Re: AJ gets pie in the face
Well, yes, actually - the 1967 referendum which was basically about altering the Constitution to give aboriginal Australians the same rights to vote etc as everyone else, and to count them in census data as Australian citizens.
Which was only necessary because an amendment to the constitution was needed.
That doesn't apply here.
Just as we didn't have a referendum for the rights of women, or asian people, or non-indigenous black people.
That is why I oppose a plebiscite.
I don't actually agree with the argument that we should resile from toxic debate. Bring it on! I welcome the opportunity to call out the bigots.
I oppose it because it is meaningless. It has no place under our constitution and political system.
Incidentally where does this absolute nonsense about marriage originally being a religious institution come from?
First, which religion?
Do you think people in ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome didn't get married?
Obviously they did, so do pagans "own" marriage? Should we consult them? They didn't have a taboo on homosexuality.
Second, marriage is primarily a legal institution. It is about the allocation of property rights and inheritance and succession.
Sure religion likes to get in on the act as they do for all important rites and they had largely taken over the ceremony.
They have also taken over the ceremony at funerals. And christenings (generically naming ceremonies). That doesn't mean death or birth or naming children were originally religious things.
Third, we already have non-religious marriage. Any marriage conducted in a registry office or by a non-religious celebrant is a non-religious marriage.
So there can be no argument that religion should be able to determine who can be married in such a way.
Finally, religion is just someone's set of beliefs. It deserves no more (or less) respect and priority than anyone else's beliefs.
So they can't make anyone entitled to interfere with the rights of others, much less assault them with baked goods.