Same sex marriage vote in Australia

[Blue Ginger]

Wasn't sure if I should put this in 'politics' or 'things I hate' but it really in a social woe.

Our politicians don't have the guts to change the law and allow same sex couples to get married, so we are having a non-binding postal vote on the issue instead. A non-binding vote that is costing us $122 MILLION. (Yep, you did just read that right.)

The question on the postal vote is: Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?

I am in the 'just change the law already damn it' camp but the fear, hatred and misinformation coming from the No side is getting really bad.

One of the 'no' ads on TV is a mum complaining about a program called Safe Schools. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_S...tion_Australia ) This program was introduced to try to lessen the amount of bullying in schools. It was to teach kids that everyone is different, but different doesn't mean scary or bad. It was to give support to kids who were struggling to figure out who they are. Instead it was chipped away by various 'think of the children' hand wringer groups.
Here is the kicker though, this program has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with same sex marriage.

Other campaigns are saying that if we vote 'yes' this time, there is nothing to stop the law being changed to include people marrying animals or objects. I'll let that sink in for a few seconds. The same group also claims that a 'yes' result will open the door to multiple wives (no one has said anything about multiple husbands yet ).

We have had a large number of churches campaigning for the 'yes' vote. But for every 3 'yes' churches there is a loudly screaming 'no' church. This also includes a church that has cancelled a couple's wedding because the bride-to-be posted support for same sex marriage on her Facebook page. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/rel...3ac49744126731

The only things that will change with a 'yes' vote is that same sex relationships will be legally recognised. It will mean that your spouse will be your next of kin automatically. It will mean that you can express your spouse's wishes regarding healthcare/treatment if they are unable to. It will mean that you can be recognised with regards to superannuation, government benefits, etc. It means that you can have your funeral arranged by your spouse and not the family that kicked you out at 16. It means that your will will be legally binding if you want to leave it all to your spouse. (At the moment, even with a will, your family can still fight your wishes because a partner is not legally recognised, even with a civil partnership.)

A majority of my friends are gay and an even bigger percentage of my acquaintances fall into the LGBTQIA+ community. Right now, pretty much all of them are telling me that they are experiencing a recurrence of the stress and anxiety that they suffered growing up. A few are experiencing flashbacks and panic attacks. One has had to take a leave of absence from work as he has been hospitalised due to a complete breakdown. He may not be able to return to his workplace due to the nastiness of his supervisor. Another friend has needed to go back onto anti-depressants because it has brought back all the bullshit his religious parents put him through, including sending him to one of those camps.

A number of support groups and mental health agencies are actually predicting an increase in suicides and attempted suicides in the aftermath of this. There has already be a huge increase of people seeking help, including teens that are too young to vote.

It is a shit show here in Oz and I think it is only going to get worse no matter which way the non-binding vote goes.

[TheHuckster]

The sad fact is it took a Supreme Court decision to get same-sex marriage across the entire US. It was legal in the most progressive states, but those laws were still embattled, and forget it in any red state.

I don't know much about politics in Australia, but I've at least been familiar with anecdotes that make me believe it's on the socially conservative side. It'd be interesting if gay marriage wins, but unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if it lost.

[Tanasi]

The sad fact is it took a Supreme Court decision to get same-sex marriage across the entire US. It was legal in the most progressive states, but those laws were still embattled, and forget it in any red state.

I don't know much about politics in Australia, but I've at least been familiar with anecdotes that make me believe it's on the socially conservative side. It'd be interesting if gay marriage wins, but unfortunately I wouldn't be surprised if it lost.

My state is as red as the come and AFASIK all marriages are going through. I do know some churches and ministers won't marry all. I've also heard some in the state legislature talking about restricting it in some way but I really doubt it will get out of committee. Our legislature only meets late winter into early spring so there's little the governor can do even if he was so inclined with he isn't.
I figured OZ would have passed that long ago.

[jackfaire]

I figured OZ would have passed that long ago.

Nah it's a pretty conservative country for the most part. They even last I check have laws on the size of a woman's breasts in pornography if they are below a certain size the porn in question is classed as Child Porn for purposes of display and not allowed regardless of what her actual age is.

[Blue Ginger]

Up until 1997, it was still illegal to for 2 men to have sex IN PRIVATE in Tasmania.

Think about that for a minute.

It was only very recently that they passed a bill in Tasmanian parliament to expunge all criminal records that had this as the only crime. That doesn't mean the record is completely wiped, it just means that it won't appear in a search requested by a non-police person. It is still there if the police do a records check.

It was only earlier this year, 20 years after the above changes to the law, that the Tassie government apologised for the anti-gay laws and the discrimination that they caused.

In a lot of ways, we are a bit backwards and in others we are going pretty well. Religion isn't as influential in politics as it is in the States.

But even saying that, we have had a few too many leaders that try to claim that they are better because they are church going people. Tony Abbott is a big one. As far as a lot of people are concerned, I one of them, he is a massive toss pot. He can't separate his religious beliefs from what he thinks is the best thing for Australia. He pushed through a lot of highly questionable policies when he was prime minister and head of the ruling party. Thank fuck he is a now ex-PM. But he still won't go away and he is one of the biggest 'no' political campaigners. (Funny thing is that his sister is gay. I would love to be the fly on the wall at their family gatherings.)

One of the more fucked up things he did was get a bill passed that removed the funding for counsellors/nurses from state schools and instead replaced it with more funding for chaplains. Counsellors/nurses are a great way for teens to get help on a wide variety of issues, from parental issues to sex-ed help. (I don't have to explain because you all understand.) Can you imagine being teen and needing help with birth control or thinking you might be gay and only having access to a chaplain? Completely and utterly fucked up situation.

We have separation of church and state for a reason. There is no 'god' in our constitution. Our federation fathers learnt from the USA and picked all the best bits from lots of constitutions and monarchies. There is a freedom of religion bit in there, but it is only that the gov can't restrict the practice of individual religions, unless they break the law (child brides, multiple wives, etc) and even that is dealt with in regards to the individuals involved and not the religion itself.

I'll be going to a rally here in my city tomorrow in support of the 'yes' campaign, because some things are just wrong and need to change.

[Tanasi]

Nah it's a pretty conservative country for the most part. They even last I check have laws on the size of a woman's breasts in pornography if they are below a certain size the porn in question is classed as Child Porn for purposes of display and not allowed regardless of what her actual age is.

I admit I know little about OZ or it's culture, I made the leap from the way firearms owners were treated to the country being very liberal.
The porn thing: Here a big stink would be raised. My two oldest daughters went to school with a girl that was in the porn business. At 18 she looked like she was 13 or 14, from what my daughters have said she made a lot of money but paid a heavy price.

[Tanasi]

Nah it's a pretty conservative country for the most part. They even last I check have laws on the size of a woman's breasts in pornography if they are below a certain size the porn in question is classed as Child Porn for purposes of display and not allowed regardless of what her actual age is.

My wife just read what I typed and she has a question: Do the baby faced males with little peckers get treated the same way?

[jackfaire]

My wife just read what I typed and she has a question: Do the baby faced males with little peckers get treated the same way?

No idea. I don't live there I just read a lot and that was in a well sourced article of odd things from around the world.

[TheHuckster]

I do know some churches and ministers won't marry all.

Ceremonies by churches are not covered by the Supreme Court ruling. Just that states cannot deny a marriage license on the basis that the two people are of the same sex.

[s_stabeler]

which is probably, incidentally, the right way to handle it- gay people can be married, but there is no requirement that a religious ceremony- which is what church marriages are- be permitted by the religious authority. (I say that as someone who believes that most religions should allow religious gay marriages- however, I acknowledge that the requirements for a religious marriage are the religion's business- where I would protest is where a religion insists on their religious requirements being imposed on the temporal ( aka, non-religious) part of the marriage.)

[TheHuckster]

which is probably, incidentally, the right way to handle it- gay people can be married, but there is no requirement that a religious ceremony- which is what church marriages are- be permitted by the religious authority. (I say that as someone who believes that most religions should allow religious gay marriages- however, I acknowledge that the requirements for a religious marriage are the religion's business- where I would protest is where a religion insists on their religious requirements being imposed on the temporal ( aka, non-religious) part of the marriage.)

I agree. I consider it a core tenet of freedom of religion. As a religious group, you can set whatever rules you want for your congregation.

[Blue Ginger]

We actually have a pretty big wedding industry here and there are plenty of celebrants that are not tied into a religion. It is easy enough to find one that can do any kind of ceremony that you want.

What we have at the moment is religious people claiming that allowing gay marriage will mean that gay people can force a priest to marry them. This is bullshit. A priest can refuse to marry anyone they want. Some of the excuses including catholic/muslim, jewish/christian or in a number of cases different branches of christian.

My parents (in 1980) had issues because mum is roman catholic and dad was brought up Ukrainian orthodox. The Ukrainian priest kept refusing to give dad permission to marry outside of his church. The priest wanted mum to convert to Ukrainian orthodox, but dad isn't religious, so he didn't care and was happy to marry in the roman catholic church. It took mum threatening to have a court house wedding and telling all her relatives why, before the priest relented. (Background: mum's family are Irish catholic and the family is HUGE. Last reunion numbered around 2000 people, with nearly 5000 invites. A large number from her generation, and previous ones, went into various religious orders, including a close cousin that went to 'priest school' with the Ukrainian orthodox priest. Name dropping helps sometimes.)

Over the years, I have heard similar stories of priests refusing to marry a couple for a whole lot of reasons. One couple ended up with a court house wedding because she was a catholic Torres Straight Islander (native Australian from the far north) and he was Greek orthodox. Neither of their priests would agree to marry them.

My sister had huge issues in the lead up to her wedding because we couldn't find her baptism certificate and she wanted to be married in a church. My brother-in-law grew up non-religious. The dramas and issues they had were unreal. She had to fight for the church to actually go through their records to prove that she was baptised there. No church will marry any couple unless at least one has gone through the 'steps' of proving your faith. (There is a proper name for this but I'm an atheist and tuned out most of the religion classes.) They also had to agree that any kids from the union were going to be bought up in the religion. Luckily BIL didn't have to baptised or anything, because he drew the line at that.

Most Australians really don't care what, if any, religion people practice. But most of us draw the line when people try to force us to follow a religion or beliefs that we don't agree with. There are more atheists and non-religious at each census.

Having people say that it can be like marriage but not called marriage is too close to segregation. We all know how 'separate but equal' works in the real world.

[jackfaire]

What we have at the moment is religious people claiming that allowing gay marriage will mean that gay people can force a priest to marry them. This is bullshit.

I am legitimately having flashbacks these are literally the exact same arguments people were making here for years about why we shouldn't have it. I expect your next post to be something about how they are introducing Civil unions and asking "isn't that good enough?"

[Blue Ginger]

The result is in. Australia voted 'YES"

So today is results day. The Yes side has won. (Doing the happy happy dance.)

Today I am feeling pretty proud of most of my country. 62% said Yes.

Here is the breakdown of how the various electorates voted. The areas with the highest no percentages are mostly country areas or areas that have a high percentage of new and second generation Australians, mostly from very religious and conservative countries.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-1...ts-ssm/9145636

Although, I did just do the maths and it looks like a large chunk of the voting population did not send back their vote or placed a donkey vote. (Donkey votes are where the vote is purposely not countable. In this case, left blank, both boxes marked or not returned.)

Now to get our politicians to pull their fingers out of their backsides and actually pass the legislation. I have a few too many friends that want to get married and they want to start organising their weddings.

[Greenday]

It's sad to me that we have to put stuff like this to a vote instead of just passing the laws and being done with it in the first place. It's such a cop out for the politicians to be like, "It's not our fault, people voted for it. Conservatives, still vote for me!"

When it comes to advancing society, it needs to just happen.