Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Yukle

Aussie Politics: Please post your response (No stamp needed)

57 posts in this topic

Great result to see. My only question now is when will get around to resolving the drop bear issue? Us foreigners are still living in absolute fear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11944916

Quote

A Sydney lawyer has offered his pro-bono support to a straight couple who said they would divorce if Australia legislated for same-sex marriage.

Michael Tiyce, from Sydney family law firm Tiyce & Lawyers, told news.com.au he wanted to help Canberra couple Nick and Sarah Jensen keep their promise to Australia, "because, quite simply, they are going to need it".

Apparently they made this pledge back in 2015.

According to the article AU law on divorce is that there needs to ba an irrevocable break down in the relationship. Which makes it almost impossible to get a legal divorce as a publicity stunt. The couple say that while they pledged to divorce legally, they would continue to live in every other way as husband and wife, including planning to have more kids. So, basically a total publicity stunt.

I don't know why any lawyer would want to try to help them get a divorce, though perhaps it would be an interesting academic exercise to see if despite the apparent clear limitations of the legislation there might be a way to de-marry and become de facto. Publicity stunt aside perhaps there might be some situation where a couple may decide they never wanted to marry and would be much happier for their relationship to be in a de facto state. One possible for instance is, perhaps since polygamy is illegal (I assume) in Australia, if a married couple decided they wanted to bring a third party into the relationship then marriage laws would not permit it and this would make an unequal situation. De-marrying would allow for a more equal relationship between all 3 people. So perhaps is a precedent is set for this publicity stunt and they successfully divorce without separating, then maybe it will actually have some tangible benefit to people in future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

So, basically a total publicity stunt.

I don't know why any lawyer would want to try to help them get a divorce.

I think the first quoted sentence is the answer to the issue raised by the second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2017 at 10:07 AM, Tywin et al. said:

Great result to see. My only question now is when will get around to resolving the drop bear issue? Us foreigners are still living in absolute fear!

We're far too frightened to go anywhere near them, that problem is staying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An unusually big December coming up in Aussie politics: citizenship declarations, a Queensland election, two federal by-elections (one in doubt) and (hopefully) same-sex marriage legislation.

All of which will be totally forgotten when the Ashes starts on Thursday!

Edited by Paxter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 10:17 PM, Yukle said:

ABC News has made an excellent result calculator for the not-at-all-excellent postal survey. Just to reiterate: the results are completely meaningless since Parliament will be no more empowered than it already was to act upon (or ignore) the outcome. Nonetheless, it's interesting to see how the demographics affect the result.

I would argue the result is strong enough to make it effectively binding. The  people opposed to same sex marriage don't expect the politicians to fight it any more, they just want to change the freedom of speech rules. 

 

If I had a time machine I would not stop the postal vote, I think it resolved an issue reasonably well. 
That being said I hope we don't make a habit of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, chuck norris 42 said:

If I had a time machine I would not stop the postal vote, I think it resolved an issue reasonably well. 
That being said I hope we don't make a habit of it. 

The precedent is dangerous. It has shown those opposed to progressive social matters or equality have a range of tactics not to use next time.

After all, what happens if the next government who tries is also actively devotes all of its resources into campaigning for one particular result? That's a dangerous game to play. To say nothing of the fact that they could find $122 million for the survey, but balked at protecting penalty rates (a contentious issue passed without a survey, by the way, for the obvious reason that it would have lost). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Victorian parliament didn’t abdicate its legislative responsibilities on social matters. Assisted dying will be legal in the state in limited circumstances from 2019. Another historic moment for Australia.

@Kalbear: Ha yes that video doesn’t do much for our international reputation. For background, you might be interested in looking up where his electorate of Kennedy is based. It explains a lot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Paxter said:

Well the Victorian parliament didn’t abdicate its legislative responsibilities on social matters. Assisted dying will be legal in the state in limited circumstances from 2019. Another historic moment for Australia.

It didn't - and as a result its electorate is about to punish it. :( 

Did you see the by-election in Northcote? The Greens campaigned on refugees and the Adana coal mine, and won the seat. They're not even issues where the State Government can do anything!

They're as power-hungry as most parties are and it is going to cost them their own admirable goals. Because they're not shifting conservative views, they're hemorrhaging the votes of the party who already agrees with them. It's not enough for Victoria to have a progressive government if it's not them personally doing it.

It's also frustrating that they're not appreciating the difference between state and federal parties (even putting aside their dishonest campaigning on issues). There is a world of difference between the Victorian and Federal Labor parties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, chuck norris 42 said:

If I had a time machine I would not stop the postal vote, I think it resolved an issue reasonably well. 
That being said I hope we don't make a habit of it. 

Well I'm glad it worked out nicely for you.

I'd love to go back to a time when I didn't feel uncomfortable visiting the home I grew up in and when (seemingly) targeted vandalism of my house didn't force me to consider if I needed to make my 13 year old take down the flag he proudly put up in his bedroom window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah brook. That actually breaks my heart. Hugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm leaving it for now. I'm not 100% sure that's why it happened and even if it was it was probably just a once-off thing but his bedroom is at the front of the house away from the rest of us so I do worry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2017 at 11:23 AM, brook said:

Well I'm glad it worked ouI t nicely for you.

I'd love to go back to a time when I didn't feel uncomfortable visiting the home I grew up in and when (seemingly) targeted vandalism of my house didn't force me to consider if I needed to make my 13 year old take down the flag he proudly put up in his bedroom window.

Why would you assume I was saying there was no ugliness? It is very well known there was ugliness, Shouldn't you give me the benefit of the doubt and assume I think there would have been inappropriate behavior no matter what?

Edited by chuck norris 42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 2:57 PM, Yukle said:

The precedent is dangerous. It has shown those opposed to progressive social matters or equality have a range of tactics not to use next time.

After all, what happens if the next government who tries is also actively devotes all of its resources into campaigning for one particular result? That's a dangerous game to play. To say nothing of the fact that they could find $122 million for the survey, but balked at protecting penalty rates (a contentious issue passed without a survey, by the way, for the obvious reason that it would have lost). 

I Think I understand and agree with the first and last sentence. I don't understand the middle part, I assume it is not directly related to the first and last sentence and it is basically a separate point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, chuck norris 42 said:

I Think I understand and agree with the first and last sentence. I don't understand the middle part, I assume it is not directly related to the first and last sentence and it is basically a separate point.

Another way of explaining it:

What if the government calls for another survey on another topic, but they spend all of their time and effort ensuring that there is one particular result?

What if, for instance, the government had spent all of its efforts ensuring that the marriage equality bill failed to pass? They could put little to no effort ensuring the ballots go into areas likely to pass it but bend over backwards collecting postal forms from areas likely to reject it. They could have had an aggressive, government-funded campaign from a position of, "We're writing this bill... and it will have nefarious consequences." They could have selectively applied their campaigning laws to only one side of the argument in order to suppress opinions.

In short, the precedent is dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time that this has come up in parliament since Howard first introduced his changes to the marriage act I was living in an area which returned the strongest no vote in the country. If what you say was even remotely true I'd gave expected to witness some of this nastiness, at least overhear a negative comment or two or get some kind of reaction when walking around hand in hand with my girlfriend.

Except this didn't happen. Because when people aren't being directly appealed to, when they aren't getting drowned in propaganda trying to influence a vote that they have been handed a personal and moral responsibility for most people simply did not care all that much.

By abdicating their responsibilities to appease the extremists in their party the government changed that. To add insult to injury by publishing the results at the level of detail they did they allowed me to see the *exact* percentage of my former neighbours, schoolfriends and colleagues who were willing to go to the effort of returning a form denying me the right to marry the woman I love. You might have seen the happy shiny pics of people celebrating the 'victory' I know for a fact I wasn't the only one who spent that day, and more than a few since, sobbing.

I currently live in an area that returned an 80% yes vote, I have a good life a wonderful partner and am surrounded by loving and supportive friends and family and this process left me emotionally devastated. I'm not even capable of imagining what it would have been like for the 17 year old kid still figuring herself out at a catholic school in western sydney that was me 20 years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0