Fair Share Economics Versus the Galloping Opportunism of…

By Denis Bright Paul Keating assisted with the launch of Fair Share: Competing…

Tumblr and the Cult of the Safe

Be aware of the titty. Or pudenda. Or anything else suggesting a…

Scomo and the Fry: The Great Pretenders

When one takes a close look at the just-released MYEFO, one can…

Why is there still so much anger?

By Ad astra As we enter the Festive Season, we reflect on the…

Surplus News: The Shorten And Broad Version!

Great news, folks! The budget is back in surplus! Or at least…

The Conversion of Father Carravalo

Continuing my Italian Story theme ... I heard this tale from my…

May Days in Britain

It is hard to envisage sympathy for a person who made a…

Starved into surplus

I don’t know about you lot, but this year is the first…

«
»
Facebook

Day to Day Politics: Today it’s time to accept the people’s verdict.

Wednesday 15 November 2017

When my children were younger I would say to them; “never assume anything.” Today I intend breaking my rule for the purpose of this article. I am assuming that at 10 am today it will be announced that the YES vote has come out on top of the survey into Marriage Equality with a vote of a little under 60%.

It is a momentous time for those who have supported Marriage Equality. But for those who are gay or members of the LGBT community it is the end of a long and sometimes unpleasantly frustrating journey that has seen its share of bitterness along the way.

Perhaps I have been a little premature is saying that it is the end because the forces of antiquated opinion, the extreme right of the Coalition, intend ignoring public opinion and are hysterically demanding, after being soundly defeated, that the new legislation neutralise the operation of state anti-discrimination laws in order that businesses, individuals, faith groups and employers in all of these areas can legally discriminate between customers on the basis of sexuality – or even support for a particular sexuality via attendance at gay weddings.

Even after running a campaign full of scare mongering (not that the YES camp were entirely innocent) they now contemptuously demanding so many exemptions that one would wonder why the survey was held at all.

And, incidentally, a $120 million dollar survey to find out something that was already known. Really, only fools would do such a thing. What they are proposing stands in contempt of the people, the survey and the Prime Minister who caved into them. It is simply a brazen act of an unbridled inability to accept the result. These are the same people who foisted the whole process on Malcolm Turnbull and the nation in the first place.

Malcolm Turnbull has bent over backwards to accomodate this group of sore losers: even though he was in the YES camp. Turnbull should cast off his willingness to cave into everyone and stand on his dig for once. Once again giving into Victorian Liberal senator James Paterson (who has actually voted ‘yes’ in the postal survey) will only further damage his already sullied reputation.

In contrast Turnbull has let down many moderates in the party and now is the time to confront the extremists and fight for a swift vote to establish Marriage Equality.

This sorry mess of a process having now gone through various stages of consideration from a free vote in the parliament to Tony Abbott’s plebiscite process, and finally a survey with a guarantee from the Prime Minister that the people’s will would be respected in the Parliament.

After a campaign full of nonsensical argument about kids, free speech, freedom to practice religion and a breakdown in the fabric of society. In other words, anything but Marriage Equality. The Prime Minister must today put Senator Paterson in his place and tell him to shut up.

If one examines all the surveys, the polls – all the evidence – would suggest an overwhelming victory for the YES team. The Australian people have responded with an 80% turn/out with many I suggest lodging a protest vote about the incompetency of the government.

No matter what, Paterson will not accept the people’s decision. He is not at all shy in stating his views. If he were to get his way, the current definition of marriage would not be altered in their formula, but merely appended with some deliberately ambiguous words.

As I said earlier, Turnbull must (with the polls going backwards) tell Senator James Paterson to go jump and take his bill with him. The current and well-received Dean Smith’s Private Members Bill should be passed without delay. Any delays would not only be undemocratic but immoral in the extreme.

Let’s not forget all the pain and disruption LBGT folk have gone through just to acquire a right that says that as a group they are the equal of any other.

My thought for the day

“The problem is we don’t believe we are as much like each other as we actually are.”


67 comments

  1. Peter F

    Well, the spokesperson has had his 15 minutes of fame. Who had ever heard of him before this?

  2. Graeme Henchel

    The rabid right and the religious nutters have scored an enormous own goal through their deceitful and divisive campaign. They are now in a huge hole. Some of them are now repentant and realise that they must accept the will of the people and move on. Yet others such as Abbott and his sycophants think that the way out of a hole is to keep on digging and throwing dirt about. Well good luck them, they will keep on digging all the way to irrelevance and oblivion. Confronting these pricks is an opportunity for Turnbull redeem at least some dignity before he gets shown the door by the Australian people.

  3. john ocallaghan

    If anyone thinks this is almost the end for SSM bar the Bill being passed will be proven wrong.
    These RWNJs are totally against this Bill in any form and always will be, and this could be the final straw that breaks this Governments back!!

  4. Jack

    Does anyone ever accept the people’s verdict anymore? There is always bitching from some corner of the population. Brexit, Trump, the wheel of ‘what about me’ will ever continue

  5. Terry2

    Paterson was groomed by the IPA and carries the micro-chip implant that seems to govern his thought processes. He claims to be a marriage equality supporter and to have voted YES but the overriding indoctrination from his IPA alma mater shines through.

    Talking of those who are unable or unwilling to demonstrate objectivity and impartiality, this from Sharri Markson in the Daily Telegraph today :

    The bizarre reality is an Aussie tennis champion could lose his seat for unwittingly holding British citizenship to a Las Vegas-born factional hack with an American twang.

    Meeeowh !

  6. Kaye Lee

    Just to show how arrogant and out of touch our pollies are……

    These people have indicated they will vote No regardless of the result

    Kevin Andrews
    Bob Katter
    Cory Bernardi
    Slade Brockman
    Don Farrell
    Lucy Gichuhi
    Bridget McKenzie

    A couple have said they will probably abstain

    Andrew Hastie
    David Fawcett

    And then a whole heap more have said they have concerns about the Bill and are reserving their judgement until they see the exemptions

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-14/same-sex-marriage-if-the-survey-says-yes-how-will-your-mp-vote/9104112?section=politics

  7. Kaye Lee

    Terry2,

    Sharri Markson calling someone else a hack made me guffaw. She is the epitome of a Murdoch hack and a puppet mouthpiece for the conservative forces. She is getting worse and worse by the day.

  8. Peter F

    As usual, Kaye the supporters of the RWNJ’s don’t tell the facts.

    The ‘Aussie tennis champion’ was not advised to do his homework before signing the application to register as a candidate, and signed a document containing misleading ( incorrect) claims: the ‘Las-Vegas born factional hack’ did.

    She respected the constitution, the coalition has simply ignored it. Who is the better person to have in Parliament?

  9. wam

    A great read today, Lord.
    As told many years ago by a wise teacher there is truth in the composition of the word.
    ass u me.
    The pain and suffering of some of the yes and no group is real. Note the rabbott’s ominous plea to the ‘no’ group. ‘keep the faith’. He reminds me of paisley and the fervour of ‘no surrender’
    ps
    The 80% success of the survey could be used by women to seek equality in the church or perhaps in foreign section 44 succession?
    Maybe the long term application could to removal compulsive voting?

  10. Jagger

    Malicious Mal by way of his postal survey has overseen a 40% increase in young people seeking counselling since it began, good on you Turdball., our man of the people.

  11. Terry2

    Those who thought that this postal opinion poll was essentially about repealing the 2004 changes introduced into the Marriage Act 1961 which disallowed same sex marriage in Australia or even such marriages solemnised overseas, will be quite confused when they see what James Paterson and the IPA want to do with the Marriage Act.

    In the explanatory memorandum it says this :

    the Bill permits a limited ability to refuse to supply goods, services, accommodation and facilities
    for the purposes of the preparation for, solemnisation or contemporaneous celebration of a
    marriage that is not the union of a man and a woman, and purposes incidental thereto, where such a refusal
    is consistent with a genuine religious or conscientious belief.

    This is the draft Bill and what is clear is that it is ambiguous and turns the Marriage Act into a lawyer’ picnic :
    https://senatorpaterson.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Marriage-Amendment-Definition-and-Protection-of-Freedoms-Bill-2017.pdf

    John Howard and others were demanding that a draft of the proposed legislative changes should be agreed before the postal poll. They were saying, and I agreed, that it was impossible for the Australian people to be taken to a national vote without actually knowing the detail of what they were voting for. Now we are within an hour of knowing if the Australian people have voted in favour of marriage equality and we find that the hard-right in the Liberal and National parties want to make the legislative changes discriminatory and punitive.

    If they were to get their way, we should demand that businesses, be they bakers, florists, reception venues or whatever, display signs prominently outside their premises and in all their advertising, saying clearly that they are a business who will seek to discriminate on who they will provide services to.

  12. Jack

    I’m sure I can’t be the first to propose this but, how about we use the Census to poll the nation on the discerning questions that are current at the time? The last census could have had the SSM question in there as well as others. Eg Something about section 44 and the dual citizenship mess. Maybe something about the burka in public places. Plenty to choose from. You’d still get at least 80% respondents and save the people millions. We’d all get the added benefit of less advertising campaigns thrust at us, which is less money wasted again.
    When the results come in, the government at the time then has a basis for introducing legislature.
    Let’s just forget that they couldn’t manage the regular census properly last time

  13. Ricardo29

    I really hope Keneally can win Bennelong. The scum Hunt has hit the bottom of the barrel with his Obeid protege reference and the Murdoch hack Markson is pretty close to irrelevant. Keneally is an intelligent and attractive candidate who might have led Labor to a defeat but it was an inevitability, due partly to the corruption of Obeid and others. I hope no crap attaches to her for that, but we know the desperate Libs won’t let it lie.

  14. John Lord

    Words can be strange things Kaye.

    A couple have said they will probably abstain.

    Very amusing.

  15. stephengb2014

    You know what:
    After the last 5 years I have no faith in anything that comes out of the mouth of any person on the Right of politics:
    After the last 4 years of this LNP government I have every faith that whatever comes out of the mouth of a Right politician he, she is LYING.
    After 35 years of the NEOLIBERAL agenda, I do not have faith in Left or Right governments.

    No not the Labor party either, after all they and successive Labor governments not only started australia on the Neoliberal band wagon but to date have not denounced, with any real vigor) for what it is.

    I will vote Labor (or less likely Green) not because they are going to rid Australia of neoliberalism (they still display a current adherance to neoliberal agenda – Chris Bowen uses neoliberal economic language all the time) but because they have more politicians who recognise the term and they have publically acknowledged the current neoliberal outcome, inequality.

    As for this shambolic plebiscite/survey and the ideological crap that is being used by the extreme Right wing neoliberals like paterson (lower case for insult. This for me has been the last straw.

    I have renewed my British passport not because Britain is any better but because I am ashamed to say that I also have ‘australian citizenship’.

    If I could, I would leave Australia, but I am 70, my closest family is here my wife is a 3rd generation Australian, and last of all, after 35 years work in Australia, this country owes me a shit load of money that I put into a Social Security tax levy that was supposed to be my Social Security, but which Keating destroyed, making it no longer a Pension but a income asset tested payment less than peanuts to what I have contributed, so financially I am locked into staying in a country that frankly I am absolutely ashamed to call home.

    Bugga I feel so damned depressed at all this crap.

    Sorry if there are any spelling or grammatical errors – I just cant be bothered anymore.

    S G B.

  16. Kaye Lee

    This discussion is getting utterly ridiculous. This should not be a matter of people’s opinions or beliefs. This is about all people being treated equally, having equal rights and privileges. Instead, the religious people and some cynical political opportunists want to start getting rid of discrimination laws that have been in place for decades.

    All state and territory anti-discrimination laws cover situations where an employer or other respondent assumed or thought that a person had a particular sexual orientation, and on that basis discriminated against them. Why are we going backwards? Revenge?

    Will I be allowed to refuse service to any religious people or organisations because I have a conscientious objection to their beliefs and way of life?

  17. Keith

    I certainly hope Kristina Keneally is voted in as well, Richardo.

    The LNP have begun to run their campaign direct from the sewer. They deserve to lose the seat; clearly, they have nothing to offer, and so need to rely on dirt.

  18. stephengb2014

    The pattern of behaviour by the LNP was brought into vogue by the abbott/murdoch team.

    EXPECT MORE

    Bennelong is vital to the very existance of the LNP in government.

    The shit is going fly thick and fast

    S G B

  19. James

    I think the whole marriage equality vote is a waste of money, Turncoat and his ilk took it to the election (another lie) and now here we are, millions spent arguments back and forth, I think if the LNP sacks of shit were going to do pass the bill they would have done so, I have a simple rule, if a politicians lips are moving their telling lies, no exceptions..

  20. Michael Taylor

    The results are in:

    Yes 61.6%
    No 38.4%

    Now we find out if Turnbull has a spine.

  21. Terry2

    Breaking

    61% favour marriage equality.

    IPA calls for best of three poll !

  22. Keith

    Great News!!!

  23. John Lord

    An empathetic win that cannot be ignored. It’s a pity that we had to spend so much money and absorb so much angst to find out something we already knew. The fault for which lay firmly at the foot of those parliamentarians who could not find the guts to do what they are paid to do. Instead they lumped it on the public to decide. A failure of our political system is that it remains to be seen what conniving can be done to downgrade this unique decision.

  24. diannaart

    We have determined a majority of Australians value basic human rights – equal right to marry, So simple, yet made so complex by those who oppose such a simple right.

    Has this postal vote already revealed that a clear majority of Australians are compassionate, accepting of difference?

    Do the majority of Australians support fair and humane treatment of asylum seekers?

  25. Glenn Barry

    @Terry2 – James Patterson has already encapsulated the contradiction of acknowledging the illegality of displaying a sign which says no gays allowed on a store window, whilst agreeing to say a birthday cake OR refusing to supply a wedding cake for a gay marriage.
    He encapsulates absurdity, bigotry and division – whilst still young, this one like Matt Canavan is dangerous for this country

    Check from 6:14 in this video
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-13/rival-same-sex-marriage-bills-circulating-within/9146454

  26. 245179

    I actually like keneally, but fear the “string pullers” within, will prevail. She will tow the line, more’s the pity. ( if she, and some others banded together, formed …….yes another party……i can see folks heading her way, lot’s of them. ) Both our major parties are burdened with indemic garbage, so out of touch, past the point of realigning. “Career politics” is their mantra.

  27. helvityni

    Ricardo29, Keith

    I believe Alexander is a nice bloke and a good tennis player, but I hope Cristina will win Bennelong; she is young , she has a lot to offer, she represents future, positivity, progressiveness….

    Oz needs young capable women like her in politics, the old men with yearnings for yesterday can retire to their houses with picket fences….

    ( nothing against Alexander, after all he’s one of the few rare reasonable Liberal politicians)

  28. Kaye Lee

    The seats who voted No were mainly from Western Sydney seats with a large migrant population from non-English speaking backgrounds.

    Blaxland, NSW ALP Jason Clare
    Watson, NSW ALP Tony Burke
    McMahon, NSW ALP Chris Bowen
    Werriwa, NSW ALP Anne Stanley
    Fowler, NSW ALP Chris Hayes
    Parramatta, NSW ALP Julie Owens
    Chifley, NSW ALP Ed Husic
    Calwell, Vic ALP Maria Vamvakinou
    Barton, NSW ALP Linda Burney
    Maranoa, Qld LNP David Littleproud
    Banks, NSW Liberal David Coleman
    Greenway, NSW ALP Michelle Rowland
    Kennedy, Qld KAP Bob Katter
    Bruce, Vic ALP Julian Hill
    Mitchell, NSW Liberal Alex Hawke
    Groom, Qld LNP John McVeigh
    Bennelong, NSW Liberal John Alexander

    Tony Abbott’s Warringah voted YES 75%. Surely they will dump him next time?

  29. Kyran

    Oh, dear. This is a nasty little precedent, isn’t it? What happens if the same ‘logic’ is applied everywhere on ‘the people’s verdict’?
    Roy Morgan had a try at seeing how Australian’s felt about Adani, and it went 53.5% no, 30.5% don’t know and 16% yes. An important qualification though;
    “Of those who had heard of the Adani mine and had a view as to whether the mine should go ahead or not an overwhelming 77% were against the Adani mine going ahead compared to only 23% that wanted the mine to go ahead – effectively a more than 3:1 ratio against.”

    http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7364-roy-morgan-snap-sms-survey-adani-coal-mine-october-2017-201710130323

    The ReachTel version? It went something like this;
    “The ReachTel survey of almost 2,200 people across Australia found 55.6% of respondents opposed the mine going ahead. That was more than twice the number who supported the mine, with 18.4% of respondents saying they were “undecided”.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/07/most-australians-oppose-adani-mine-poll-shows-amid-national-protests

    As for Adani, well, it would appear they are in a spot of bother.
    “Profits of Adani Enterprises – the company in Adani Group’s complex structure that owns the proposed Carmichael coalmine – have collapsed almost 50% year-on-year, according to a half-yearly report released this week which does not mention the mine.
    The results further show the company is in financial distress, according to Tim Buckley from the Institute of Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, who says they also reveal the company can’t walk away from the unviable Carmichael project without descending further into financial distress.”
    “If the project was written off or sold for significantly less than its current book value of US$1.15bn, the company would find it increasingly hard to finance its many other projects around the region, said Buckley.
    Currently, the Adani Enterprises Limited – which is the only publicly listed company in the Adani Group – has a book value of just under US$2.3bn. Meanwhile, its latest report shows its debt has risen by almost US$400m to US$3.83bn.”
    And, from the category of ‘you can’t make this stuff up’;
    “Meanwhile, the company reported remarkable achievements in its renewable energy business in India. Within three years, it has built the nation’s second-largest renewable energy business, Buckley said.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/15/profits-of-adanis-carmichael-mine-company-tumble-leaving-it-in-financial-peril

    Accept the people’s verdict (and the environmentalists, and the scientists, and the economists, and (heaven forbid) the bankers)? When will this silliness stop?
    Now we have the unedifying spectacle of Turnbull appeasing his attack dogs. As a matter of curiosity, how can it be there will be a vote before Christmas? Will we even know by then who is entitled to stick their bum on a seat? Given this was a ‘vote’ (concurrently voluntary AND under duress) on equality, how can either of the houses vote when we can’t be sure of the legitimacy of so many of those present? Doesn’t that deprive some voters of an equal voice in parliament? Ah well, December 1st will be interesting.
    Mr Pat Dodson, in his farewell to Ms Lambie, was, as always, considered and thoughtful;
    “But unlike others, Mr Dodson’s remarks came from a different place. The ‘Father of Reconciliation’ took the opportunity to point out how Ms Lambie’s Scottish heritage had brushed aside her Indigenous inheritance, as a result of a Constitution that fails to recognise Australia’s First Peoples.
    “We don’t have a word that says goodbye in our language. We have a word that says ‘galiya’, ‘we’ll see you when we see you’. And this side of Jacqui’s heritage, her Indigenous side is what aggrieves me most to see her go,” he said as he choked up.”

    “Let alone the recognition of the First Peoples, and today is a reminder that that side of Jacqui’s heritage is also being denied, as well as her rights as an Australian who fought for this country,” Senator Dodson concluded.”

    http://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/nitv-news/article/2017/11/14/pat-dodsons-emotional-tribute-jacqui-lambie-addressed-deeply-seated-problems?cid=trending

    Even worse, can you imagine, on a day when ‘equality’ and the ‘people’s’ verdict march in unison, we can have the raging inequality of unentitled claimants of government welfare being let go, scot free, after defrauding the government of millions?
    “When a member or senator is disqualified, the Finance Department will calculate how much they have earned over their parliamentary career, and ask them to repay it.
    But by convention, the government of the day almost always waives the debt on request.
    Why?
    Back in 1907, the High Court ruled that any votes made on legislation still stand, even after a member is booted from parliament.
    So a disqualified member’s service is still recognised.
    Even though they were not supposed to be there, they were still doing their job.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-14/citizenship-saga:-will-mps-have-to-repay-salaries/9150052

    Does anyone know how to do an FOI to the Finance Department for full disclosure of all of the ‘letter’s of demand’?
    Indeed, today is one small step toward equality, and should be enjoyed by those who have suffered to get here. But we got a ways to go. Terry2 at 10.11am nailed it.
    Thank you Mr Lord and commenters. Take care

  30. diannaart

    Kyran

    I believe Pat Dodson nailed a very important point. Thank you for quoting him here.

    As for Terry2, I am not sure, but he could be the person behind The Shovel…

    🙂

  31. jimhaz

    The City V Country divide in the vote was interesting. Country NSW was actually more progressive than Sydney as a whole. Hanson’s territory country QLD had a large divide to expectations, but SA was a surprise with the lowest Country Yes vote of 53%.

    [The seats who voted No were mainly from Western Sydney seats with a large migrant population from non-English speaking backgrounds]

    Something I’ve been complaining about generally – such large immigration intakes mean these groups retain their conservative value systems for longer than they would if the intake had of been much smaller. It is also probably the area with the highest muslim population whom tend to be regressive. It is affecting our political voting too much.

  32. Kaye Lee

    jimhaz, there were a hell of a lot more christians calling for a no vote. There are only about 600,000 Muslims in Australia in total and many of them would not be on the electoral roll. 4.87 million people voted no.

  33. Jack

    KayeLee, Yes there were more Christians calling for it, as they were trying to sway their more progressive flock The imams didn’t need to do any bleating, they already had a pretty good idea of which way their masses would vote. Wonder if the sitting GWS Labour MPs like Burke and Bowen will comment. Nah, lets not go there

  34. Michael Taylor

    A great win for Turnbull, bleats Mark Kenny.

    Spare me. Please.

  35. margcal

    A very troll-like comment but I have to make it …
    Every time I see a photo of James Patterson I think, “What a creep”.
    That’s quite apart from loathing his (and Tim Wilson ditto) purely snout-in-trough ambitions.

    Celebrating YES 🙂

  36. roma guerin

    I was amazed to see all those ALP seats in the list of high NOs. That bodes well for next election – not.

  37. Kaye Lee

    I don’t know why we think the church should have any say about marriage law at all really.

    The Catholic church says you can’t get divorced. The law says you can.

    The church says marriage is a union joined by God yet civil celebrants have overseen the majority of marriages since 1999 – 75% in 2015.

  38. margcal

    The easiest solution to religions and weddings is to de-licence all ministers of religion as marriage celebrants. As in some other countries, marriage should be a civil ceremony. Anyone wanting the blessing of their marriage by the church, mosque, synagogue, etc that they belong too are free to do that on top of the civil ceremony.

  39. OPPOSE THE MAJOUR PARTIES!

    jimhaz. ‘The seats who voted No were mainly from Western Sydney seats with a large migrant population from non-English speaking backgrounds’. At the risk of being accused as racsist, one of the reasons migration is supported and individual migrants are selected is because migrants are generally conservative. Radicals try to change their home country to improve it. Migrants leave it for opportunities for themselves. That has been the record in post WW2 Australia and elsewgere. If they are not refugees, then they generally come here out of self interest to make money…full stop

  40. OPPOSE THE MAJOUR PARTIES!

    diannaart ‘basic human rights – equal right to marry’. I do not share the view that marriage is a basic human right although I support same sex marriage. The marriage contemplated by the proposed legislation is the monogamous and exclusive kind. Many human cultures have no formal marriage types and/or are polygamous.

  41. OPPOSE THE MAJOUR PARTIES!

    THAT BLOODY AMBIGUOUS CONSTITUTION AGAIN! On the one hand, James Paterson’s proposed legislatively permissible discrimination MAY be in contravention of s 116 of the Constitution and therefore open to challenge in the HC as invalid by way of inconsistency with the Constitution. The Cth must not make laws imposing a religious observance. His legislation proposes ‘observance’ of a religious view of marriage. Alternatively, and on the other hand, the discriminations he proposes may already be allowable by the Constitution so churches etc are already free to refuse to marry couples who are not hetro sexual as the Cth cannot make laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Section 116 states:

    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    Confused yet? Join the queue

  42. diannaart

    OTMP

    You know what I want?

    The right to NOT TO HAVE TO explain myself every freaking time I leave a comment.

    For the Record

    I have expressed my personal opinion on marriage here at AIMN many times before:

    That is; marriage is not for me, however I have no quarrel if others wish to marry. In fact, I really don’t care if someone wants to marry their pet goldfish, provided the piscis in question has given permission.

    Also, I do have a reasonable understanding of other cultures – while I am not an anthropologist, my work in State and Federal public service means I have worked with, aided and generally gotten to know many people from many diverse cultures and beliefs.

    Capiche?

  43. Will

    O lord I would love to see the look on Cory Bernardis face to day. He’ll be getting around looking like he’s face is a smacked arse. The homophobic islamaphobic xenophobic anachronistic oddity will probably be asking why gods done this to him. Only to be met with SILENCE.

  44. Jack

    Can we trust this result? Or was there Russian interference?

  45. OPPOSE THE MAJOUR PARTIES!

    Margcal. “The easiest solution to religions and weddings is to de-licence all ministers of religion as marriage celebrants”.That wouldn’t work. Any policy or law allowing that would most likely be in breach of s 116 of the Constitution and effectively have no effect because it would be invalid when read against the current Constitution.

  46. OPPOSE THE MAJOUR PARTIES!

    diannart. Ok, if you know so much, then what is the basis for you claiming that marriage is a “‘basic’ human right”? Where did you get that idea? Please inform as I would like to know. Or is your ‘opinion’ just completely groundless? If so, why do you think anyone wants to hear it if it is of no benefit to anyone except yourself? Capiche?

  47. OPPOSE THE MAJOUR PARTIES!

    diannart. ‘The right to NOT TO HAVE TO explain myself every freaking time I leave a comment” Is this yet another of your imagined ‘basic human rights’?. Where does this right come from – ‘The Book of Diannarts Self Granted Rights’? Do you invent rights just for yourself? Like changing your sheets? Anytime you want a new right you just invent it for yourself.

  48. diannaart

    OTMP

    I don’t know so much but I do know when I am being trolled.

  49. Kronomex

    So litle Trembles has said the SSM will be done by Christmas. All well and good but will he stand up to the right wing religious nutters in his party? Somehow…

  50. Egalitarian

    I really enjoyed listening to John Faine’s program on 774 today. Someone from the Liberals called Karina Okotel was a guest debater for the No case .John; ever so gently along with the callers make her sound very foolish.

  51. Terry2

    Turnbull to a crowd celebrating the SSM win :

    And don’t forget it was Bill Shorten who didn’t want you to have your say. Oh no, he fought against it in the parliament…….

    Honestly, who is advising this man ?

  52. Kaye Lee

    Karina Okotel has burst onto the stage for the No campaign. She is the federal Liberal Party Vice President that no-one had heard of until she spoke at the National Press Club about the No campaign. She has already had an unsuccessful run for the Senate and is very obviously grooming herself for a career in politics.

  53. Michael Taylor

    Terry, does Turnbull not know how pathetic he sounds?

    Labor wants to introduce SSM through Parliament. Turnbull didn’t have the guts to, yet he bags Labor.

    The man has a way of inducing vomit like no other.

  54. Terry2

    Hollie Hughes has been ruled ineligible by the High Court to take a seat in the Senate as, after the 2016 election when she missed out on being elected , she took a job for the gels on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) courtesy of Georgie Brandis which turns out to be another breach of section 44.

    But just when you thought there is poetic-justice, you find that this paves the way for Jim Molan to enter the Senate. You might remember Jim as the architect of Operation Sovereign Borders.

  55. margcal

    From the Constitution:
    116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
    The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

    I fail to see how not making ministers of religion, acting in that capacity, agents of the Commonwealth in respect of civil laws is a breach of this section.
    If you want to go down that path, ministers of religion ‘could’ be authorised to conduct civil ceremonies – but they’d have to leave their god of choice out of it and not conduct the civil ceremonies in their religious establishments.

    Are there other opinions on S.116 ? (We’ve had OTMP’s view already.)

  56. OPPOSE THE MAJOUR PARTIES!

    margcal. “I fail to see how not making ministers of religion, acting in that capacity, agents of the Commonwealth in respect of civil laws is a breach of this section”. Because marriage laws are part of religious practices and beliefs. Subscribers to a religion that believe they must be married before God in a church or in a sanctified place by a minister of God or of a religion may be prohibited from the free exercise of their religion or religious beliefs if they cannot be legally married in a way prescribed by their religion. Likewise, a baker or florist who adheres to a religion that prohibits same-sex marriage may have a belief that such a marriage is sinful or evil or against his/her religion and so s/he may object to supplying services or goods for that marriage. That’s the argument being used by religious objectors – not that I support it. I think it is unnecessary to include permissible discrimination in the legislation because s 116 allows the type of discrimination contemplated by the proposed legislation anyway and that any complaint against a baker or florist etc would go nowhere because that discrimination would be permitted if it is part of the free exercise of a religious belief.

  57. OPPOSE THE MAJOUR PARTIES!

    Gay people can always start their own denomination of Christianity or their religion and ordain their own ministers. It’s not that hard to start a religion and it’s probably tax deductible too!

  58. OPPOSE THE MAJOUR PARTIES!

    diannart. ‘I don’t know so much but I do know when I am being trolled.” By whom? This is a discussion blog, you made a provocative comment in a discussion and refuse to answer anymore questions. Who is the troll here? Seems you are.You come into a discussion, make a rash statement and refuse to answer legitimate questions about the statement. That’s trolling.This site is so incestuous and nepotistic – a clique. I don’t think I will be coming back very soon.

  59. diannaart

    I entered this discussion and made a comment, as I have many, many times here at AIMN. I am sure that if I have exceeded any level of propriety, the AIMN moderators would soon set me, er, straight.

    That you choose to see my comments as provocative is an issue for you, OTMP.

    I have already explained myself to you, I am under no obligation to continue.

  60. John Lord

    All comments are welcome.

  61. Godwin Rules

    Please don’t go OTMP?

  62. Glenn Barry

    @ Michael Taylor – Turnbull is easy to comprehend, you just need to alter the uniform, imagine him in a school blazer and boater out the front of his friends being the biggest jerk and thinking that everything he says wins it for him – his clothes have changed

  63. johno

    Well done austraya. Seems like our first decent step forward in ages. Heres hoping for more steps in the loving compassionate direction.

  64. Bert

    Has that pencil necked thing in the pic accompanying this article got hair on his balls yet? How the fek would he have the life experience to help run a country?, he looks like he’s just out of nappies. And in closing well done to the yes voters, we’ve all made Australia proud

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: