-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Marriage Equality
- Thread starter Ian4
- Start date
rosy3 said:
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. That's what the vote is about. This is the question - Do you support a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to marry?
So, if you vote no, you are saying you do not want gays to be able to marry. You do not want the law changed. It's not complicated. It's Yes/No.
Penny Wong (a hypocrite) made a good point about discrimination last night that made me think about how we have changed over time. Women were not once given a vote. That was changed as it was discriminatory. Blacks did not have the vote but that was changed because it was discriminatory. Discrimination based on race, sex, disability and age is not allowed. Laws have been altered over time. This is another one.
MD Jazz said:
I see it as a survey rather than a vote. How does it "impose" any law or "exclude" gay couples from marrying? It might ask a specific question but it won't change any laws. That's why I don't see the point of it. The Govt will still have to make the decisions...they should have done that in the first place imo.
rosy3 said:
That it isn't a 'vote' is indeed the technicality I have been pointing out in many of my own posts. But it is more than a 'preference or opinion' it is a preference or opinion about The Marriage Act. The law is central to the question.
But most people are calling it a vote, and treating it like a vote. The people 'choosing to answer NO to the survey question' are in some sense declaring that 'were this a vote, I would vote NO'. The result is the same. If the overwhelming majority answer YES a law will be changed. If an overwhelming majority answer NO, it likely won't.
KnightersRevenge said:
The result may or may not be the same. Who knows what it would be. Declaring 'were this a vote, I would vote NO' (or Yes for that matter) has no guaranteed result. It's an opinion poll imo. Lots of hoops to go through and egos to appease and pollies to placate to bring about actual law changes. I'd respect this more if it was a legally binding vote.
rosy3 said:
Again, how you see it is irrelevant. You are being asked to vote, you either vote yes or no (or abstain from voting). You either want a change in the law or you don't. By voting no you are supporting the exclusion of gay couples from marrying.
It might ask a specific question but it won't change any laws. That's why I don't see the point of it. Does this mean you feel it doesn't matter how you vote as the vote itself is not changing the law?
Agree that the parliament should have made a decision on it. It's a waste of money.
rosy3 said:
Not that many hoops Rosy. Howard (aided by Labor) did it almost by stealth. It can change in a blink. Parliament could do it tomorrow.
MD Jazz said:
Same could be said for what you think and what anyone else thinks too. Goes without saying really but good onya. :hihi
Again I'll ask you how you can claim that "by voting no you are imposing the current law and excluding gay couples from marrying."
rosy3 said:
Of course Rosy. I know it isn't a vote and so it has no power to change the law. That is not a very important point. I still think the result will definitely inform how the parliament acts if it is overwhelmingly in either direction. If it is a middling result then it seems likely we will eventually still end up with Marriage equality it will just be further down the road.
rosy3 said:
By voting no, you are confirming you agree with the current law which excludes gay couples from marrying. The question is simple. "Do you support a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to marry?" The options you have are simple. Yes/No. A no vote is confirming the status quo. Difficult to argue that anyone voting no is not endorsing the exclusion. What other reason would a person vote no for?
The General made it clear he was voting no and why. Many feel the same way. On the flip side, if you had no issue with gay couples marrying I imagine you would vote yes. (please note I'm not saying you as in rosy)
If the yes vote was overwhelming their would be no choice but for the govt to change the law. If the no vote was overwhelming it would condone no change.
I agree this is not the right way to do it but it does present an opportunity to force the parliament into action.
rosy3 said:
Know one is saying they "know". But it is likely. How much pressure do you think would come on the government if a super expensive postal survey was conducted and they then did nothing with the result?
You're right Knighter. I think the entire reason this has been done, is due to some compromise deal in the Lib\Nats behind the scenes. I think Turnbull wants to vote in Parliament, but the others won't. If he gets a yes vote through this poll, he can force the others into acting via Parliament. Essentially the "yes" vote in a poll would give him mandate for change. And a no vote would reinforce the conservatives approach and cause no change - for the rest of this period in Parliament. After the next election, who knows what would happen.KnightersRevenge said:
KnightersRevenge said:
They'd look like wasteful fools I suppose. That doesn't mean they can necessarily get a change through with so many people voting on different criteria. It might be likely but politicians are good at mind games and things don't always go to plan. Too many unknowns for me to be confident of an outcome.
SSM: I've sent back my same-sex marriage survey form. Now what?
By Michael Collett
Updated about 2 hours ago
The survey isn't binding in any way, so there'd still need to be a vote in Parliament
If you've sent back your same-sex marriage form, you may be wondering what happens next.
This type of plebiscite (sorry, survey) hasn't been done in Australia before, so read on to find out exactly how it will work.
First, the obvious — the ABS will count the results
That's because it's the Australian Bureau of Statistics, not the Australian Electoral Commission, that's conducting this survey.
The ABS says it has a "survey assurance process" which will involve external observers — basically, individuals who will oversee part of the count.
The organisation says there will also be an independent auditor to monitor the sending out and receiving back of survey forms.
Then, we'll get the results at 11:30am on November 15
There'll be separate tallies of the yes and no responses, and we'll also be told how many returned forms had responses that weren't clear.
If you're signed up for our breaking news alerts on the ABC app for iTunes and Android, or ABC News on Messenger, we'll be letting you know the outcome as soon as we find out.
The ABS will also determine the participation rate by age and gender nationally, as well as for each individual Commonwealth Electoral Division and state or territory.
However, the survey responses themselves are anonymous, so the ABS won't be able to tell us how Australians voted by age and gender.
Along with the results, the ABS will publish a statement on the quality and integrity of the survey.
It won't matter how many people actually vote
It's completely voluntary, so you wouldn't expect as many people to take part as you would for an election or census.
But ultimately, it doesn't matter if the turnout is low. The only thing that the Turnbull Government has said it will be looking at is the result.
If No gets more votes, it's over... for now
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull says his Government won't facilitate a vote in Parliament if this is the outcome. A vote could technically still get off the ground in this term of Parliament without the Government's support, but it's unlikely.
However, Labor says if it wins the next election, same-sex marriage will be legalised within 100 days of it taking government.
The next federal election is due in either 2018 or 2019.
If Yes get more votes, there'll be a vote in Parliament before the end of the year
And that will be the case even if the Yes side only gets one extra vote than No, as the Prime Minister made clear in this exchange on KIIS FM:
Dave Hughes: "So we're talking about 50.000001 per cent, aren't we?"
Mr Turnbull: "That's democracy, that's democracy."
However, it's not yet certain how all politicians would vote
The survey isn't binding in any way, so politicians wouldn't be beholden to vote in accordance with the results.
Instead, both the Coalition and Labor would allow their representatives to make their up their own minds.
Some MPs have indicated they would vote in line with the national result, others have said they would vote in line with their electorates, but others have said they would simply vote for what they personally believe.
Nevertheless, as things stand, there are enough supporters of same-sex marriage in Parliament to change the law if there's a vote.
Also, we don't yet know exactly what Parliament would be voting on
We know they'll be voting on a private member's bill which would allow same-sex couples to marry. And we know Mr Turnbull says there'll also be strong protections for religious freedoms.
But that's about it.
Liberal senator Dean Smith and a number of backbenchers have prepared a private member's bill which would protect wedding celebrants from having to marry same-sex couples if this goes against their religion.
But again, there's been no confirmation this is the bill Parliament will be voting on.
Former prime minister John Howard said the Government needed to spell out what other protections there would be for parental rights, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
But Treasurer Scott Morrison — who is also opposed to change — said these details only need to be sorted out if the Yes side wins.
Though he also added: "If it were to return a yes then it would be absolutely necessary to ensure that religious freedoms were protected."
For his part, Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said Labor would not support a bill "which impinges on religious freedom in this country".
Giardiasis said:
Ahh but like so many things Gia, it's good in theory. The question for me is does our current government or recent history of governments represent a good approximation of democracy? I put it to you that it is th party political system that has failed.
Maybe the Swiss have it right? Government by plebiscite? Make the people vote and enact their express wishes?
