[Discussion on Issues raised by] AJ getting pie in the face

[RooFlyer]

The Marriage Amendment Act 2004 wasn't 'slipped through'. It was subject to the same notices, readings etc than any other Bill, and passed the Senate - where Howard did not have a majority - 38 votes to 6. It had bipartisan support.

From Wikipedia:

The Labor shadow Attorney-General Nicola Roxon on the same day the amendment was proposed said that the Labor Opposition would not oppose the section of the legislation amending the Marriage Act. The bill was supported by Labor policy. Labor argued that the amendment did not affect the legal situation of same-sex relationships, merely putting into statute law what was already common law

And there was an election immediately following; Howard increased his vote with a 1.8% swing in the Reps.

Edit, seeing your edit Sorry, but that's politics

 

[love_the_life]

The Marriage Amendment Act 2004 wasn't 'slipped through'. It was subject to the same notices, readings etc than any other Bill, and passed the Senate - where Howard did not have a majority - 38 votes to 6. It had bipartisan support.

From Wikipedia:

And there was an election immediately following; Howard increased his vote with a 1.8% swing in the Reps.

Edit, seeing your edit Sorry, but that's politics

I know it's politics and that's why I don't usually partake. Yes, agree it was a bipartisan acceptance but it certainly was not subject to the jumping through the hoops that they want now. I felt very let down and upset by the amendment.
As I believe everyone is entitled to their own view, I'll go back to my non-participation in threads that stray into the political arena. Things can get too heated and nasty too quickly. Text is not the right medium for political discussion IMO.

 

[paxman]

My original post was about the double standard. Nobody wanted a big public debate before old Johnny flicked it through parliament.

Now we seem to need a very long drawn out, expensive, divisive etc, etc, etc plebiscite, why?

The country has other things to worry about. Dear Johnny had it sewn up in a day or two. Can't be that hard.

 

[RooFlyer]

See post 2 above yours. 'Dear Johnny' had bipartisan support because, as the Labor spokesman said

... the amendment did not affect the legal situation of same-sex relationships, merely putting into statute law what was already common law

(my bolding as it appears to be an elusive concept)

That's not what is being proposed at the moment. If the new question went to a plebiscite, and won, then all the naysayers would be swept away and the matter settled, no argument, move on.

But if Parliament just voted for such a fundamental change (contrast with 2004) then the nay-sayers can always argue that the people didn't support it, and it was not legitimate and the debate would continue.

All very well if you just want your way and to heck with everyone else, but if we want legitimacy, then the people must be allowed to give it the tick.

 

[paxman]

but the marriage act didn't, so fundamentally it didn't need to change and all is well. it is not an argument, sorry. it is a distraction from more important things.

 

[RooFlyer]

Sorry, the marriage act didn't .... what? What's not an argument?

The common suggestion is that because Howard changed the Marriage Act through Parliament, the current change should also go through. I've pointed out the flaw in that argument by quoting the Labor spokesperson in 2004. Howards change merely converted common law into a statute. A change to the Marriage Act to allow SSM is not doing the same, its a fundamental change and many of us think its best to have a vote on it, to show that the people truly want the change.

A change doesn't necessarily need public support of course (eg tax law :shock: ), but for something socially contentious, its the better course.

 

[paxman]

No you haven't. Your magic scape goat here is common law, so it naturally prevails in your view. lucky you. the "common misconception" you speak of just does not exist. You have a choice to see it one way or the other.

Exhibit a: USA

 

[RooFlyer]

Sorry, you have lost me again.

Its not my "magic scapegoat" (scapegoat?). The Labor Party made the argument (quoted above), and then agreed to Howard's changes to the Marriage Act in 2004. It wasn't a matter of either common law or the statute 'prevailing', so my view on that was and is irrelevant. I didn't speak of any "common misconception" that you put in quotes. Did you mean "common suggestion"? It IS a common suggestion made in the current debate that because Howard changed the Marriage Act in Parliament, the current Parliament can do the same to put SSM into Law.

As to Exhibit a. While I can see the USA one way or another, I don't know the context in this case.

 

[paxman]

oh well, enjoy your confusion then.....

 

[RooFlyer]

I'm not the one confused, I suggest! Check your "quotes" and use of the word(s) "scape goat". Throwing in random references to foreign countries is a bit confused too, I think.

If you ( or anyone here) can show how changing the Marriage Act to allow SSM today is the same as the change that the Parliament brought about in 2004, we can continue to have a rational discussion.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If you ( or anyone here) can show how changing the Marriage Act to allow SSM today is the same as the change that the Parliament brought about in 2004, we can continue to have a rational discussion.

Technically the change is the same. A bill gets put up, both houses vote. If it passes it becomes law.

Some might argue the rationale behind the change is different... in the first scenario it is claimed it 'simply' put common law into legislation. But common law can equally be changed by parliament whenever it feels like it.

 

[RooFlyer]

Technically the change is the same. A bill gets put up, both houses vote. If it passes it becomes law. <snip>

Sure, agree - I worded my post poorly.

<snip>But common law can equally be changed by parliament whenever it feels like it.

Sure, the law can be changed by Parliament, not denying that. The Marriage Act amendment in 2004 created a statute that reflected common law. A statute cannot be created now on SSM that reflects common law. Its a small point, but what the Howard government did in 2004 is not a template for what can be done now.

For those that joined late, I am in favour of SSM - but I recognise its a contentious social change, so it needs demonstrated widespread (majority) support before Parliament changes the Marriage Act to allow SSM. A plebiscite with a majority in favour would do that. Without such a demonstration of support, nay-sayers could continue to argue it was a stitch-up and rancour would continue.

Would many SSM supporters care? Maybe not, but remember the shoe can be on the other foot ....

If Parliament were to just vote to introduce SSM without something like a positive plebiscite, we would have to accept that a future Parliament could repeal the SSM amendment, just on a vote, because a majority of then members wanted to repeal.

 

[Pushka]

I guess some might say the AMA shouldn't have made their statement today.

 

[Pushka]

Interesting that Margaret Court has raised a furore stating she will not fly Qantas due to their pro stand on same sex marriage and equality.

In a democracy she is perfectly entitled to her opinion and I think that her shaming in public as a result of her stating her thoughts is a total disgrace.

Margaret Court Arena: Calls to rename stadium following Court’s views on gay marriage

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Interesting that Margaret Court has raised a furore stating she will not fly Qantas due to their pro stand on same sex marriage and equality.

In a democracy she is perfectly entitled to her opinion and I think that her shaming in public as a result of her stating her thoughts is a total disgrace.

Margaret Court Arena: Calls to rename stadium following Court’s views on gay marriage

Im not sure what a 'democracy' has to do with it? as a prominent figure, and a leading sports person, I don't think she does have 'free range' to say what she wants when she wants. The damage these comments can do to young GLBTI community members (who already have one of the highest suicide rates) needs to be factored against her own personal satisfaction in getting her views across.

She he can hold her views till the cows come home. But as a potential role model, she should probably excercise restraint in expressing potentially damaging views publicly.

 

[turtlemichael]

I think she has done more than enough as a great player to have an arena named after her. She also has every right to have a view even though I find it distasteful to criticize someone else's personal relationships and "partner" in quotes. However, she is not happy to travel on an airline that supports marriage equality and diversity but she is happy to have her name attached to an arena when the operators and Tennis Australia support and have stated the same position as Qantas. I call hypocrisy.

 

[Pushka]

I didnt realise the right to free speech was limited to non profile people.

If you read my posts I am strongly in support of same sex marriage but I am also in support of people who express a different view regardless of their status.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I didnt realise the right to free speech was limited to non profile people.

If you read my posts I am strongly in support of same sex marriage but I am also in support of people who express a different view regardless of their status.

Not all people are 'equal'. No one gives a rats what I think for example. Role models on the other hand have influence, and they have a platform (media) to disseminate their views. With that comes responsibility. It's not so much the holding of the views, it's the dissemination.

If Margaret doesn't want it fly qantas, who cares? just shut up and not fly qantas. Why make a song and dance about it?

 

[Deleted member]

The death of free speech comes when we don't agree with the subject matter or the person speaking .

 

[Pushka]

Not all people are 'equal'. No one gives a rats what I think for example. Role models on the other hand have influence, and they have a platform (media) to disseminate their views. With that comes responsibility. It's not so much the holding of the views, it's the dissemination.

If Margaret doesn't want it fly qantas, who cares? just shut up and not fly qantas. Why make a song and dance about it?

Maybe someone asked her.

The death of free speech comes when we don't agree with the subject matter or the person speaking .

So why the 'like' then. Confusen.