48 comments

1. denisethompsonfeminismSeptember 19, 2017 at 11:55 am

   I find Lyle Shelton’s logic decidedly peculiar. If it is the case that it’s the ‘Yes’ crowd doing the bullying — yes, I know it’s just another right-wing lie — but if it were the case that the ‘Yes’ crowd is bullying the ‘No’ crowd, then the best way to avoid being ‘bullied’ is to comply with the bullies’ demands and vote ‘Yes’. Then they wouldn’t have any reason to bully you. Perhaps Shelton means ‘If you don’t want to give in to the bullying, vote “No”, even though the (supposed) “bullying” will continue because you’re doing what the (supposed) “bullies” don’t want you to do’. But then logic tends to fail when you’re lying.

2. Michael FairweatherSeptember 19, 2017 at 11:56 am

   Turdbull is showing his Dictatorship Trend even more now . We were a freedom of speech country but now Turdbull is making Dictatorial Laws to stop us being free. As with all country’s with a dictator assassination is a popular trend also. Perhaps the fence around Parliament house is for Turdbulls own security. But assassins always find a way in!!!!!

3. Sophie PointerSeptember 19, 2017 at 12:32 pm

   What I still cannot fathom is why Marriage Equality and the Labor Party agreed to support the opinion poll. As far as I am concerned they are partially complicit in allowing this to go ahead. They should have said no to this and boycotted the hell out of it. Now we have months and months of hatred spewed at us hourly.

4. Florence nee FedupSeptember 19, 2017 at 12:59 pm

   What is the fence meant to stop. Impossible to get a vehicle in that area without a fence. $126 million seems a lot to spend. Surely in this day & age there are better options.

5. diannaartSeptember 19, 2017 at 1:15 pm

   The only addition to Jennifer’s excellent article, I would deign to include, is the opportunity a “vote-by-a-majority-on-the-equal-rights-of-a-minority” provides to collect mega-data on Australians, thus mitigating some of the expense – in the minds of the born-to-rule.

   Just sayin’

6. Graeme HenchelSeptember 19, 2017 at 1:17 pm

   Sophie, Labor did not support this divisive survey. What they did say is that given that Turnbull has imposed this on the public then they may as well support a YES result. Noting that if this process does not end up in a yes result and subsequent parliamentary vote then Labor will ensure SSM occurs when next elected.

   In fact it would be in Labor’s interest to delay SSM until the next election so suggesting a boycott would have suited them politically. However they have taken the view that even though this is a abysmal process if it gets SSM faster they will support it. In my view this shows leadership and integrity that the coalition can never claim.

   On another track it is my view that this survey has never in fact been about SSM. This whole sorry farce is the result of Tony Abbott’s outstanding stupidity and cynicism. This has only ever been an opportunity for the Thug to feel relevant and utilise his special talents for destruction, distraction, division and deceit.

   He will fail to stop SSM and he knows that but he and his sick sycophants will have the illusion of influence for a while and with luck they may just destroy Turnbull and the coalition in the process.

7. kathysutherland2013September 19, 2017 at 1:19 pm

   How can the results of thisopinion poll be broken down on a federal electoral basis if it’s supposed to be completely anonymous?

8. ShutterbugSeptember 19, 2017 at 1:38 pm

   Jennifer.

   “(Well done, Prime Minister Turnbull. We all know you chose this persecutory path this because you’re scared dickless of your right-wing. We also know that bullies are always cowards.)”

   No other statement has summed up our sorry excuse for a PM as well this line. You nailed him in one.

9. KeithSeptember 19, 2017 at 1:51 pm

   Sophie
   Labor made it very clear they wanted a vote in Parliament on ssm. They have continually stated that the ballot is a waste of millions of dollars. Turnbull wanted the ballot on the basis of stopping turmoil in the LNP.

   I have seen quite an insidious commentary from the Yes side which was meant to be satire on Face Book.

   But, our ballot arrived yesterday and has been posted with a very big tick in the yes box.

   What the No voters forget is that they might feel some antagonism for a short period; the gay community has to live with antagonism all the time.

10. helvityniSeptember 19, 2017 at 2:07 pm

    Australia is a fairly young country,with not much history; why can’t we be a modern go-ahead place, and legalise the SSM without further ado, just like so many other countries have done.

    Why this need to humiliate, punish and bully your own citizens; aren’t we all equal…?

11. Kaye LeeSeptember 19, 2017 at 2:48 pm

    Ask the oldest continuing civilisation in the world if all are equal in this “young” country.

12. paul walterSeptember 19, 2017 at 2:53 pm

    Keith, 1.51 pm. So tired of the conservatives inability or refusal to understand what yes advocates are saying.

13. Daniel PayneSeptember 19, 2017 at 3:36 pm

    Kathy Sutherland, the survey is deidentified, not anonymous. Your unique survey barcode can be traced back to whatever data they choose to keep (typically postcode, gender, age). Once the name/address data for each barcode is destroyed, then your rrsponse cannot be tracked back to you. This is standard surveying methodology.

14. helvityniSeptember 19, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    Kaye, of course I wasn’t talking about this country when it still belonged to the Indigenous people, I was referring it to the time when the white man came here and took over, a bit longer than 200 hundred years ago.(so fairly young as the white man’s country)

    The Aboriginal people have been treated much worse than anyone else, many were slaughtered, they are also still not equal…

    The Right has the need to bully certain groups of people, Aboriginals, Muslims, asylum seekers, now it’s the time to humiliate the GLBT people.

15. Kaye LeeSeptember 19, 2017 at 4:01 pm

    I have tried very hard to understand what the no campaign is scared of.

    From what I can gather, it goes like this.

    Organisations with a religious affiliation have always been exempt from anti-discrimination laws so, when that argument didn’t fly, they moved on to cake makers and photographers. I am fairly certain that, for every baker who is concerned about the change, there would be countless more happy to have new customers. (I have wondered if that’s why Kiwi Baaaanaby is voting no – perhaps he has family in the homeland who make money from the same sex marriage tourist trade – but I digress).

    They then moved on to the kids.

    Children should be brought up by their two biological parents – except, in 2012-13, well over one million kids between the ages of 5-17 weren’t living in this Utopian ideal family where fertile married heterosexual parents bestow love and kindness on all. There are a lot of members of parliament that are divorced, step parents, single parents, gay parents, or who were brought up in those circumstances, our Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition among them. Are we to believe they or their children are disadvantaged?

    Then it was the school curriculum which they seem to think contains marriage education. Religious schools have always maintained the right to push their beliefs and I am sure that won’t change. If they want to say, “in our faith, we view marriage as the union of a man and a woman to have vaginal sex in order to procreate”, they still can (though that’s not how Jesus came about).

    And then of course we moved to boys wearing dresses to school. Is there a reason why the number of boys wanting to wear dresses to school would suddenly spike considering all we are proposing is allowing those who are already living in same sex relationships to marry should they choose to do so?

    And now we have come to them being the victims of bullying.

    How unbelievably self-focused and ignorant can these people be? Do they not understand the tragedy of youth suicide and suicide and self-harm in the broader rainbow community – the very reason that teachers asked for resources to be developed because they felt ill-equipped to cope with the bullying and mental health issues their students were suffering. Have they never heard of gay-bashing? Do they not see that they are, by their very stance, saying to some people you are different to me so you can’t have the same privileges I do?

    I remain bemused…..

    Unless they just think it’s icky …..but they fiercely deny being homophobes…..so I’m actually stumped. I was a good debater in my day but I don’t think I could argue the NO side without expecting to be demolished, and rightly so when you’ve got no argument.

16. diannaartSeptember 19, 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Unless they just think it’s (LGBTIQ sex) icky

    Yes, the no-campaigners believe that LGBTIQ sex is icky – they shudder to think of it. But they absolutely cannot admit that because, well, that would make them sound as if they are homophobic.

    Frankly I shudder to think about many people having sex; John & Janet Howard, Barnaby Joyce and sheep, I mean close friend, although I imagine Malcolm and his dear wife, would be a good way to put me to sleep, I never want to think about Tony Abbott doing anything – too scary. There are people I would not believe even have sex, except they’ve produced genetically related offspring, people such as the late Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

    Of course there are those I don’t have any problem with, but they are attractive paid professionals, in excellent shape…

17. FreetasmanSeptember 19, 2017 at 5:53 pm

    Meanwhile, Abetz is distributing in Tasmania a pamphlet :

    “it’s OK to vote NO” says:

    “The consequences are there for all to see:
    Compulsory radical gay sex education in schools
    Parental rights rejected
    Freedom of speech restricted
    Freedom of religion impacted”

    He said, quote:
    “Asking primary school and grade seven children to act out as if they were in a homosexual relationship and how they would interact with each other, I know that is something that most parents would find inappropriate,”

    Just to think that he is the N 1 in the state Liberals senate list make me sick.

18. paul walterSeptember 19, 2017 at 7:03 pm

    Kaye Lee, it is not a matter of what the no Campaign are scared of as to the issue itself, it is a matter of the right fearing loss of control during an exercise intended to consolidate their grip on consent manufacture. They can bullshit us on any given issue from this point, they are happy having gained control, but failure, that is bad, because then they may not be able to control the narrative on other issues, eg things fall apart.

    Heavy is the head that wears the crown after all that treachary to to gain it; after plausible deniability has worn thin through over work and a credibility gap papered over emerges..

19. KyranSeptember 19, 2017 at 7:06 pm

    For all of the words, Ms Wilson, you cannot miss the imagery.
    The ‘Vote No’, artificial in its construct, temporary in its existence, was in our skies once. It may even be repeated. Whether the pilot subscribed to equality and took the contract as a conscientious objector is a matter yet to be defined by how our clerics will be guided by our parliament.
    Here’s the thing. Rainbows occur in the sky, often and naturally.
    What is the problem?
    Thank you Ms Wilson and commenters. Take care

20. Kaye LeeSeptember 19, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    Tasmanian Government Minister Guy Barnett told a gathering hosted by Coalition for Marriage’s Tasmanian chapter schools would be “obliged to teach gay and lesbian sexual activity”.

    I get a really uneasy feeling that these people are somewhat titillated by the whole discussion.

21. wamSeptember 19, 2017 at 10:53 pm

    I am imbued with hope. Met a high school teacher after school today and she was wearing a yes badge she told me the kids were handing them out.

22. helvityniSeptember 20, 2017 at 8:18 am

    Our hope for the future, wam…

23. JackSeptember 20, 2017 at 8:59 am

    Really sick of the oxygen being taken up by this issue. AIMN are in it too, with a high proportion of articles on the subject. I understand its important to the minority, but there are far more important problems to solve in this country. The fact that both sides are whinging about bullying is a sign that we’re actually a progressive society. It all smacks of ‘first world problems’ that arise in a democratic society

    As a Japanese scholar once wrote:

    Hard times create strong men
    Strong men create good times
    Good times create weak men
    Weak men create hard times
    This cycle has been a constant through history, and we are well progressed into the third stage.

24. Kaye LeeSeptember 20, 2017 at 9:21 am

    So vote yes Jack so we can all move on because this will remain an issue until all Australians are treated equally.

25. Christina HeathSeptember 20, 2017 at 10:39 am

    Very well said Jennifer. You have nailed it.

26. Yusuf FeidelSeptember 20, 2017 at 11:01 am

    I will do the NO vote as it is not a natural act and offends my religion but I have no hatred for the people who vote for Yes just a different opinion and I do not offend because I know no friend who vote Yes

27. jimhazSeptember 20, 2017 at 11:06 am

    There will be no win for the No voters if they end up winning the vote – well unless they actually like getting angry at progressives. Those no voters will get more stress and angst from voting no than even the ongoing effects they are imagining will result.

    This will not be like the Republican issue that has been off bounds since the 99 referendum. SSM is destiny and the ALP will not be allowed to back down on their promise.

28. Kaye LeeSeptember 20, 2017 at 11:06 am

    Yusuf,

    You are not being asked your opinion of the homosexual “act”.

29. jimhazSeptember 20, 2017 at 11:18 am

    [I will do the NO vote as it is not a natural act and offends my religion but I have no hatred for the people who vote for Yes just a different opinion and I do not offend because I know no friend who vote Yes]

    In other words you still think gay people are inferior human beings. I have not seen any evidence of this.

    Once I was annoyed with male homosexuals for being way too promiscuous – but now I think that will decrease with SSM, rejection has been a catalyst for rebelliousness.

    It is true that I do not value the high level of femininity in many male homosexuals and the corresponding high level of masculinity in many lesbians, but that no longer matters in this modern world as this sexual attribute drift it is occurring regardless of sexual preference. Homosexuals tend to be open and clear minded, and often driven but cooperative.

30. Yusuf FeidelSeptember 20, 2017 at 11:18 am

    To be “married” and seek the sanctity of Allah you think not the people only want married not to do unnatural acts. I am asked to vote on “marriage” and the conclusion would be unnatural acts.It is kindly my view and you kindly would have yours without all the anger and hate that is being happening

31. Yusuf FeidelSeptember 20, 2017 at 11:28 am

    jimhaz the law to me is Allah and we have direction
    Grand Mufti of Australia, Ibrahim Abu Mohamad told a Bankstown prayer hall on Friday that legislating same-sex marriage was the start of a change that could mean it would be illegal to tell children homosexuality was wrong.
    The Australian National Imams Council says that Islam does not allow gay marriage and “marital relationship is only permissible between a man and woman”.
    Sheik Muhammad Saleem, a spokesman for the Victorian Board of Imams, said they were running a social media campaign urging their community to vote no.

    “Like Catholic and Jewish people, we have always maintained marriage is between a man and a woman and that’s widely known to people,” he said.

    “This is a democracy, we are being asked to vote, and we’ve had a say on that matter.”

32. Ginny LowndesSeptember 20, 2017 at 11:35 am

    Meanwhile, Abetz says it’s ok for parents to strong arm their child into their religious, gender and sexual beliefs from an early age without any information given to that child or any consent from that child; for parents to reject the freedom of the child to make its own choices because what the parents and church want over-rides them; to restrict their child’s freedom of speech; to restrict their child’s freedom to make up their own minds from facts and evidence about a subject because their parents and church have already made it up for them; to hand their child’s sex education over to a pedophile and /or for girls to learn their only value is in a couple of their body parts, which are controlled by religious beliefs that have made any decision about their reproductive system subject to fear campaigns, abuse, legal challenge and now, in some countries, life imprisonment for a miscarriage; to agree to their child’s education that is more than likely to reject science for creationism and any understanding of an Other subject to vilification and lies; to force children into educational apartheid with boys in tree-climbing shorts in one school and girls in little sit down and shut up dresses in the other to prevent any normal socialization of boys and girls because, you know, straight sex.

    And best of all, parents can use fear of the Other (and tax payers money) to socially engineer every aspect of their children’s lives through their billion-dollar tax exempt religious or supernatural schools, churches and businesses into a way of life the kids have had little say in while they blatantly lie about their religious voices and beliefs being silenced by a ten dollar campaign from the queer community asking for understanding and equal rights and being ‘allowed’ to marry.

    It has been posited that children are born with their own set of ethics, values, sense of fairness and a belief in the common good.

    If so, the SSM debate seems to be proving that after children have been forced, through years of religious indoctrination, their born with graceful inclusive beliefs are turned into an Eric Abetz, a Lyle Shelton, a Tony Abbott or a Margaret Court so anyone who is not a straight, white, Christian male like their unproven gods should be grateful for their second class existence or being ‘let’ have any existence at all. Others do not deserve equal, human, legal or civil rights like ‘theirs’ because they are not like ‘us’. These ‘christian’ beliefs are also known as fascism which is also known as the political wing of the catholic church.

    The Labor Party has said it will legalize SSM within 100 days of being elected into government.

    As I don’t believe I’m going to have to wait for too long for that to happen, on behalf of my relatives, friends and work colleagues, I will not be party to this hateful vile campaign against them.

    Enough.

33. Kaye LeeSeptember 20, 2017 at 11:36 am

    By all means you can seek the sanctity of Allah and I will fight for your right to do so. I will fight equally hard for those who choose not to base their life decisions around belief in a supernatural being. Do you think you voting NO to loving couples getting married will stop homosexuality which is, just in case you are unaware, legal in the country in which you live. In fact, discrimination against someone because of their sexuality is illegal. Again I say, believe as you wish and live your life as you wish but you have NO right to impose YOUR beliefs on others.

34. Kaye LeeSeptember 20, 2017 at 11:46 am

    I just have to add how completely ironic I find it for people who believe in supernatural beings to be dictating what they consider “unnatural” for the rest of us.

35. jimhazSeptember 20, 2017 at 12:08 pm

    Sorry Yusuf, your Islamic beliefs are going to cause you and others unnecessary pain until the religion adequately adjusts to the modern world.

    You have already done much adjustment of the original “rules” of Islam, otherwise you probably would not be visiting this forum, or if an immigrant or refugee would not have wished to live in a secular society.

    Free yourself from the anxiety of the hanging on to the old and clearly outdated, and embrace the new.

    You won’t be alone.

    “It is obvious that Muslims as a whole are peaceful people. Although it is clear that the silent majority of American Muslims are at least opposed to homosexuality, only the most minuscule number would support something as atrocious as the Orlando massacre. In fact, 42% of American Muslims are in favor of same-sex marriage. But the conversation that needs to be had is a psychological, textual one.”

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/06/22/islam-homosexuality-orlando–literalism-orlando-column/86157360/

36. paul walterSeptember 20, 2017 at 2:45 pm

    As usual, liked the Ginny Lowndes comment.

37. KronomexSeptember 20, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-turnbull-says-no-vote-would-rule-the-issue-out-for-coalition-20170919-gyknlq.html

    Truffles trembles and backs down to Dutton and the rest of the religious right and multiple dagger holders.

38. Kaye LeeSeptember 20, 2017 at 6:37 pm

    Yusuf,

    Surely you don’t expect all Australians to follow the rules of Islam? How would you feel if I forced you to take communion? That’s not the way it works here. You make decisions for yourself, not for others.

39. Nero DogSeptember 20, 2017 at 7:20 pm

    Well I got a glimpse of another reason for the no vote a couple of days ago. I was visiting an elderly couple (lesbian and transgender) who raised a child from the 1970s. They said they resent the ‘yes’ campaign because it mislabels their generation as racist and homophobic. They say that in the 1970s Australians embraced multiculturalism and became very open to all forms of sexuality, yet today they find they are treated as if the “Hair generation” never happened. They said they were proud of the enlightenment that their generation pioneered. They told me they were not going to vote at all because the whole campaign is ageist and divisive.

40. Yusuf FeidelSeptember 20, 2017 at 7:21 pm

    Quran is answer Kaye Lee and slowly slowly world will be for Allah as happening

41. Kaye LeeSeptember 20, 2017 at 7:29 pm

    Yusuf,

    That is not the way it is going in Australia where, increasingly, people are turning away from organised religions. Any suggestion that you wish to impose your beliefs on others will only confirm people’s fears about Islam. You do yourself and your religion no favours by suggesting that you would even try to make others live by your beliefs. Make decisions for yourself but you cannot and will not make decisions for me.

42. Joseph CarliSeptember 20, 2017 at 8:28 pm

    Yusuf…the entire middle east is beset with division and conflict..if not from foreign intrusion into their land and politics, then from each other via sectarian differences..and if Islam cannot bring people together in the very birthplace of the faith, then how the hell do you reckon you’re going secure a bunch of athiests, catholics, protestants, jews, agnostics and Aussies from running amok ?….and I am sorry, even a Koran printed on pages of gold will not do it!

43. corvus boreusSeptember 20, 2017 at 8:40 pm

    Yusuf Feidel,
    Understand that, while I respect your right to practice your faith, should you make any attempt to impose your ‘Quran’ or ‘Allah’ as ‘law’ over this secular, pluralistic society that you have chosen to join, I (and many others) will oppose your theocratic agenda.by each and every means available or necessary.
    Do not ever try to impose your dogmatic superstitions over any aspect of my existence.

    Ps, if you think that human same-sex coupling is ‘un-natural’, you must be pretty ignorant of what other animals get up to.

44. RoswellSeptember 20, 2017 at 8:45 pm

    I wouldn’t bother engaging with Yusuf. He/she (in his/her other numerous incarnations) is a known racist troll who is repeatedly blocked from commenting here.

    Yusuf has met the same fate.

45. wamSeptember 20, 2017 at 9:19 pm

    my asking WHY has got ‘let’s give them gayriage’
    my asking why has got no need for why it is just my opinion
    what is a reason for your opinion?
    wtf it is mine and I don’t need a reason.

    jack the preamble to your lines:

    We ignore women because they are weaker than men even those that aren’t are to be silenced as if they are!.

46. HarquebusSeptember 20, 2017 at 10:43 pm

    Oh, Roswell
    It was just getting good.

47. KyranSeptember 21, 2017 at 9:51 am

    Funny thing, Kronomex (3.56, 20/9), that story sort of summed up our ‘Deer Leader’ (As in the deer in the headlights).

    “When asked if he agreed with Peter Dutton‘s statements that a ‘No’ vote should signal the end of the matter for the party, and that there would be no change to the Marriage Act, Turnbull was firm.
    “Absolutely, it’s very straightforward, if there is a ‘yes’ vote, then we’ll facilitate a private member’s bill to legalise same-sex marriage, and it there’s a ‘no’ vote, we won’t, that’s it, very straightforward. If the people have spoken against it, we won’t be proposing it at the next election I can assure you.”
    What a weird coincidence that Malcolm doesn’t seem to think a ‘Yes’ vote return should be binding, but is happy for a ‘No’ vote return to be binding for two terms.”

    Turnbull Confirms Failed SSM Vote Will Mean No Marriage Equality For Years

    So, ‘No’ means ‘No’ and ‘Yes’ means ‘Maybe, kinda, sorta’. What a strong leader we have. It is all but inconceivable that some refer to him as a ‘Fizza’. With regard to Ms Wilson’s contention;

    “The No crowd, on the other hand, seem incapable of distinguishing between disagreement, and bullying or silencing. It’s a conservative trait to believe anyone with an opinion that differs from yours is your enemy. According to the right-wing, if you aren’t agreed with you are “silenced.” To this end, the No crowd continues to appear on every available media platform on a daily basis, protesting their “silencing.” Not one of them can see the irony in this.”

    There was an article on Buzzfeed.

    “Both sides are seeking the underdog status, with the “no” side often claiming it can’t get an airing in the media. But that claim is not borne out by data.
    Data provided to BuzzFeed News by media monitoring and analysis company Streem found that across 4,334 news stories in print, online and on TV and radio from September 10 to 17, the “no” campaign was mentioned in the media almost four times as much as the “yes” campaign.”

    “The sentiment in news articles, Streem found, was overwhelmingly neutral (about nine in every 10 stories), with the remainder evenly split between positive and negative in tone towards same-sex marriage.”

    “Streem can analyse postcode-by-postcode viewing of articles online. According to its data Queenslanders are the least engaged in the debate, making up just 6.1% of the viewing audience, while making up close to 20% of the Australian population.
    When Queenslanders read about the same-sex marriage postal survey, 63% of the articles were considered negative in tone, as being opposed to same-sex marriage.”

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/joshtaylor/silenced-the-no-side-is-getting-four-times-the-media

    There are a couple of things that seem incongruous. For example, if 90% of the articles were ‘neutral in tone’, why is it categorised as ‘SSM’ rather than ‘equality’ and why is the ‘no’ side promoted at a rate of 4 to 1? That’s before you consider that 63% of the articles in Queensland were considered ‘negative in tone’.
    As always, rights, such as equality, are not ‘rights’ issues in the Australia of 2017. They are political opportunities or problems. Dependant only on which faction you run with.
    Onya, Fizza. What a legend.
    Thanks again. Take care

48. diannaartSeptember 21, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    Kyran

    Any public information organisation using the term “SSM'” instead of equality needs to be considered with scepticism and from a safe distance. Forcing all broadcasters on Aunty to use the term “SSM” is authoritarianism writ large.

    Even the innocuous wording on the voting form does not have the honesty to ask if we agree with equality of all people before the law but uses the trigger of “same-sex”:

    “Do you support a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to marry?”

    Apart from the (icky sounding to some) “same-sex couple” trigger there is the word “allow” which endows the voter the power to deny or permit other people to marry.

    It is just a civil ceremony the LGBTIQ crowd are asking for NOT a religious one, not forcing it down the throats of people who spend too much time thinking about what other people do in bed, nor are the lives, of those too straight to bend, affected in any way.

    This wording did not metamorphose by itself, it was carefully crafted with triggers to give the bigots every excuse they need to judge others.

    Vote “YES”, vote often 😉