lol
1 Like
It shouldnāt matter if two consenting adults get married, regardless of faith, race or sexual preference. I have a number of friends who are in same sex relationships and if they want to get married then good for them.
However what are the legislative changes that will be made if this does go through? Because there will be many changes, donāt kid yourself that there wonāt. Will there be a change of the status of parent from biological parent to legal parent? Will the state now be determining who the parents are based on their rules and not biology? My gripe on this is that I have a son who I havenāt been able to see or speak to in seven years because his mother has used distance and brain washing to cut me out of his life. As a biological parent I have some rights if I wanted to spend ā ā ā ā loads of money and contest this in court and drag my son through a ā ā ā ā ā ā process, but if they decide to remove biological parent rights then I might have no hope. Is there anywhere that we can see what the changes might be?
Or am I now a bigot, racist, nazi just for asking a question?
Hi Paul, actually any changes to marriage legislation have absolutely nothing to do with any other areas of legislation. Happy to share the notes from my speech this week with more information.
5 Likes
They should actually have an ABS-managed question sheet for federal elections. You get your ballot paper for the House and Senate, as well as question sheet that enables people to rate the importance of current social issues (climate change, SSM, education, very important->not important, etc). Also, the party-reps giving out āhow to voteā flyers arenāt allowed to provide anything in relation to the questions. The idea is to get a reflection of how people feel on topics, not how parties want you to feel to suit their policies. That way, if you vote for Party A because Party B is a rudderless mess, Party A canāt claim they have a mandate for every single topic they mentioned during their campaign. They may have been elected for 3 or 4 key policies, but the public survey should tell them they need to think harder about policies that are at odds with the public consensus. If itās done during an election, you van guarantee a much better representation of the nation than the current postal bollocks. Iād like to think this would be a way for the wider population to actual shape party politics rather than being forced to suck it and accept āthey are less bad than the other lotā.
Anyway, this should be in the politics thread. Wife and I have received our ballot papers and both voted yes. Hopefully democracy does not make me embarrassed to be an Australian.
Seems a reasonable question to me.
I donāt think you need to worry about any labelling over it.
Iād have thought, though, that the relevant legislation was already in place. I donāt see why the gender of the ānewā couple will change that.
But Iām no expert.
2 Likes
Thanks mate, that would be great. I would be interested to have a read. I will pm you my email addy.
1 Like
Unintended consequences.
No harm in raising concerns. I have little faith in the pollies legislating a watertight bill with no loopholes ripe for exploitation.
2 Likes
No Paul, it is a very fair question you ask.
Politicians mostly have good intentions in framing legislation, but it sometimes takes a few iterations to make sure there are no unintended consequences. I will ask our local MP the question though and get her to respond.
2 Likes
I donāt think there is any evidence whatsoever that this whole thing is a back-door to removing the rights of biological parents.
Hope your home situation improves WP.
2 Likes
The courts position about biological parents is very messed up. On the one hand they make a parent pay child support when the child is their biologically but on the other deny access rights to that same parent. Then there are cases of people doing donations who end up having to pay child support. Here they are thinking they are helping people and it ends up costing them dearly. In another recent case a guy who wasnāt even the biological parent was forced to pay child support because the court determined he was the father emotionally.
I donāt think adding the SSM issue will make it any worse. Actually it may force them to clean this crap up.
2 Likes
@bomberjase mate can you tell us. Have you actually heard an argument for the no team that had any reasoning other than religion#, that made sense?
#I donāt pay the religious side as it has nothing to do with the church or them.
In interesting read:
John Howard made changes to the Marriage Act in 2004 without a referendum or postal vote. If he hadnāt have changed the wording of the Marriage Act, all this rubbish happening now wouldnāt be happening. Equality is a no brainer.
Hey, all the gay marriages, could save our kick start our economy and if not if will sure as hell give a great pump financially. As someone said why should gays not be subject to divorce and Iām sure they will in time. However what is happening over gay marriage was never actually about marriage at all. It was about equality in Defacto relationships. As the wording was changed in the Marriage Act in 2004, it meant that under Australian Law same sex unions were not recognised.
Therefore any legal documentation could be open to legal challenge in court. Legally any hospital could stop a partner from making decisions on behalf of their partner whether they had POA or a MPOA or prevent a partner from visiting their partner in hospital or a hospice because the family did not want the partner present. I know of this happening, very sad indeed. This is what is meant by equality because I do not any other couples who are subject to these rules. It is grossly unfair and cruel. In this case, the law is inhumane.
To be fair, the Howard amendments to the Marriage Act were effected with bipartisan support . But this was done at a time when SSM was not accepted in countries with comparable societies.
Since then, Australia is now out of step with those countries, including in regard to recognition of foreign marriages in English speaking countries such as UK, USA , Canada and NZ. Australia is in a bind internationally on that score , in not recognising SSM valid under the laws of those countries. What might be bigamy in those countries would be OK in Australia in regard to a subsequent marriage between a man and a woman in Australia. As I understand it, there is nothing under the current Marriage Act to prevent such a siutuation.
Iām no Abbott fan, but Iām pretty sure the kid involved had a genetic test and it was proven Abbott was not the father. Of course, the fact that Abbott believed it was possible the kid was his means that this was just the luck of the draw and not due to any respect he himself had showed to the institution of marriage, the rights of children to be born into a stable heterosexual household, and all that stuff heās so vocal about when it involves other peopleā¦
6 Likes
Skywriting in Sydney this morning āVote Noā.It was a shame I couldnāt enjoy my morning stroll with the dog without feeling sick. This whole thing has been awful - so much hate. And hate in places I didnāt see coming. The Turnbull Govt. has unleashed a beast that has brought out the absolute worst in people.
3 Likes
Has anyone posted the āNo Pooftersā MP sketch yet?
Maybe not as dated as it seems.
Why is that considered āhateā? It is viewpoint not hate speech.
This is the sort of thing that is making this whole issue hard, people attacking others for having a different view on the issue and using inappropriate language. You know there are no voters, you know there are yes voters, they all have their reasons, why attack them for it?
3 Likes