Marriage Equality

[vetrade]

I don't want to hijack this topic with republican etc (honest) but just to say that the more the media, celebrities etc clamour for a cause, no matter how noble, the greater the chance of the people getting their backs up and simply either voting no or resenting the outcome if forced upon them. More reasoned debate and fewer insults (not talking about you there, sergeyvzn ) both on this thread and in the public debate generally will advance the pro gay marriage cause no end, I think.

....... +1

 

[dajop]

As far as I remember opinion polls show about 70% of Australians accept same sex marriage so it;s just a matter of getting this message across the Parliament.

As we know, in Australian politics unfortunately it's not the majority opinion, buts it's where people live that counts. I wonder what the figures are in the marginal electorates, as these are the ones that often most influential in deciding courses of action for political parties.

 

[Dalescott]

As a matter if voicing my opinion!
I am for Marriage Equality, in 10 years when this is all done and dusted, we will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Just my opinion, am I allowed to have an opinion??

 

[esseeeayeenn]

I'm confused. Do we want a dictatorship of the legislature with no separation of powers? Or do we want everything put to a referendum with all celebrities muzzled so they can't express an opinion, so only "ordinary" people can vote?
(*Ordinary meaning people like me.)

 

[sergeyvzn]

I'm confused. Do we want a dictatorship of the legislature with no separation of powers? Or do we want everything put to a referendum with all celebrities muzzled so they can't express an opinion, so only "ordinary" people can vote?
(*Ordinary meaning people like me.)

no we don't! We are lucky to have a system with separation of power. And we don't want to put everything to a referendum (think Greece)

 

[RooFlyer]

<snip>
I think most would agree that equal rights are a noble course. As far as I remember opinion polls show about 70% of Australians accept same sex marriage so it;s just a matter of getting this message across the Parliament. The remaining 30% won't agree but well...when 'traditional" slavery was abolished in the USA many more disagreed but what do think of it now? Social change is happening, new generations will grow for whom marriage means something else than it is for us now...so whether progressive social change is forced upon us by judges or the Parliament or via a referendum, it does not matter really, it is just happening

Ok, we'll disagree on the merits of process. I was saying that if you want a major reform accepted, then bring the people along with you, don't force it on them (AKA as evolution, not revolution). I don't agree with the view that "we are in the right, we are going to make it happen, just roll over and let us have our way." But if gay marriage advocates want to use the steam roller - go ahead but don't whinge when the backlash comes.

I'm confused. Do we want a dictatorship of the legislature with no separation of powers? Or do we want everything put to a referendum with all celebrities muzzled so they can't express an opinion, so only "ordinary" people can vote?
(*Ordinary meaning people like me.)

Confusion easily fixed . Not sure where the 'celebrities muzzled' came from, nor the 'dictatorship of the legislature, with no separation of powers'? Could it be referenced, please?

The idea I was alluding to was a normal referendum, where eligible voters can have their vote. If celebrities want to ponce about and opine on things which they demonstrably may have no expertise on, and their only credential is to be a 'celebrity' (ie appeared on Big Brother or a cooking show), then I say go right ahead (as long as they aren't on my 'side'). BTW, expressing an opinion and casting a ballot are two different things.
_____

If the gay rights cause is so confident that they have 70% approval for gay marriage, surely they should embrace a referendum, and then the change can go through without a doubt. Problem is of course the public have a shocking tendency to think for themselves when actually required to cast a ballot, rather than answer a vox pop or a phone based question during dinner. That's why many 'progressive' causes don't like asking the people about significant social changes they want to bring about - they'd much rather rely on a couple of judges, or some compliant legislature than (gasp) ask all those ghastly people in Rooty Hill and the like. Ewwwww! [/sarcasm]

 

[burmans]

As a matter if voicing my opinion!
I am for Marriage Equality, in 10 years when this is all done and dusted, we will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Just my opinion, am I allowed to have an opinion??

A substantial number of people already think this is done and dusted, some 75+% believe this is inevitable. All we have at the moment is delaying tactics, I suspect the politicians in this camp also know its inevitable but don't want to ruin their own voting base by introducing it.

 

[burmans]

The idea I was alluding to was a normal referendum, where eligible voters can have their vote. If celebrities want to ponce about and opine on things which they demonstrably may have no expertise on, and their only credential is to be a 'celebrity' (ie appeared on Big Brother or a cooking show), then I say go right ahead (as long as they aren't on my 'side'). BTW, expressing an opinion and casting a ballot are two different things.
_____

If the gay rights cause is so confident that they have 70% approval for gay marriage, surely they should embrace a referendum, and then the change can go through without a doubt. Problem is of course the public have a shocking tendency to think for themselves when actually required to cast a ballot, rather than answer a vox pop or a phone based question during dinner. That's why many 'progressive' causes don't like asking the people about significant social changes they want to bring about - they'd much rather rely on a couple of judges, or some compliant legislature than (gasp) ask all those ghastly people in Rooty Hill and the like. Ewwwww! [/sarcasm]

On a bit of a tangent I think our system of government is fatally flawed for precisely this reason, we have an election every 4 years and then this gives them the "mandate" on a whole heap of measures. In my view this is totally incorrect, we only get one vote, not on individual issues.

The Swiss have it right, they have referendums all the time, e,g, in 2014 they had 12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2014

Some would say this is all a bit hard but really how hard is it to answer a few yes/no questions. The ridiculous ballot paper system we have now is way harder than a simpler system such as this.

But not sure all are ready for such individual responsibility, who would we blame!

 

[TonyHancock]

...who would we blame!

Jetstar!!?

 

[OATEK]

On a bit of a tangent I think our system of government is fatally flawed for precisely this reason, we have an election every 4 years and then this gives them the "mandate" on a whole heap of measures. In my view this is totally incorrect, we only get one vote, not on individual issues.

The Swiss have it right, they have referendums all the time, e,g, in 2014 they had 12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2014

Some would say this is all a bit hard but really how hard is it to answer a few yes/no questions. The ridiculous ballot paper system we have now is way harder than a simpler system such as this.

But not sure all are ready for such individual responsibility, who would we blame!

When we think democracy, we tend to think Greece/Athens. The Athenians had much the same approach as the Swiss - all the big decisions were made by the whole demos, like whether to go to war with another country. There is some merit in getting everyone involved in the big decisions.

A substantial number of people already think this is done and dusted, some 75+% believe this is inevitable. All we have at the moment is delaying tactics, I suspect the politicians in this camp also know its inevitable but don't want to ruin their own voting base by introducing it.

But if 75+ are for "marriage equality", how is a decision in favour of this by politicians likely to "ruin their voting base".

In reality, politicians tend to be people with strong views and beliefs whether about gay rights or workers rights or the Queen's rights.

 

[burmans]

But if 75+ are for "marriage equality", how is a decision in favour of this by politicians likely to "ruin their voting base".

Well firstly that 75% isn't those who agree with marriage equality (which varies between 60 and 70%) it's those who think it's going to happen (possibly regardless of their opinion).

Despite claims to the contrary very few politicians have much interest in governing for all the people, they all have their individual interests dependant on their electorate and personal/political ideology. Clearly that varies by electorate, the percentage of people who agree with marriage equality would differ considerably by electorate also. And one thing politicians will never do is deliberately piss off their core constituency, voters can be fickle so you want to ensure those that are on your side stay on your side.

 

[footy99]

Of course all people should have the same legal protection for their partnerships. The argument is really about whether the word "marriage" should apply to both of the versions.

So (in Australia and many western countries) it's actually an argument about a word. Think of it that way and it takes a lot of the heat out of it ...........

Yep. That's the entire debate. But righteous anger is more addictive!

 

[N860CR]

Referendums for the rights of minority's are inappropriate. In all honestly, based on the current racist government (who were clearly voted in by the majority), if we held a referendum today to send all Australian Muslims to the Middle East and "cancel their citizenship", I think there's a good chance it would get voted up.

The issue of marriage equality is an issue of a minority being discriminated against through no wrongdoing of their own - it is the obligation of the elected government to rectify that.

 

[burmans]

Well I guess I'm not as negative as you about voters. Firstly the current government did not get voted in by a majority, their primary vote was about 40% and they only get there because people are forced to vote, this isn't a comment about the Abbott government as it affects all governments. The reason they got over the line was the fact that people are then forced to rank the other parties.

In such a situation where voters are forced to make a second choice its more true to say they have chosen the government as a least bad option that imply they have a mandate (and there are a fair few people on record as saying they just wanted to get rid of Labour). Also as noted above a vote for the government is one vote, we just don't get the option to vote on individual issues. So the idea of people voting for racism is just a moot point, we really dont know. Certainly many of those I know who did vote Liberal struggle with this part of Abbott's rhetoric (in fact they struggle with a fair bit), they were just very over Labour.

 

[juddles]

marriage is indeed a very old institution...however, its form has changed many times over the millenia......One way or another, same sex marriages will become a mainstream thing in the Western society very soon.....

I agree.

But I also believe that marriage has lost much of its importance, both in common society and before the Law. And I think this process will continue. So IMHO it is a bit of a hopeless fight - the gay community is winning the right to recognition for something that at the same time (or even prior) has lost almost all its meaning and legal weight.

 

[get me outta here]

Talking of voting, I heard that the 'donkey' vote increased sharply to the highest ever whether it be due to disenchantment with politics and politicians, or 'democracy' in general judging by answers to surveys on that subject.

The view of the commentator - don't remember who it was, stated that therefore 30% of people voted for the Coalition.

Well I guess I'm not as negative as you about voters. Firstly the current government did not get voted in by a majority, their primary vote was about 40% and they only get there because people are forced to vote, this isn't a comment about the Abbott government as it affects all governments. The reason they got over the line was the fact that people are then forced to rank the other parties.

In such a situation where voters are forced to make a second choice its more true to say they have chosen the government as a least bad option that imply they have a mandate (and there are a fair few people on record as saying they just wanted to get rid of Labour). Also as noted above a vote for the government is one vote, we just don't get the option to vote on individual issues. So the idea of people voting for racism is just a moot point, we really dont know. Certainly many of those I know who did vote Liberal struggle with this part of Abbott's rhetoric (in fact they struggle with a fair bit), they were just very over Labour.

 

[Katie]

But I also believe that marriage has lost much of its importance, both in common society and before the Law. And I think this process will continue. So IMHO it is a bit of a hopeless fight - the gay community is winning the right to recognition for something that at the same time (or even prior) has lost almost all its meaning and legal weight.

I disagree that marriage has lost its legal weight. In what ways do you think it has?
I don't think divorce has changed it, but I think it's helped a lot of people who were unhappy become happier (yes, that's simplistic. My parents divorced when I was little, I know nothing else, but am ever so grateful that they could. They are now in long term relationships of 20+ years; one of them is married to their partner, the other is not - but by choice, not because it was legally impossible).

I have friends and family for whom being legally married, or entering into holy matrimony is important. I have friends and family for whom being married is not important. Most of them are able to choose the form of relationship recognition that is appropriate for them and their beliefs (legal, spiritual, or none / recognised by common law). I think we are still some ways away from marriage being entirely meaningless.

 

[N860CR]

Well I guess I'm not as negative as you about voters. Firstly the current government did not get voted in by a majority, their primary vote was about 40% and they only get there because people are forced to vote, this isn't a comment about the Abbott government as it affects all governments. The reason they got over the line was the fact that people are then forced to rank the other parties.

In such a situation where voters are forced to make a second choice its more true to say they have chosen the government as a least bad option that imply they have a mandate (and there are a fair few people on record as saying they just wanted to get rid of Labour). Also as noted above a vote for the government is one vote, we just don't get the option to vote on individual issues. So the idea of people voting for racism is just a moot point, we really dont know. Certainly many of those I know who did vote Liberal struggle with this part of Abbott's rhetoric (in fact they struggle with a fair bit), they were just very over Labour.

Perhaps true. But I see no need to test the theory. A referendum should be reserved for maters that impact the entire country, not the rights of a minority.

 

[clazman]

Whoa re the real winners with gay marriages?

Divorce lawyers in 12 months

 

[burmans]

Perhaps true. But I see no need to test the theory. A referendum should be reserved for maters that impact the entire country, not the rights of a minority.

While its certainly my view that if minority want to do their thing its largely none of my business, the fact is that the existing law does restrict them and I am opposed to that.

So I do see the role of the state and when & how it interferes in the rights of individuals as definitely a matter for all of us. The fact that this individual matter doesnt affect me doesnt mean there arent other areas it might.