Friends of this blog know I’m not particularly enamoured of marriage as we know it. It’s an institution, as one wit noted, and who wants to live in an institution? Flippancy aside, my main objection to marriage is the entirely unwarranted privilege it is accorded in our society, a discriminatory privilege currently available only to heterosexuals.
Some of the most heinous behaviour of which the human species is capable is acted out in heterosexual marriage. Treachery and betrayal. Domestic violence. Physical, emotional and sexual abuse of children. Murder. The dark side of marriage ought to cause us to question its privileged position, but as a herd, we have a capacity for cognitive dissonance that is nothing short of astounding.
So voting Yes in Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s disgraceful $122 million postal survey on marriage equality is a complicated decision, given that I think marriage as we know it is a bit of a nonsense in the first place. However, the reality I must accept is that marriage is an institution, and as such must be available to anyone who wishes to live in it. Excluding people on the basis of their sexuality is appallingly discriminatory, and makes second class citizens of anyone who isn’t heterosexual.
Add to this the allegedly illegitimate nature of Turnbull’s postal survey, about to be argued out in the High Court, and it becomes tempting to boycott the whole despicable process, rather than validate the PM’s sordid machinations with my participation.
However. You can be absolutely certain the No vote is, as we speak, marshalling all its forces to fight what the Australian Christian Lobby’s Lyle Shelton describes as “the fight of our lives” against marriage equality. Lyle, you might recall, some months ago issued a paranoid tweet to the effect that nobody will know he’s straight if gays are allowed to marry. Unfortunately most of his public commentary on marriage equality is far darker than that idiocy, and you can be absolutely certain he and his supporters will be cranking up their homophobic rhetoric over the next few weeks. If we don’t vote Yes we risk a No victory, and I do not want to think about the myriad ways in which that will licence Shelton and his ilk, possibly for years.
The No contingent will not care that a reduced Yes vote comes about as a consequence of principled boycott. They will rejoice in their victory. Nothing good can come of this, so please vote Yes.
Turnbull has wedged the electorate. He has presented us with a singularly depraved process, one he admits will go nowhere as a Yes vote is non-binding. He has co-opted us into his internal strife. He has made the Liberal party’s turmoil ours. He has forced us either to join him in his corrupt process, or risk an ongoing abuse of and discrimination against LGBTQI people that will be validated by a No vote. For this he should never, ever be forgiven.
We all know the right-wing of his party stands ready to nail his testicles to the despatch box. In another desperate attempt to avoid this fate, Turnbull has outsourced his responsibilities to the electorate.
I loathe the situation in which the PM has placed us. I loathe that he has made us a part of his cowardice and depravity. I would like nothing more than to boycott his stinking survey. But I believe the only way of fighting back is to vote Yes to marriage equality, an overwhelming, resounding Yes. If nothing else, this will place Turnbull in an absolutely untenable position if he then refuses to accept this Yes, and will forever make a mockery of his claims to listen to the will of the people.
A Yes vote is a demand that everyone in this country be accorded equal access to what is recognised as a human right to marriage and family. It is a demand for an end to the perception of LGBTQI people as somehow inferior to heterosexuals. It is a demand for an end to heterosexual privilege and power.
Turnbull has co-opted us into his vile process. Turn it back on him. Don’t play into his hands with a boycott. Vote Yes.
Oh, and you can also will the High Court to chuck the postal survey as an option out on its carbuncled arse.
No Place For Sheep 
To nail our ‘esteemed’ Prime Minister’s testicles to the wall you must first find them. Good luck with that. x
LikeLiked by 6 people
Ha ha! Yes, that’s true.
LikeLike
Pretty much nails it, Jennifer: the whole revolting situation, and the choice that we should make. It’s ugly and I hope the postal plebiscite doesn’t happen but if it does, a yes vote is better than a boycott. Let’s hope we get to that point before a certain cockwomble starts World War III…
LikeLiked by 3 people
We are at the mercy of cockwombling shitgibbons. Let’s die standing, not on our knees. (Hopefully it won’t come to that)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Brilliantly written !
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you Mama
LikeLike
As a practising faithful Christian, I object to Lyle Shelton’s arguments being labelled as the. Australian Christian Lobby. His groups denigration of human rights, narrow interpretations of Christian beliefs and hysterical homophobia belittle me and those whose Christian faithfulness I trust. I have to vote “yes” in this appalling poll because I approve of equality and I despair at what objectionable, unchristian things are being put forward by those who want me to vote “no”.
LikeLiked by 7 people
He is entitled to his views. He isn’t entitled to impose them on all in Australia.
I believe in live and let live. As lapse Catholic, I believe he is wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Barry. Much appreciated comment.
LikeLike
I think they are currently being eaten by the bile produced in his gall bladder.
LikeLike
I don’t get this crap of ‘practising christian’, it’s meaningless mumbo jumbo based on fake 10 commandments from a fake story peddled in the world’s longest hoax.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My initial reaction was what a complete waste of money. Just get on with letting everyone in parliament have a free vote. But……
Then the second reaction was to boycott the postal plebiscite.
Then my 3rd reaction was that I will definitely vote yes. Talk to every one that will listen to me and encourage them to do likewise.
There are now a lot of young eligible voters in my family, so must make sure that they and their friends are registered to vote. Hopefully in the meantime the High Court will find that the whole procedure is totally wrong so that none of us should be placed in a situation where they have to make such a decision.
Two people who love one another, regardless of whether they are a men or women should have the right to be able to have a long, secure relationship.
Marriage after all, is just a joining of two entities, whether it is businesses, ideas or the like.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Hear, hear, Sandra.
LikeLike
Sorry, can’t see the point of voting. The dingbats of the Coalition will ignore the vote, whichever way it goes, even if the Yes vote wins by a landslide. And we’ll get marriage equality anyway, by a vote in the parliament, about three weeks after the next Labor government is elected, which will be 2019 at the latest. Total waste of time and money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By voting in big numbers, we can show right wing ding bats we are through with their shenanigans.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah, but think of the optics of the government ignoring a landslide Yes vote.
LikeLiked by 1 person
They don’t care about the optics. They never have before, so why would they start caring now? They’ve never cared about lying and breaking promises, no matter how bad the optics – look at Tony Abbott’s six lies in ten seconds the day before the 2013 election.
The right wing of the Coalition are so ideologically opposed to same-sex marriage they’d rather garrotte their own grandmothers rather than vote for it. If the Yes vote scores a landslide they will simply ignore it. They will be unembarrassed about that, because arguably they are unembarrassable. They barely comprehend what embarrassment is. Utterly shameless.
The optimal outcome would be for the High Court to disallow this stupid pointless plebiscite as unconstitutional, so the haters don’t get a chance to spew out their vomitous hate-speech against gay people. Then we can just wait for the next Labor government, after which we’ll get same-sex marriage legislated within a few weeks.
LikeLike
The High Court will declare that the “plebiscite” is invalid and beyond powers. It has not been authorised by parliament nor is it allowed for under the ABS legislation. The $120 million required has not been authorised.
Off the wall – The members of the executive government may be personally liable for its repayment if it is spent when unauthorised. If not, they should be. But whilst that may be a bridge too far, perhaps it should be argued in the challenge, and debated in parliament. Should focus their minds!
If against all likelihood it goes ahead, I’ll be voting Yes.
A ‘No’ vote, a boycott or a tiny voter response would be taken down and used in evidence by the troglodytes.
The absurdity of it all is that the parliament is not bound by its results, even if 16 million to 0 voted ‘Yes’ – or ‘No’ for that matter.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes. It absolutely antagonises me that I have to jump through a hoop either way, to placate and reinforce people like Abbott and their mad vision of an authoritarian society.
As for Turnbull, what can you say?
If he had had the courage of his professed convictions he would have resigned and forced the conservatives to swim and drown in their own waste and how fair would that have been?
The damage these people seem to have done, are doing and want to do to a working society should have demanded it as an only option for a person who professes principle as his guiding light.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can say plenty about Turnbull and all of it is bloody nasty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Benjamin Law’s “verdict” is basically the same as Jennifer’s – don’t like it, it’s horrible, but we need to vote yes:
My young niece and her girlfriend are already campaigning tirelessly – getting all their friends enrolled and ready.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Tell your daughter if enough stand together, they can, will win.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m especially fond of #5
LikeLiked by 2 people
I can’t say anything much about this piece apart from how microscopically it mirrors my own resentment.
They can’t help a few refugees on Manus Island and they have to rip off pensioners and unemployed via Centrelink in the name of “Austerity”, but will waste this sort of money to placate a few bigots and reimpose themselves and their narrow authoritarianism on a community yearning for democracy.
As I understand it, legislation would be as much about restoring a common law right to set out your will and disbursements enjoyed by the rest of us, although you can correct me if I am wrong on this and those basic rights have already been attended to.
Did people notice the news yesterday that ABC staff including its better known presenters have been banned from discussing this issue on social media?
The ABC claims this is to protect the tender sensitivities of those who believe marriage can only pertain to heterosexuals, but to me it is actually a very controlly, politicised stance because it denies the validity of feelings of the other viewpoint, by inference.
So, I agree that it is wedge politics, furthermore highly if obscurely cultural and its aim is to entrench certain mores in the cause of reactionary, hierarchical politics at the expense of ALL Australians,
LikeLiked by 4 people
I know the ABC has ordered its staff to refer to same sex marriage and not marriage equality. I haven’t yet got my head round the reasons for this policing of language.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yours is a well-considered argument, Jennifer, but I think you make a mistake when you suggest Turnbull can be shamed into doing anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks rhyll. I don’t think Turnbull can be shamed either, but I do think he can be made to look an absolute fool to others.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He’s doing well enough with that himself, as much as Abbott. What is the hold they have on him that he can’t do the obvious and walk away, leaving the hard right to drown in its own waste?
LikeLike
There is no end to their slynesses:
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2017/08/10/same-sex-marriage-postal-plebiscite/
LikeLike
See, I’ve always thought I’d love to live in an institution. Those great big old secluded Victorian psychiatric hospitals are just the perfect place for people like me/-;
And yes, of course, I’ll be voting yes for much the same reasons, much as I deplore the postal vote – In fact give me $122 million and I’ll happily sit down and fill out 18 million ballot papers correctly.
LikeLiked by 4 people
They’d give you ECT & a lobotomy, Sam. You haven’t thought this through.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Then he’d be a National Party shoo-in for parliament.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just in – Baaaarnaby is a NZ citizen.
Must be the sheep connection.
Any more to fall? Just one or two more will see the Looters & Nutters Party lose its majority and the government fall.
🙂 🙂 🙂 !!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
He should go for water theft.
Canavan for corruption involving Adani.
How are the likes of Ludlum and Waters drummed out on a technicality when scum like this get away with blue murder?
LikeLiked by 1 person
They did the right thing and resigned. Canavan, Malcolm Roberts and Joyce render themselves liable to the penalty of 100 pounds ($200) per day that they sit whilst disqualified (Section 46). The penalty of 100 pounds in 1901 money was eye-watering, and equivalent to $5,500 per day in 2017 money.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ignorance is bliss!
LikeLike
This is excellent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, quinaine
LikeLike
Hi Jennifer Wilson, sorry to crash your blog. I was a contributer on Bob Ellie’s table talk as K speer for a while until. Dear Bob past. I so miss Dali, et Al . I have been aware of your blog and the many familar contributers for a while and was moved by your intelligent thoughts to respond.
The Monika quinine comes up as I had forgotten I had registered it.
Lastly if it comes to it I will be voting yes too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ellis* he’d be annoyed
LikeLike
He’d be glad to see you exercising your brain and your right to free speech.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Welcome to our community, quinaine, & good to meet you.
Bob is sorely missed. No one can replace him & I suspect many of us imagine what he’d be saying about current events.
On the bright side, I don’t think anybody has been banned for life here….
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am tempted to vote no.
I am surprised that the Libs and National Party are not more enthusiastic to the level of making same sex couples marriage compulsory, as the institution of marriage as an “institution” is a conservative philosophic staple.
Without any evidence, without a skerrick of a clue or a piece of evidence, I would nevertheless posit that it is the very conservatism of marriage that is attractive to same sex couples, including the frocking up. All of the images shown on TV of ssm is white bridal wear and dress suits (and that’s just the women).
Vote No and maintain “otherness” for the sake of diversity.
LikeLike
Please don’t.
By voting ‘no’ you’re standing with the bigots and haters.
Although I do have some hope for the campaign. As we saw in Aotearoa with the “hitting children is wrong” law change, one of the most powerful forces getting people to support the change was the pro-beating side. Once they started getting media coverage and found some cases to publicise a lot of people changed their minds. Rather than “you mean if I slap my kid when it’s having a tantrum in the supermarket I could go to prison” it became very clear very quickly that those wanting to hit their kids were all about the hitting. Their hill to die on was a guy who punched his five year old in the face so hard that bystanders felt forced to intervene. A guy who was hitting his kids with a big of 2×4 timber. There were others, all prosecuted under the old “reasonable discipline” law, but that was the hill the beaters chose to die on.
I fear and expect we will see the same here. We will not get “I wouldn’t marry a gay” or any other mild discomfort stuff. We will get pedophilia, we will get “Australia is a Christian Theocracy”, we will get “gay men must be imprisoned”. Hopefully so stomach-churning that people will reject it in droves. Please, please let that turning away happen.
As Mr Pink said, “or you’ll find that you’re joining in, on the turning away”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKjJsM5AuIs
LikeLiked by 1 person
Also, nice cover of that song by an Irish woman with a violin: https://soundcloud.com/veronika-shabashova/on-the-turning-away-pink-floyd
LikeLike
Agree, Moz, there’s no reasonable or rational argument against marriage equality, all they have is the vile stuff. It’s already out and about
LikeLike
I can’t agree with you on the No vote, allthumbs.
Though it is true marriage is a conservative institution, and I think there’s a book about why conservatives should support marriage equality because marriage is a core conservative value. I haven’t read it.
LikeLike
Jennifer, I was being somewhat tongue in cheek, but as for the energy given to this debate/issue in the grand scheme of things, I would much prefer to see the money for such a straw poll include an number of other questions to be included to get more bang for buck.
That the LGBTQI’ers that for so long refuted and opposed the maligned “straight” norm that was considered restricitive, punishing, illiberal, ridiculous, dark-hearted, prejudicial, unfeeling, deadly and inhuman should embrace marriage as the castle wall to storm is ironical at least.
A social norm that was seen for a time as a central tenet of belief identified as an enemy of feminism because of its historical beginnings as a contract for an exchange of chattels, is championed by the left and opposed by the right shows how topsy-turvy the world has become.
I have no strong feeling on this issue, i do not hold marriage to be a hallowed institution, I really do not care one way or the other. I just think there are so many other issues, right this moment that are going to have such a massive unprecedented impact across the world in the near future that will change the world forever, that are so much more important that this is way,way down on my list for which political capital is being expended.
LikeLike
I have been same sex attracted all my life and I’m happily and deeply in love with my partner. I have never seen the logic of ‘marriage’ for anyone and I agree it is an institution … an extremely conventional and conservative one. What we witness in the world today is blatant disregard of the privilege by many heterosexuals who marry on a whim, break marriage vows or divorce within a year. I believe gays want the right to marry for many reasons, from pure romanticism, conservatism, to needing to challenge societies hypocrisy, homophobia and exclusion and demanding plain old EQUALITY. The sad result for many partners of deceased gays is when there is no will or documentation proving the relationship status and the living partner can be (often is) excluded from funerals, ceremony and rights to property shared. Families also can contest wills if there is one. I’m not sure if being married will solve all these issues but its a very awkward step towards recognition of equality given the norm is to marry in this day and age. I doubt Turnbull will ever find his balls or a spine. This Government has been bought for sure. What gives me hope is reading the comments of your readers here. I believe most Australians are good people. Lets vote Yes.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Great take on the whole messy & stupid situation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Kade, let’s vote yes, for all the reasons you outline.
Personally, I’d keep the state out of all marriage & would have it in an entirely different form, but it is a powerful norm and no one should be excluded from its privileges. Cheers.
LikeLike
I hope you don’t mind me adding this quoted text that just popped up on my feed …… precisely what I have described. Its so sad.
Lara Ryan
29 February 2016 · ·
This is why.
Because having lost my partner in a horrible pedestrian accident this month I had to ask policemen if I was ‘allowed’ to write Spouse on incident reports.
I had to cross out boxes for husband on the death certificate and boxes for father on our new baby’s birth certificate (both on the same day).
I had to yell out in a busy, crazy emergency room “She is my wife, I know it’s not legal but she is my wife!”
Because we were never political, we just did our thing, did our life our way and tried to live by example to shift peoples hearts rather than pushing agendas. BUT the amount of freaking paper work I am having to do to secure mine and my children’s future welfare is just ridiculous when all it would take is one marriage certificate.
And most of all because I love her, and she has been my every day for ten years, She is the mother of our two girls, she is the future I dreamed of and she is my safe place to land.
Because love is love and we should celebrate it and encourage it always.
The world is harsh enough.
Feel free to share widely – #thisiswhy #marriageequalityaustralia #loveislove
LikeLiked by 2 people
You forgot the most fundamental objection: marriage equality isn’t even being discussed.
Letting same-sex pairs marry is not equality, any more than letting Aboriginal Australians vote while torturing refugees is universal human rights. Marriage, if it is to be a right, must be open to all adults in Australia. Not just adults who qualify through some arbitrary rule or process, not just those outside prison, not just unmarried adults, not just those deemed “competent” by some authority figure, all of us. Equality applies to everyone or it doesn’t exist. Ask me about “universal suffrage”, go on.
Despite my disgust at how “equality” has once again been perverted with the little addendum (for some), I will be voting yes if I get the opportunity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jennifer, I love the way you have written about this issue
And,
I also hope the High Court ” chucks the postal survey as an option out on its carbuncled arse”, as well
Razing the Coalition to the ground and watching the unruly cowboys scuttle, would be a sight to behold and one I would applaud with gusto
This cartoon sums up the ‘invasiveness’ and of the moral turpitude of the wankers responsible for the inception of this war against same sex marriage, and ongoing abuse of and discrimination against LGBTQI people
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh good lord I’ll not get that image of Abbott out of my head in a hurry, Kristapet.
Though the ones doing the rounds on Twitter of him posing in a leather jacket are pretty revolting…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Me too, it certainly does leave one, with a residual image on one’s retina.A bit like being bitten by a flea
Revolting is, as revolting does is Abbott!
I felt it summed up Abbott’s prurient nature nicely – and his very twisted, obnoxious, extreme, controlling habits, agitating itch, and need to interfere, and always with him, there is an undertone overlaid with sexual sliminess.One sick puppy!
He is truly revolting.I can not bear to hear him speak and cartoons lampooning him relieves the tension he causes.Some of the cartoons are very insightful.Yes I saw some of the leather jacket poses – He is reptilian……..a reptile version of Dorian Gray …..ugh! and euw!
I’m sure there is a science fiction version, representing him, as the ‘something’, one can’t get away from, or get rid off – a fall has to come soon
LikeLike
I meant the image bit – not David Pope’s call to enrol
LikeLike
Many resident numb-nuts here will tell you that you can hook up with ANY variation.
Even KLM airlines tried to prove this point with their seat buckles advertisment promoting gay marriage. It fell flat as the dopes failed to figure out the practical mechanics of such contraptions. Only one size fits.
I will be voting ‘No” and gloating at our immense victory over the minority but noisy Marxists. Many snouts will be rubbed on blogs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are a fool, Frank. Perhaps you even know that.
LikeLike
Your article is in keeping with the threads of thought about this shonky plebiscite with Kaye Lee from AIMN
You both have put forward thoughtful pieces for us to ponder
Kaye Lee has written an article on this is matter entitled “Freedom of Speech? ….”you gotta be kidding me!” and it is relevant for further reasons for voting “Yes!”
I felt moved to add my thoughts and response:
Kaye Lee, I agree, about your incredulity, and saying “Freedom of Speech!… “you gotta to be shitting me?
A one-man-mobilized-army, against the freedom of choice for ALL Australians……of course, only Abbott’s choice will do…..according to Abbott ….yabba, yabba, do ….
I almost wish we could do a conceptual “Braveheart, ‘freedom’ moment at him, including baring our arses at his poxxy plebiscite dressed as a survey
I am ‘straight’, but this man brings out the gremlin in me – he certainly makes my blood boil, with his prurient obsessions, and, one-eyed intolerance of people being different
I think the following two quotes offered by Kaye Lee, crystalises, why, Abbott’s misdirection, and the subverting of the parliamentary processes, to get his own way; his misuse of language/ semantics, and the deliberate clouding of the civil liberties issues at stake, is so repugnant, and against, basic, individual, civil liberties, let alone, the pain it causes
“To say this is an issue about political correctness does trivialise something that is a very deeply held belief by myself and many other members of the community,” said Abbott’s sister.
“This is not about political correctness. This is about basic rights before the law. It’s about fairness. It’s about equality. It’s about respect. It’s about inclusion. It is nothing to do with political correctness. It’s something that I think most Australians think, should have happened some time ago, and they expect that will happen in the wash up from this vote.”
There is a lot of poison in this man, Abbott
LikeLike
Thank you for your support xx
LikeLike
New to this blog, but it’s now bookmarked, thank you. I have nothing original to add, and I do wonder why a noisy minority want to impose their view of the world on the rest of us. They are entitled to their opinion, but as Amanda Vanstone said, I have mine. I will be voting “yes” in the unlikely event the High Court lets this 5 legged hybrid stumble forward, as I want an end to this pointless debate. We still don’t know which question is to be asked. I anticipate a logic pretzel designed to confuse, irritate and distract the voluntary survey participants. The better question will not be asked. “Do you agree that Marriage Equality should be granted?” at which time, after a civilised and informative campaign based on facts, using the best available evidence, after the returns are in, and the “Yes” vote is counted as overwhelming, Marriage for both straight and gay would be unavailable. After all, that would not stop non secular celebrations, and who doesn’t love a good party? There is nothing the Marriage Act does that can’t be achieved by a good, well drafted standard contract protected and enforced by Federal Law.
LikeLike
Aha! The mighty drsusancalvin turns up for a hit.
“marriage for both gay and straight would be unavailable”.
b-b-b-but, won’t that mean blokes won’t get their end in on the wedding night, expecially the Xtian ones?!
And the wimmen folk…”where will our nine or ten babies come from?”
This an unforseen upending of life as we know it.
What will Tony Abbott do if he is added to the list of blokes who can’t get their end in because they are marrie dXtians? what will Margie say?
What happens to people who”do it” outside the bonds of Holy Matrimony..I mean, their souls, gay and straight alike.
Now we know the significance of that two- headed calf born in West Gippsland the other day is about. Omens and portents, I tell you…omens and portents, the end is nigh.
“Open your ears, for which of you will stop
the vent of hearing when loud rumour speaks”
We plead with Drusus an’ Calvin, arch-subversive, think of the discord and mayhem that you sow as another diabolical plot is hatched.
LikeLike
I think you might find this a very interesting, and worthwhile, but, long read
“Threats to freedom of expression”
A speech given Justin Thomas Gleeson SC is an Australian lawyer and former Solicitor-General of Australia, the Commonwealth’s second-ranking law officer …
https://www.pen.org.au/archives/news/justin-gleeson-talks-threats-to-freedom-of-expression-at-sydney-writers-festival
LikeLike
Some other thinkers have this to say on this issue – worthwhile, to think about, I think.
Michael Oliphant had this to say:
“Marriage equality is being used to suck the air out of the room so that we are barely conscious of a whole range of other issues that sorely need improved government performance. If you are planning on using plebiscites for all allegedly contentious social issues then the numbers are really going to rack up. There is no reason for politicians to be unable to reflect the wishes of their electorates on marriage equality. They claim to have all sorts of detailed understandings of their electorates when it comes to pushing their political agendas. The reality is that party politicians have no business putting forward arguments for or against marriage equality based on their own personal views. They were not elected on the basis of their own personal views on individual matters. They should be reflecting the desires of their electorates. That is their job. A vote in Parliament is entirely appropriate for this question. The very notion that it be put to any sort of non binding plebiscite or non compulsory postal vote is so completely absurd that it ranks right up there as a candidate for the most cynical and ridiculous deal of the decade – and there’s plenty of competition for that honour.”
In AIMN “Day to Day Politics: Abbott the peddler of verbal violence”, today. John Lord says:
“This plebiscite or survey by another name is a typical example of a government changing long-standing rules to get its way. It’s about our future, not our past.”
And another commentator has this to say, and, I think he is right regarding the press:
“What the press corp in Canberra need to watch out for is what Abbott did the other day : he called a press announcement – you can’t call it a conference, he announced his one liners about free speech, religious freedom and political correctness and immediately walked away without answering a single question.The media need to be alert to this form of manipulation and not let him get away with it.” (Terry2)
I fear the Catholic Church is also fighting dirty on this issue too – via Tony Abbott and others, plus the other extreme elements in the LNP
My wish is for the High Court, making the LNP shenanigans unconstitutional, and throwing out the plebiscite survey as well
LikeLike
One last…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm..seems to have “died” as an issue here.
LikeLike
Indeed, Paul. We’ve been over this territory so often. The parliament could and should vote it in within a few days.
LikeLike
Yes…It has grated with me for some time.
LikeLike
Absolutely correct.
“Marriage” needs to be ignored, period, by the government—NOT recognized.
It should be a total irrelevancy in the over all scheme of things.
What consenting adults do in the “bedroom” shouldn’t even be part of the public discussion.
Who cares if somebody is a fudge packer or muff diver?
Enlightened people will simply keep their sexual preferences to themselves—and their partners.
ANY government should remain “marriage agnostic” or something.
In the overall scheme of things—with respect to government recognition and involvement—marriage should not be anything that even needs to acknowledged, respected or accommodated.
Somebody can *claim* to be married to their dog or cat. Somebody can *claim* to be married to their homosexual lover.
Pity them. They have hang ups. They are insecure.
If marriage is really such a HUUUGE problem for some people then they obviously need help.
But, that’s not MY job.
HINT: it’s not the “government’s” job either.
LikeLike
LikeLike