be legalised, because that is what the majority wants. So we pretty much agree, vox.
Post by: peterpiper on November 15, 2017, 02:22:21 pm
And this is exactly what my post said - those opposing same sex marriage are the minority, so it should be legalised, because that is what the majority wants. So we pretty much agree, vox.
Ohhh I was a bit confused. Because I thought you meant 'minority' in the sense of non-heterosexual/cis demographics from the context. Not the non-majority voters. My bad.
Post by: vox nihili on November 15, 2017, 04:05:45 pm
Ohhh I was a bit confused. Because I thought you meant 'minority' in the sense of non-heterosexual/cis demographics from the context. Not the non-majority voters. My bad.
Likewise, I interpreted it the same way. My apologies mate!
Post by: geminii on November 15, 2017, 06:37:39 pm
Ohhh I was a bit confused. Because I thought you meant 'minority' in the sense of non-heterosexual/cis demographics from the context. Not the non-majority voters. My bad.
Likewise, I interpreted it the same way. My apologies mate!
That's all right guys! I was confused why you disagreed with what I said! Sorry, should have been clearer :)
Post by: keltingmeith on November 15, 2017, 07:41:35 pm
Yes, SSM won the vote. However, it didn't hold a total majority - when you take into account how many people actually voted, only 49% are vocally for SSM. This holds true for several electorates, as well, including the infamous Menzies. A good argument, and hopefully the way many see it, is quite simply if the 20% that didn't vote cared enough to change the law, they would've voted. Unfortunately, this is still fuel many can use for the fire against us in the LGBTQIA+ community.
Not to sound defeatist or anything - this is a step forward past the step back that the whole vote was. But, there's still a long way to go, so hopefully people don't see this as a chance to let up. Even after the bill passes (because, let's be real, it's almost political suicide for most of the MPs to not vote for a SSM bill, unless it's as atrocious as the Patterson bill), there'll be hell to pay.
Post by: vox nihili on November 15, 2017, 10:26:12 pm
That's all right guys! I was confused why you disagreed with what I said! Sorry, should have been clearer :)
I thought it was an unusual statement given how reasonable you had otherwise been
should have thought about it a bit more, but always love a bit of controversy :p Tbh, I don't think this is as much a victory as people like to believe.
Yes, SSM won the vote. However, it didn't hold a total majority - when you take into account how many people actually voted, only 49% are vocally for SSM. This holds true for several electorates, as well, including the infamous Menzies. A good argument, and hopefully the way many see it, is quite simply if the 20% that didn't vote cared enough to change the law, they would've voted. Unfortunately, this is still fuel many can use for the fire against us in the LGBTQIA+ community.
Not to sound defeatist or anything - this is a step forward past the step back that the whole vote was. But, there's still a long way to go, so hopefully people don't see this as a chance to let up. Even after the bill passes (because, let's be real, it's almost political suicide for most of the MPs to not vote for a SSM bill, unless it's as atrocious as the Patterson bill), there'll be hell to pay.
I think you’re spot on about the politics here. Some will argue, as you rightly say, that because not everyone voted and technically only 49% of the electorate voted yes then blah blah there’s not support. I do think, by and large, those views won’t penetrate. It’s too much a technical argument and one which people inherently know is fishy.
It also doesn’t really stack up. The turnout for this plebiscite, for a voluntary election, was nothing short of incredible. There are few democracies in the world that could boast a turnout as strong as this. In Ireland, it was nearly 20 percentage points lower. Indeed, if we compare it to the election we just had in Geelong for our council—which is mandatory by the way—the turnout was almost as high.
There will always be people who won’t vote. They can’t be arsed. Maybe they disagreed with the plebiscite (some still will have boycotted). The idea that they would vote 20:1 against gay marriage though and thus not ensure a total majority is insane. The reality is, given the demographics of those who didn’t vote, it would more likely have bolstered the result had they voted.
Post by: K888 on November 15, 2017, 11:57:59 pm
Perhaps the most interesting thing to come out of this whole process was not the fact that SSM got over 60% support (that was to be expected), or even that the level of support in Tony Abbott's own seat was over 75%. Rather, it was the fact that the most anti-SSM electorates were all in Western Sydney and held by Labor MPs. There has always been a tension within the Labor base between the inner city, middle-class 'progressive' side of the party and the outer suburban, working class (and often migrant) 'socially conservative' constituencies. This vote highlights this very chasm. 74% of voters in the electorate of Blaxland (Paul Keating's old seat) opposed reform, which I find to be an utterly remarkable result. How the ALP attempts to bring together these two very different constituencies at election time will be very interesting to see. Also on a side note, I now appreciate why politicians pay so much attention to the views of Western Sydney focus groups!Apparently the electorates that voted "No" had large populations of migrants, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, etc. "who have come from a culture where debates on same-sex marriage and homosexuality have not been common in politics" (Antony Green, I think the video is on the ABC Facebook page).
Post by: vox nihili on November 16, 2017, 12:03:54 am
Apparently the electorates that voted "No" had large populations of migrants, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, etc. "who have come from a culture where debates on same-sex marriage and homosexuality have not been common in politics" (Antony Green, I think the video is on the ABC Facebook page).
Yeah 100% this. It’s the same in the two that voted no in Victoria. One in the NW suburbs of Melbourne, out Broady way, and the other in the east, near Springvale and Dandenong.
It’s definitely a big challenge for Labor, as you’ve said above. Having to reconcile socially progressive views with a critical part of your constituency that is extremely conservative is a challenge. That’s a large part of the reason that Labor was so late to the table in supporting SSM, remembering of course that the first PM to do so was Rudd mark II, after Gillard and Rudd before her were opposed.
Also interesting about those seats is that they have a lot of high profile Labor members. Think Tony Burke, Chris Bowen, Jason Clare, Ed Husic... all big no votes.
Edit: Werriwa also posted a huge no vote, which is the seat that Gough Whitman once held, arguably Australia’s most left-wing PM of the modern era.
It was also later held by Mark Latham but we won’t discuss that
Post by: EEEEEEP on November 16, 2017, 12:06:55 am
Apparently the electorates that voted "No" had large populations of migrants, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, etc. "who have come from a culture where debates on same-sex marriage and homosexuality have not been common in politics" (Antony Green, I think the video is on the ABC Facebook page).It's true.
Many migrant areas in NSW that were labour areas voted no.
(https://i.imgur.com/dir1Pqp.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/0blJMXq.png)
All of those red areas .. Migrant areas with many overseas people ( or high percentages of people born overseas) .
..
Here is the result for VIC.
(https://i.imgur.com/3fu4xX7.png)
..
Post by: Natasha.97 on November 29, 2017, 01:47:48 pm
Post by: keltingmeith on November 29, 2017, 01:57:41 pm
WOOHOO!!!
Does anyone know if we can actually see what the exact changes are? Or will we have to wait for the HoR for that?
Post by: peterpiper on November 29, 2017, 06:39:11 pm
WOOHOO!!!
tbh more like: YASS QUEEN!! :P
Also, this quote from the article made me laugh (and cry a little in the inside):
Quote
One Nation senator Pauline Hanson brought up the 1967 referendum to recognise indigenous people, using it as an example of how unintended consequences could stem from major change.
She claimed laws now gave indigenous people more rights than other Australians.
“My concern is that, in time to come, the parliament and its members could at any time change this (definition) to include multiple marriages or marriages of people under a certain age,” she said.
??? idk Pauline. But even with all the changes stemming from recognising the basic rights of Indigenous Australians, we're nowhere near even half compensating for the devastation the settlers have caused in the centuries previous....
Post by: PhoenixxFire on December 07, 2017, 05:11:57 pm
Quote from: Bob Katter
We're a bit paranoid, we Christians, because we have a history of being picked on, and being picked on in a big wayYet another conservative playing the victim 😂. His speeches are the most entertaining though. The bill is going to be voted on in the lower house shortly.
Post by: PhoenixxFire on December 07, 2017, 05:51:14 pm
Post by: vox nihili on December 07, 2017, 05:58:31 pm
It's done. The bill just got passed by the lower house ;D ;D ;D
Hold your horses, not quite yet. They’ve just defeated the amendments to the bill. Final vote happening now :)
Post by: PhoenixxFire on December 07, 2017, 06:06:34 pm
Post by: vox nihili on December 07, 2017, 06:09:23 pm
I'm watching it live, the final vote just happened when i posted that, they just hadn't done the final official bit yet. Just has to get the stamp now.
I’m pretty sure that was the vote on the amendments. A lot of media started reporting that it had passed but they misunderstood parliamentary procedure. Then they tried to pass it on the voices but it went to a division.
Anyway who cares, IT’S FINALLY FUCKING DONE :D :D :D
Post by: PhoenixxFire on December 07, 2017, 06:13:50 pm
There was a big cheer and some people started singing after the amendments got defeated though.
Anyway who cares, IT’S FINALLY FUCKING DONE :D :D :DYep
Post by: keltingmeith on December 07, 2017, 06:31:06 pm
Does anyone know if we can actually see what the exact changes are? Or will we have to wait for the HoR for that?
This again.
I really want to know exactly what's on what got passed, but I can't seem to find anything anywhere except, "SSM is now legal". After the Paterson bill, discrimination in the bill is really worrying me. :S
Post by: PhoenixxFire on December 07, 2017, 06:57:58 pm
-Current civil celebrants can move into a new category to not have to officiate SSM, new celebrants have to officiate them.
-Bakeries, florists, etc cannot refuse to provide services
-I'm not sure on whether churchs can refuse their buildings?
-Also not sure about church-owned buildings?
There is a bit on it here and here and here
EDIT: this
Post by: peterpiper on December 07, 2017, 07:50:26 pm
Not sure about all the details but
-Current civil celebrants can move into a new category to not have to officiate SSM, new celebrants have to officiate them.
-Bakeries, florists, etc cannot refuse to provide services
-I'm not sure on whether churchs can refuse their buildings?
-Also not sure about church-owned buildings?
There is a bit on it here and here and here
EDIT: this
For the lazy:
"Religious bodies will be able to act in accordance with their doctrines, tents and beliefs in providing facilities, goods and services in connection with the marriage" - according to the greens' fb link provided by phoenixxfire
Post by: vox nihili on December 08, 2017, 10:07:18 am