Well, yeah. Geez I’m not having a good day.
Some peak boomer memes in there.
Some actual detail on the process in the link below.
Meanwhile, they try to introduce legislation to stop dodgy campaigning, well after said campaigning is in action. The bulk of the campaigning here, unlike in an election or referendum, will happen at the start and not the end of the process.
She can be a bit of a loose cannon at times, … but this article by Razer is worth a post
And would be equally at home in the Politics thread, for the perfect dissection of the “Howard Years” she provides, that I couldn’t agree with more, & that, despite mentioning & referencing them & their legacy on many occasions, …I’ve not had the energy or time to produce in there.
JOHN HOWARD IS BACK, STOPPING AUSTRALIA AGAIN
By Helen Razer September 11, 2017
Welcome to an ugly week. It is one in which the support for “Yes” to marriage equality will continue to soften. It is one in which intolerance will take root and hope will wilt. It is into these hothouse conditions that our shittiest, most cynical living Prime Minister returns to poison everything and everyone anew. It’s John Howard, returned from his dotty project of comparing himself to Robert Menzies. He’s back, doing what he does best at close to full capacity: propagandising.
You may be too young, or you may have been too sensibly drunk, to remember the Howard era. I was sober, more or less, and I can tell you, this guy learnt a thing or two from Goebbels. And, no, I’m not comparing the Howard years to those of the Third Reich—although, those in the Northern Territory who felt the force of a racialised (and ongoing) “Emergency Response” are quite entitled to make that comparison. I am saying, simply, that the bloke is very, very good at what I see as using media to spread his message of class deceit. Perhaps there was never a leader who could so effectively flatter “the battlers” into believing that their service to elites was in their own best interest.
Howard afforded generous tax concessions to investors in residential property. This was sold to the nation as an opportunity for all us Average Mums and Dads to become landlords! Never mind that a nation of landlords requires at least another nation of immiserated tenants. Nearly 20 years later, home ownership rates in Australia have plummeted, and renting is now a much more common experience than it has been in decades.
Then, Howard introduced “WorkChoices”, which he assured the people was a true rebel’s move against those nasty unions, with all their hoity-toity demands for a living wage. It was “simplified” legislation, he said, and killing off all those unfair dismissal laws would be a way to guarantee Australian jobs. Never mind that the facility to sack workers with ease was likely to drive wages down. Howard was a marvellous storyteller when it came to WorkChoices, right up ’til the point that people started losing their job security and booted his ■■■■ out.
It was in his moments of “culture wars” obfuscation that Howard showed true skill.
It was, however, in his moments of “culture wars” obfuscation that Howard showed true skill. By turning the attention of the nation again and again to the problem of unhealthy “culture”—just as much as any one of my post-modernist lecturers in the ‘90s did—the emerging problems of our stagnant wages and rising house prices were forgotten. We became fixated on the “black armband view” of history. Although an Aboriginal perspective on history had never been a meaningful part of the Australian curriculum and notwithstanding that the good Howard Australian was required to stand to attention every Anzac Day, remembering just one of many massacres ordered by the powerful, we just had to fight against the possibility—never the reality—of true and uncensored Aboriginal knowledge.
Honestly, to relive his tales about asylum seekers, and Muslim asylum seekers specifically, is today beyond my emotional capacity. It’s just too ■■■■■■■ sad. Of course, Howard was not the first Australian Prime Minister who succeeded in convincing white citizens both to blame their own rotten lot on “others” and to support the US hegemon in profitable battle. But, darn, he was good at it.
In the Howard years, we became briefly fixated on those Troubling Gays, who, in 2004, underwent a pointless sort of double exclusion from The Marriage Act. The words “man” and “woman” were inserted, according to Howard, to “make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation.” This is kind of impressive, if you think about it. Howard was at once able to declare that the state should control the terms of one’s most intimate partnership—and legal amendments that afforded rights to same- and opposite-sex couples identical to those for married couples were not made until the Rudd era—while also seeming like a defiant scallywag screaming in the tyrannical face of Political Correctness Gone Mad.
In my view there has not been a Prime Minister whose policy has been so coercive.
In my lifetime and in my view, there has not been a Prime Minister whose policy has been so coercive. He changed the way we work and he diminished our future possibility of secure housing. He sent the military in to strongarm Aboriginal communities. He made the rich richer and extended the power of the finance sector. He involved our nation in a war that we now all agree was barbarism, and one that many hundreds of thousands of Australians protested at the time. He fought against a style of teaching of culture and history that had never truly been taught. He played a pivotal role in reducing our wages—one’s “choices” do tend to diminish in scope along with one’s available funds. And he did all this while appearing to advance the case of “the battlers”. Many of whom now still believe his deceitful promise that a very contemporary set of economic policies hurt less if they were offset by a very old-fashioned set of cultural values.
He extended the techniques of the new economic liberalism—neoliberalism—introduced to Australia by Keating. Then, he promised us salvation with an idealised old-fashioned life. Problem was that Mum was now working casual full-time to feed the predatory lenders Howard had permitted to flourish, and Dad had lost the job security to which he had become accustomed. Howard accelerated real-life change in Australia, both cultural and economic, but blathered on for 11long years about his desired return to an era purportedly made unrecognisable by anti-war protestors, unions, Aboriginal academics and, basically, anyone who fell outside his base. Even when he failed the base, he was still perceived by many as a Rational Man with no time for this PC cultural nonsense.
Thanks, in no small part part to Howard, a “No” to the question of marriage equality now seems very likely.
And now, this master of doublespeak is back! Thanks, in no small part part to Howard, a “No” to the question of marriage equality now seems very likely. Why the eff anyone is surprised by this, though, is quite beyond me.
Comrades, we must pause to see how recently others were right here: engaged in a fight for something quite beyond the liberal matter being contested. This matter, so likely to be lost to a popular middle finger, is no longer about marriage. It’s about the conflation of a barely remembered life of middle-class fortune with still-remembered middle-class values.
Remember when it was generally held that the “Leave” vote in the UK would be easily defeated? When few pundits or people questioned the ease with which Hillary Clinton would make her way to the White House? Today, the UK is negotiating its departure from the EU and Donald Trump is President. In some part by accident and in some part by design, these strange illiberal victories occurred due to that “belief” upheld by Howard: things were better in the old days.
Things were, materially, better in the old days. There was a much bigger middle-class. Despite what our current Prime Minister says about this being an Exciting Time to Be Australian it is actually a pretty ■■■■■■ time to be Australian—unless you think housing insecurity, underemployment and crap wages all qualify as a thrill. Depending on who you ask, things were culturally more stagnant in the old days. Unless we come to understand that the economy has a great impact on the way many people experience the culture, we who are likely to vote or publicly advocate for “Yes” have no hope of outdoing a media Machiavelli like Howard.
Across the West, voters are making some apparently illiberal choices, while their liberal opponents continue to say that these were anomalous, the work of an organised right-wing militia or the product of Russian Hacking. “You’re just stupid and unfeeling if you vote No.”
After more than two decades of separating economic reality from political consciousness, perhaps we’ve all become a little stupid and unfeeling. If someone, however deluded, feels that a return to old-fashioned values may also be a return to old-fashioned comfort—a story they’ve been told by canny propagandists like Howard for a very long time—can you truly blame them? Or, at least, can you hope to shake them out of a lifetime of thinking that everything starts with the culture, when you believe that as well?
Unlike Howard, I do not believe that the state should set the terms for any personal relationship.
That advocates for marriage equality have built much of their campaign on a smug presumption of near-unanimity—i.e. only the intolerant and stupid minority would vote other than “Yes”—always seemed a poor strategy to me. In this week when we will receive our survey slips, it seems tragic. Unlike Howard, I do not believe that the state should set the terms for any personal relationship. This does not mean, however, that I cannot see how much damage this mini-Brexit moment could do to our political life. There are terrible and widening divisions between the “progressive”, but still neoliberal, knowledge class and those Australians who long for a past in which they could still afford a home, maybe a coastal holiday once a year.
We could get together on this. There is no time, sadly, in the moments before Australia, I predict, votes “No”. But when it comes to other matters, we must speak beyond the terms that a propagandist like Howard permits. We cannot let matters of national significance become little more than a contest between the knowledge class and everybody else. We can no longer permit our belief in the primacy of the culture blind us to the economic lies we were told, and are still hearing. On both sides, we believe that cultural belief will change everything. It could be truly transformational if we found some solidarity in the true “centre”.
Some of the comments on the article are worthwhile reading too …
I’m not gay, but I reckon this vote/decision is a big deal.
In reality the lives of politicians normally have SFA to do with us. this vote and subsequent decision promises to have a really positive impact on the lives of thousands of Aussies.
That’s a good thing. Whether your gay or not, approve or disapprove of homosexuality. Marriage I think is a pretty damn good option for people.
It brings families together and provides people with emotional and social security, knowing they have a partner committing to a relationship through thick and thin.
LGTBI people deserve that, I think more than anyone giving how hard I’m sure most of their youth is coming to terms with their identity and the struggle many would go through for family acceptance.
That’s my take on saying yes.
Definitely voting yes, even though on multiple levels it’s a disgrace that we should be doing so.
Mrs diggers and a friend were discussing the merits of the upcoming non-binding opinion poll and her friend said, and this is no bullsh*t, “I’m voting no because I don’t want my kid to be forced into role-playing with d ildos during compulsory same sex education classes in primary school if the vote is successful”. Mrs diggers countered by saying she’s pretty sure same sex d ildo traning for children won’t be an inevitable outcome of the vote should it be successful rather, the vote is about equality for all in a legal sense. And besides, married straight couples have been known to use d ildos and this kind of training hasn’t been offer to our children so far to the best of her knowledge.
Mrs diggers’ mate is a regular suburban mum in her 40’s. I don’t think she represents the general consensus but she’s not alone in holding that kind of view.
This whole debate has been shangied. Firstly, when John Howard changed the Marriage Act, he also changed the Defacto laws which also read a man and a woman and same sex relationships or partnerships were completely excluded and under law unrecognised. This was NOT about gay marriage but has become about gay or same sex marriage. Changing the Defacto Laws has meant same sex partnerships/relationships do not have the same entitlements under law that a hetro couple do. After all you have a will, what’s the drama?
What does this mean to a same sex couple? It means the Superannuation Laws are different and who gets what and who might be entitled to what?. Even with a Power of Attorney and a Will, there can be challenges and same sex couple may have to fight for what other couples expect as an automatic entitlement under Australian Law.
If one partner of a same sex partnership was hospitalized, the other partner could be prevented by partner’s family from hospital visiting and making decisions on behalf of their partner. NO way, you say. Its happening already. That’s what these changes were originally about before the whole argument became about something else. It is ALL about equal rights under law NOT just about SAME SEX MARRIAGE. Don’t be fooled. It is not the gay community who have done this.
So does this apply to straight couple who get married in non religious ceremonies?
How about we give the union between bigots who want a different name for their union than that of same sex couples the different name? Bigotriage?
I wonder if it’s the geographic as Well? I’m in the Brunswick and Coburg area alot and know a lot of people who are lesbian or gay so I’m obviously more on the side of yes. However, cousins who live further north (Thomaston, Epping, wallert) “couldn’t give a ■■■■” and I think it’s because they literally know no one who is lesbian or gay so don’t have that emotional attachment to what this poll is about
I’ll just leave this here…
Tony Abbott on why same sex marriage would fundamentally change society
Like most, I have tried to be there for friends and family who are gay. They are good people who deserve our love, respect and inclusion but that doesn’t mean that we can’t continue to reserve the term “marriage” for the relationship of one man with one woman, ideally for life and usually dedicated to children.
Like you, I want a country where everyone gets a fair go and where no one is discriminated against on the basis of race, gender, religion, political opinion or sexuality. We all want people to be appreciated for their achievements and for the quality of their character; not pigeon-holed and dismissed on the basis of prejudice.
That, in fact, is the Australia we’ve had for years. It’s a long time, thank God, since gay people have been discriminated against and just about everyone old enough to remember that time is invariably embarrassed at the intolerance that was once common. Already, indeed, same sex couples in a settled domestic relationship have exactly the same rights as people who are married.
To demand “marriage equality”, therefore, is quite misleading. Same sex couples already have that. This debate is about changing marriage, not extending it. And if you change marriage, you change society; because marriage is the basis of family; and family is the foundation of community.
Supporters of same sex marriage say they are concerned about the bigotry and intolerance that will be whipped up by the plebiscite now going ahead. So far, it’s the supporters of change, not the opponents, who’ve been responsible for bullying and hate speech.
The Archbishop of Hobart has been dragged before a tribunal for defending Christian teaching. Coopers Brewery was bullied into withdrawing support for the Bible Society after sponsoring a debate about marriage. A Father’s Day ad was banned for being “political”. There’s been fake news about non-existent homophobic posters and a homophobic ram raid that never happened.
“Love might be love” but it’s striking how little love the supporters of same sex marriage are showing for anyone who disagrees with them. It’s paradoxical how respect has flown out the window in the fight for yet more respect. It’s hard to see, at least from the tenor of the campaign to bring it in, how we would be a more decent society with same sex marriage than without it.
At one level, the same sex marriage debate is of vastly less relevance than most people’s daily struggle to pay their bills, to improve their lives and that of their families, and to try to get on with their neighbours and workmates. But at another level, almost nothing is more important than the values that we cherish and the principles on which our society is based
We shouldn’t lightly change what’s been the foundation of our society for generations; and, if we do, it should only be after the most careful weighing of all the consequences. Yet if the polls are to be believed, we are about to discard the concept of marriage that has stood since time immemorial in favour of a new concept that would have been scornfully rejected even by gay people just a generation ago.
This week, an anti-same sex marriage gay activist posed the question: “How are women going to recognise lesbianism as an alternative to heterosexuality if they don’t see us protesting against institutions that have been harmful to us: like marriage, prostitution and the nuclear family?”
I’m sure that some gay activists really believe that they are trying to promote stable, long-term relationships by extending marriage to same sex couples; but others clearly want to subvert marriage. And the gay people demanding to be married don’t want their relationships to change; they just want them to be accorded a new status.
It’s said that there should be absolutely no difference, even in terminology, between relationships because “love is love”. Yet there are many different types of love. No one is saying that one type of loving relationship is better than another, just that they can be different. By all means, let’s find a way to solemnise what is intended to be a sacrificial love between two people of the same sex; but it remains a different love even though it’s not a lesser one.
At one level, insisting upon any particular definition of marriage may seem like pedantry. At another level, though, it’s important to maintain cultural and intellectual integrity. A man is not a woman just because he wants to be, and a same sex relationship should not be able to become a marriage just because activists demand it.
All the overseas evidence shows that allowing “any two persons” to marry brings many other changes in its wake. In Britain, Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close down and an orthodox Jewish school threatened with defunding. In America, a baker has been prosecuted for refusing to put a slogan on a wedding cake.
This week in Quarterly Essay, a “safe schools” supporter, Benjamin Law, said that “it might be stating the obvious but same sex marriage is far from the final frontier in the battle against homophobia” – prompting the equally obvious question: how can parents keep gender fluidity programmes out of schools here in Australia when gender fluidity has entered the Marriage Act? If the advocates for same sex marriage can’t demonstrate how freedom of speech, freedom of religion and parental choice will be protected in their brave new world, they’re asking voters to sign a blank cheque.
Australians have never liked being pushed around or hoodwinked. When big businesses from Uber, to Subway, to the makers of Magnum ice cream are virtue signalling on same sex marriage, it’s time to say that political correctness has got completely out of hand and to vote “no” to stop it in its tracks.
“It’s a long time, thank God, since gay people have been discriminated against and just about everyone old enough to remember that time is invariably embarrassed at the intolerance that was once common.”
Yep, thank God, Tony.
I’m going to nitpick this slightly.
With superannuation in Australia there are basically two forms of nominating who gets your super and death benefit.
Only lasts 3 years. Must have two independent signatures on nomination form. Cannot be challenged. Binding death nominations cannot be done with a power of attorney.
- Non Binding.
Non binding is best to be considered a ‘serving menu’. If this happens this is what i’d like to happen. The trustee (that’s the super fund) then can have the final say of where the money goes but other parties can also put in their voice as to what should happen or if they claim they should get some of it.
Most super funds define who can be nominated and nearly all stipulate how a same sex relation is considered (basically the same as a couple who are married / defacto but please check with your super fund). At the end of the day if you do not have a binding death nomination the trustee will determine who gets what.
You don’t need to nominate the beneficiaries and if you don’t essentially the superannuation and death benefit will be paid to your estate. However if there is no clear line in the estate the super fund again will have the last say on where the money is paid.
During my time we used a lot of binding death benefits for someone who may have been in multiple relationships with kids from different partners. As it by passes the will it was a great way to ensure those they wanted to get the money, get the money. Couples in defacto relationships also used this so if a partner passed away the rest of the family need not get involved. Lastly it was also used if the person wanted to ensure one person didn’t get a cent (a disliked child perhaps)! Saying all that even if you are in a stable relationship a binding death nomination means one thing less for the survivors to worry about.
Here endth the lesson.
/ Just read that back. I’m so boring…
I couldn’t get past the first few sentences.
Like most, you’ve ‘tried to be there?’
Edit: This ■■■■■■■■ has a gay sister!
And, somehow, for a time, he led our country.
How the FARK did that happen?
What an absolute ■■■■ Tony Abbott is. I wonder if my blocked out word is the same as Wim’s.
His sister is gay and would love to be married. And this ■■■■ won’t go into bat for her. Instead actively wants to discriminate against her. ■■■■.
old man yells at cloud.jpg
Well SoulNet, my Lawyer is very cynical about Wills and has suggested that Families can always contest and often it costs more to fight it than it is worth. He said also that even if you nominate a beneficiary for insurance or super, that it can also be contested. Is this what you understand ?
Wills are contestable. No issue with that. Given you’re situation (as much as I can guess with what you say) i’m not surprised your lawyer said that
Binding death nominations as far as i’m aware are only contestable but only in the Supreme court and to my knowledge hasn’t actually been tested. Thus why they have the 3 year limitation and requires the 2 independant witnesses. The funds within super if under the binding death nomination do not form part of the estate.
Also be aware you can have life insurance as part of your super fund or held externally from your super fund. How they are treated are completely different. Your super fund is essentially the executor of the estate and rarely do they pay to the estate unless nominated. You can’t have a binding nomination outside of super. SMSF also have slightly different rules.
This might help with a real life case.