| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Just watched Bill Shorten on the Project defending his decision to block it. Got some good questions from Ally and the bloke from Gruen which rattled him and then he introduced comparisons to the 1967 referendum legitimising non legitimate views.
Then he opened his mouth and said the 1967 referendum was to give Aboriginals citizenship.
FAIL. The fact that a sitting opposition leader has that little understanding of Australian political history is appalling.
https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/history/australian-1967-referendum
http://www.naa.gov.au/collection/fact-sheets/fs150.aspx
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
Morrigu 
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ really like the rest of the spineless clueless fck knuckles who we call " politicians" have a clue about anything???
They are all oxygen thieves who if they were not professional politicians as my Ma would say would not be given jobs minding mice at crossroads!!!!
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Morrigu wrote: | ^ really like the rest of the spineless clueless fck knuckles who we call " politicians" have a clue about anything???
They are all oxygen thieves who if they were not professional politicians as my Ma would say would not be given jobs minding mice at crossroads!!!! |
Well Kinky Friedman who stood for election to be Governor of Texas in 2006 (as he said, he did really well & was very popular - just not in Texas) stated in a national press conference on the ABC the other day: politicians should serve two terms: One in parliament & the other in Jail 
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I'm sure there will be negative social and psychological impact on highly religious and conservative families too, that's the nature of robust public debate. If people want to enact social change of some kind then it's going to cause some distress. They're not even going against prevailing or majority opinion like so many other social movements faced.
Imagine if they'd given up on the Civil Rights movement in the 60's because Black families would face distress due to the debate itself? Ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
regan is true fullback
Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw
|
| Post subject: | |
|
My year 11 history teacher was a right wing pr*8k, but one thing he said made some sense: In the exam, don't touch the 'Dredd Scott Case'.
It is because that case, affirming a slave as property is so bl**dy complicated that even I who studied it still don't understand it. Similar with the 1967 referendum, we are still arguing it's merits to this day. One thing about aboriginal people prior to the referendum, they had different rights depending on where they lived. the referendum had the vague saying: more rights for aborigines" without explaining what they were, and it passed, with bipartisan support. It is doubtful that the current shambles would pass, given the organised opposition to it. |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Genuine question - why do people who SSM will have zero personal effect on think they are entitled to or want to vote on this?
I really don't get it 
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Genuine question - why do people who SSM will have zero personal effect on think they are entitled to |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | I'm sure there will be negative social and psychological impact on highly religious and conservative families too, that's the nature of robust public debate. If people want to enact social change of some kind then it's going to cause some distress. They're not even going against prevailing or majority opinion like so many other social movements faced.
Imagine if they'd given up on the Civil Rights movement in the 60's because Black families would face distress due to the debate itself? Ridiculous. |
Yes & no:
1. Conservatives who would be upset or have negative psychosocial impacts can still get married
2. Conservatives don't get abused & vilified for being conservatives per se - the LGBTI folk do just in general
3. It's not that debate causes distress per se in my view but the power of the right wing nutters to cause much harm (I mean Bernadi not too long ago spoke about bestiality in this debate deliberately using this to associate homosexuality with all manner of wrongdoings) He & his ilk enable if not aid & abetz the crazies
Not ridiculous at all. No one is saying not to have a discussion but a 'Pliberseck' is wrong given the marriage act was deliberately changed in parliament to specify that marriage is limited to heterosexual people - an act of political bastardry at the time (not surprizing really given the bastard who did it).
In the same way parliament voted to change the act to that narrow definition then parliament should vote to change it back.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I keep hearing about how Howard changed the law, yet prior to the law change same sex marriage wasn't legal.
So, I resort to Google and Wiki and find this.
| Quote: | Definition of marriage[edit]
Before the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 there was no definition of marriage in the 1961 Act, and the definition was based in the common law. The 2004 Amendment incorporated the common law definition of marriage into the Act as:
Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.
Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.[3] |
Now, I'm aware of the term "Common Law" but it's oft quoted in various ways and I don't actually understand how it works. Google hasn't helped much.
So it seems that if Howard hadn't changed the marriage Act, a legislative change wouldn't have been required to legalise same sex marriage, but what would it have taken to overturn the common law definition that prevented it?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Morrigu
Joined: 11 Aug 2001
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I could have this arse about (wouldn't be the first time!) but I think that the LNP changed the Marriage Act so that there couldn't be a legal challenge to the Common Law definition?
Common Law as I understand is what becomes precedent from previous cases and rulings - so if they hadn't changed the Act then a legal challenge to the common law definition of marriage could have been mounted I think.
And if successful it would have replaced the old and become the new precedent - in this case same sex marriage. (Cleverer people here than me will know for sure)
But then even if a successful legal challenge was made - the Government could still override it by changing the Legislation.
Love the "exclusion of all others' and "for life" 
_________________
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | I'm sure there will be negative social and psychological impact on highly religious and conservative families too, that's the nature of robust public debate. If people want to enact social change of some kind then it's going to cause some distress. They're not even going against prevailing or majority opinion like so many other social movements faced.
Imagine if they'd given up on the Civil Rights movement in the 60's because Black families would face distress due to the debate itself? Ridiculous. |
I think I lean mostly towards this view, but I wouldn't totally discount the uneasiness that many gay people feel about the process and what it might entail. My issue is that I think the legitimate fears of some and political machinations of others have coalesced into a full-blown moral panic, in which gay teenagers in Wagga Wagga are seen as being just one anti same-sex marriage TV ad away from topping themselves.
Perhaps this is unfair, but I also suspect that some LGBTI people may have internalised this fear and potentially turned it into a self-fulfilling prophecy: if you tell people enough times "it's going to be terrible for you, it's going to be terrible for you", then I think that can in some cases create an aversion that wouldn't have necessarily existed otherwise.
Anyway, this is all crying over spilt milk now and I can't say that I mourn the plebiscite, which was always a daft idea. But I think the response of the queer lobby and broader progressive movement to this has clearly set the cause back, potentially damaged some of the good will among the general public regarding the issue, and set a very bad precedent for other movements looking to effect change within the democratic system.
For all their gloating, the far right will probably be unable to believe their luck: they have pulled off a significant (albeit temporary) victory after practically being on life support two years ago when the Irish referendum seemed to signal the death knell for marriage inequality here. That this has happened is nothing for any person with a shred of decency to celebrate so, one would naturally expect Christensen, Abetz, Bernardi and their rabid backbench friends to be ecstatic.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
On the contrary, it has:
Put the pressure right back on those Liberal scum to address the issue and stop trying to dodge it.
Placed Turncoat in an even more impossible position with regard to his own party. This issue is going to dog him for his entire remaining time in office.
Made the ultra-conservative extremists who dominate the Liberal Party look like the nasty, dishonest, hopelessly out of touch scum they are.
Saved us from a really horrible campaign from the "no" nutters.
Saved 160 million dollars.
Made no difference whatsoever to the absolute certainty that marriage equality is the future and the religious weirdos had better get used to it.
Forced Stui and I to delay the announcement of our blissful union a bit longer.
That's quite a list of benefits.
PS. You now all have a bit more time to save up for our presents.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oh god my mind my mind, how do I lose that picture in my head???
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Oops, wrong thread!! 
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
