Same sex marriage debate...

[jirskyr]

If the Government is not willing to put sufficient free-speech protections in place, and they have indicated they are not, then i will be voting no for my governement to pass this mystery legislation that they couldnt be botherd putting together before taking to the people.

I dont think there is anything even remotely confusing or half-baked about that.

I may have missed something here.

Doesn't the government always passes "mystery" legislation? Have you ever had an early look into proposed legislation before you voted for your MP or any referendum or plebiscite or survey? Do politicians ever develop ready-made legislation before they have a mandate from the people or the parliament to begin changes to the law or constitution?

The government has already summarised the proposed changes to legislation for us anyway: amend the Marriage Act to permit same-sex.

I have never voted in a plebiscite before, have you?

No I'm not old quite enough > 1977.

And in fairness I was wrong on one thing, that most referenda do appear to have proposed law changes available as part of the voting process. Plebiscites are the opposite, they just ask a question.

So in that context, I do agree it would have preferable to me for the government to hold a referendum on specific changes to the Marriage Act, and we could enact the change in one swoop, rather than now wait on parliament to think about it and someone to have the balls and the backing to pass a bill.

However that doesn't necessarily solve your anti-discrimination issue, because I expect that if we had a referendum, it would only be about altering the Marriage Act. And maybe that's one of the reasons we ended up with this survey anyway, because if they put forward a referendum then persons like yourself would have demanded a concurrent clarification of anti-discrimination laws, and suddenly we have a very broad-reaching referendum on our hands.

 

[jirskyr]

If the Government is not willing to put sufficient free-speech protections in place, and they have indicated they are not, then i will be voting no for my governement to pass this mystery legislation that they couldnt be botherd putting together before taking to the people.

I dont think there is anything even remotely confusing or half-baked about that.

I may have missed something here.

Doesn't the government always passes "mystery" legislation? Have you ever had an early look into proposed legislation before you voted for your MP or any referendum or plebiscite or survey? Do politicians ever develop ready-made legislation before they have a mandate from the people or the parliament to begin changes to the law or constitution?

The government has already summarised the proposed changes to legislation for us anyway: amend the Marriage Act to permit same-sex.

I have never voted in a plebiscite before, have you?

It's not a plebiscite, it's a survey.

It's a technicality though isn't it? The only two differences between this and a plebiscite, as I understand it, is that the survey is non-compulsory for citizens and the government didn't have to pass a bill in parliament to engage the Electoral Commission.

Everything else is the same - outcome is advisory, not constitutional or legislative of itself?

 

[Geo]

I would of thought a POLL more appropriate ..Who doesn't like a good POLLING…

 

[Yossarian]

I may have missed something here.

Doesn't the government always passes "mystery" legislation? Have you ever had an early look into proposed legislation before you voted for your MP or any referendum or plebiscite or survey? Do politicians ever develop ready-made legislation before they have a mandate from the people or the parliament to begin changes to the law or constitution?

The government has already summarised the proposed changes to legislation for us anyway: amend the Marriage Act to permit same-sex.

I have never voted in a plebiscite before, have you?

It's not a plebiscite, it's a survey.

It's a technicality though isn't it? The only two differences between this and a plebiscite, as I understand it, is that the survey is non-compulsory for citizens and the government didn't have to pass a bill in parliament to engage the Electoral Commission.

Everything else is the same - outcome is advisory, not constitutional or legislative of itself?

A plebiscite can be binding or non-binding and is generally compulsory. As you say it's covered by the AEC and run under legislation linked to elections. This survey is more like choosing your logie winners.

 

[colmcd]

A man in Melbourne has been jailed for marrying a 14 year old girl. Distirbing that that type of marriage receives less condemnation than 2 consenting adults.

Yep its a far more distressing and important issue.

Well, it is Very disturbing. But nothing is broken here.
Idiot marries 14 year old. Man goes to jail, probably along with parents of 14 year old and child is protected. Nothing broken, system is working.

I hate these stories because it just feeds emotion. Like when media sources say "convicted murderer appeals case in court…" So what, it's their right. Because the person is convicted they stay in Jail, aspects of the appeal are heard and case is usually thrown out. Nothing broken, system either confirms a guilty person to jail or gives them a chance to correct a miss-verdict.

Maybe the case has gotten less publicity and less public condemnation, so what. I don't know about the Melbourne or even the Sydney jail system but I do know that usually the fellow prisoners know how to make their opinions felt.

 

[colmcd]

I have never voted in a plebiscite before, have you?

It's not a plebiscite, it's a survey.

It's a technicality though isn't it? The only two differences between this and a plebiscite, as I understand it, is that the survey is non-compulsory for citizens and the government didn't have to pass a bill in parliament to engage the Electoral Commission.

Everything else is the same - outcome is advisory, not constitutional or legislative of itself?

A plebiscite can be binding or non-binding and is generally compulsory. As you say it's covered by the AEC and run under legislation linked to elections. This survey is more like choosing your logie winners.

Bingo and the fact that it is a "survey" sucks. Elections are run under rules, rules that allow all sides to inspect the count, to query and appeal the count. Rules that ensure a result is fair and with integrity.

This is election light, a kinda democracy that I would be kinda happy if it never happened again. We just had a census and could have easily asked the question then to Gage public opinion.

That being said I would like to see an option on the 3 most controversial questions being asked to the public at Election time, counted under election rules. For instance "should Australia become a Republic", "Should we implement a Buffet tax?" or how about "Should NT become a state". Questions could be done on popularity and put without binding but political force…
The survey idea is more like a decision coming from the Eels salary cap manager.

 

[hammertime]

A man in Melbourne has been jailed for marrying a 14 year old girl. Distirbing that that type of marriage receives less condemnation than 2 consenting adults.

You're not serious are you? How many people would accept the above? Pretty darn small % of the population. It's illegal and most people on the street would condemn it, and if they don't, lock the sickos up!

Are you talking level of media coverage or something?

 

[Pawsandclaws]

If we've learned anything over the last month, it's that bigotry, intolerance and hate can wear many colours, including rainbow.

Can you imagine if a former President of the United States had been physically assaulted in the a capital city while walking down the street?

This is unprecedented in Australia and regardless of your feelings about Abbott (I'm no supporter), this is a despicable act which will have implications for security. A line has been crossed and for what? Does anyone not believe the issues of domestic violence, sexual assault and the abuse of children are far more important than who can be married?

 

[Tim Sheens]

If we've learned anything over the last month, it's that bigotry, intolerance and hate can wear many colours, including rainbow.

Can you imagine if a former President of the United States had been physically assaulted in the a capital city while walking down the street?

This is unprecedented in Australia and regardless of your feelings about Abbott (I'm no supporter), this is a despicable act which will have implications for security. A line has been crossed and for what? Does anyone not believe the issues of domestic violence, sexual assault and the abuse of children are far more important than who can be married?

Possibly Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz, Cory Bernadi, ….........
..........

 

[Pawsandclaws]

If we've learned anything over the last month, it's that bigotry, intolerance and hate can wear many colours, including rainbow.

Can you imagine if a former President of the United States had been physically assaulted in the a capital city while walking down the street?

This is unprecedented in Australia and regardless of your feelings about Abbott (I'm no supporter), this is a despicable act which will have implications for security. A line has been crossed and for what? Does anyone not believe the issues of domestic violence, sexual assault and the abuse of children are far more important than who can be married?

Possibly Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz, Cory Bernadi, ….........
..........

Tasmanian Police have charged someone. Also the DT are running with the story about an ABC staffer.

This is just grubby.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

If we've learned anything over the last month, it's that bigotry, intolerance and hate can wear many colours, including rainbow.

Can you imagine if a former President of the United States had been physically assaulted in the a capital city while walking down the street?

This is unprecedented in Australia and regardless of your feelings about Abbott (I'm no supporter), this is a despicable act which will have implications for security. A line has been crossed and for what? Does anyone not believe the issues of domestic violence, sexual assault and the abuse of children are far more important than who can be married?

Possibly Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz, Cory Bernadi, ….........
..........

These other issues you bring up are irrelevant and are a long term problem that need a lot of work to eliminate. Whereas universal marriage can fixed up with one vote in Parliament just as it was eliminated by one vote in Parliament.

 

[old_man_tiger]

If the Government is not willing to put sufficient free-speech protections in place, and they have indicated they are not, then i will be voting no for my governement to pass this mystery legislation that they couldnt be botherd putting together before taking to the people.

I dont think there is anything even remotely confusing or half-baked about that.

I may have missed something here.

Doesn't the government always passes "mystery" legislation? Have you ever had an early look into proposed legislation before you voted for your MP or any referendum or plebiscite or survey? Do politicians ever develop ready-made legislation before they have a mandate from the people or the parliament to begin changes to the law or constitution?

The government has already summarised the proposed changes to legislation for us anyway: amend the Marriage Act to permit same-sex.

I have never voted in a plebiscite before, have you?

No I'm not old quite enough 1977.

And in fairness I was wrong on one thing, that most referenda do appear to have proposed law changes available as part of the voting process. Plebiscites are the opposite, they just ask a question.

So in that context, I do agree it would have preferable to me for the government to hold a referendum on specific changes to the Marriage Act, and we could enact the change in one swoop, rather than now wait on parliament to think about it and someone to have the balls and the backing to pass a bill.

However that doesn't necessarily solve your anti-discrimination issue, because I expect that if we had a referendum, it would only be about altering the Marriage Act. And maybe that's one of the reasons we ended up with this survey anyway, because if they put forward a referendum then persons like yourself would have demanded a concurrent clarification of anti-discrimination laws, and suddenly we have a very broad-reaching referendum on our hands.

I thought referendums were required for changes to the constitution, and are binding. I don't think you can have a referendum on this law - that has to be a plebiscite. Plebiscites are non-binding but relate to a government seeking a mandate for a legislative issue.

This is a survey, like going to woolies and being asked if you were happy with how the shelves were stacked, or an IT support business asking if you were satisfied with their service. I fear it will mean as much as those examples do in the long run, but could be wrong.

 

[old_man_tiger]

Just googled to confirm.

The other difference is the plebiscite is essentially a non-binding "vote" on an issue, run by the AEC. Not the ABS and Auspost.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

A man in Melbourne has been jailed for marrying a 14 year old girl. Distirbing that that type of marriage receives less condemnation than 2 consenting adults.

You're not serious are you? How many people would accept the above? Pretty darn small % of the population. It's illegal and most people on the street would condemn it, and if they don't, lock the sickos up!

Are you talking level of media coverage or something?

Not saying anyone condone's it, but it's disturbing that the no campaign make such a big deal about SSM, when there are examples like this that are an out and out abuse on the term "marriage".

 

[Tim Sheens]

If we've learned anything over the last month, it's that bigotry, intolerance and hate can wear many colours, including rainbow.

Can you imagine if a former President of the United States had been physically assaulted in the a capital city while walking down the street?

This is unprecedented in Australia and regardless of your feelings about Abbott (I'm no supporter), this is a despicable act which will have implications for security. A line has been crossed and for what? Does anyone not believe the issues of domestic violence, sexual assault and the abuse of children are far more important than who can be married?

Possibly Tony Abbott, Eric Abetz, Cory Bernadi, ….........
..........

Tasmanian Police have charged someone. Also the DT are running with the story about an ABC staffer.

This is just grubby.

I was answering your last sentence and not sure whether tongue in cheek.

Yeah, it was grubby, well plain wrong, but can't see it changing the security situation unless Tony wants to really press the issue for political reasons.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

The guy has said it had nothing to do with being a Yes voter, he's just always hated him.

 

[Byron_Bay_Fan]

All those gays who were bashed and pushed over cliffs in the 1970s and 1980s around Sydney I am sure would have much preferred just a bleeding lip instead. It is Abbott's attitude that assists in discrimination that results in more extreme reactions like those murders. That is also why the ripple effect is also necessary after change of law so that all discrimination is eliminated at face to face level.

 

[Pawsandclaws]

The guy has said it had nothing to do with being a Yes voter, he's just always hated him.

That's why he was wearing a SSM vote Yes badge. Purely coincidental, it was a crime of opportunity. :unamused:

Note the obscene haste Brandis came out to deny he is a SSM supporter.

 

[Yossarian]

The guy has said it had nothing to do with being a Yes voter, he's just always hated him.

That's why he was wearing a SSM vote Yes badge. Purely coincidental, it was a crime of opportunity. :unamused:

Note the obscene haste Brandis came out to deny he is a SSM supporter.

Well he can hate Abbott AND be a Yes voter. I'm sure it formed part of his hatred. He seems to be suggesting it wasn't the definitive reason and he would have done it even without the survey vote.

No excuse for violence but let's not over egg this. It was one clown in Hobart. It's no more reflective on the campaign than the people who bashed Rudd's god son.

 

[Spook]

I guess once the yes vote gets up and equality is achieved, the "Gay Mardo Gras" can become just "The Mardi Gras", and in the spirit of equality Hetero's can join in to celebrate their straightness.
I also think the LGBTIQ term is a little outdated. Perhaps it can be changed to something that we can more easily remember. For a start the "B" is out. I think it makes sense that "B" be replaced with "O" for others. That can include "Bi's", "Gender Neutrals" and any other term thought up in the future. The "L" should be at the start in honour of the Dykes on Bikes leading the way at the Mardi Gras for so long. "H" for Hetero should be included for the sake of equality. I favour it being updated to;
LQ-GTHO (phase 2)
Easy to remember, with a little Aussie flavour.