• Australian High Court to hear challenge to same-sex postal ballot in September
    8 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The High Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the Federal Government's same-sex marriage postal ballot on September 5 and 6, with a directions hearing to be held on Thursday. The challenge will be heard a week before the postal vote is due to begin, with letters slated to be posted on September 12 to November 7, and the outcome to be announced on November 15. Two separate parties applied for a temporary injunction preventing the postal vote but told a hearing this afternoon that they would be prepared to put their bid on hold given the case was being urgently hear[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-11/same-sex-marriage-legal-challenge-andrew-wilkie-in-melbourne/8798528[/url]
Rightly so too. The postal vote is an absolute mockery of our politicians' jobs and the voting public.
reminder to everyone in aus to update your enrollment details if they aren't up to date. if you haven't enrolled to vote, now is the perfect time as when you do update or enroll they ask you what prompted you to do so and you can select "same sex marriage postal ballot" as the issue. if the big cats see a lot of people getting their enrollment sorted maybe they start taking the issue seriously. there is more you can do to, call your local member and tell them how you feel. get a friend to do it as well.
For any uninformed individual liberal party went to the election saying they would let the nation vote on same sex, they won and they have the mandate In the end labour party had multiple years to enact same sex marriage but they are just using this as a way to say oh evil liberal. Why has Labor not implemented this when they had the chablce, tell me why. I think it's bill shortan realising he's about to be axed as opposition leader and he's trying to get poll points.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;52563779]Rightly so too. The postal vote is an absolute mockery of our politicians' jobs and the voting public.[/QUOTE] The best part is same-sex marriage was not explicitly banned by the original 1961 Marriage Act. Then in 2004, the Liberal party, [i]without any sort of input from the public[/i], decided to amend it to say marriage has to be a man and a woman. But now that popular opinion has swung towards allowing same-sex marriage, it's suddenly "B-but we can't just pass a law, don't be ridiculous! We need to let the people choose!!".
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;52564199]But now that popular opinion has swung towards allowing same-sex marriage, it's suddenly "B-but we can't just pass a law, don't be ridiculous! We need to let the people choose!!".[/QUOTE] Because they went to the last election saying that if they were voted back in, they would take the issue to a plebiscite. And they won government from that election. People shit on politicians for promising something to get elected and then do something else after they're elected, but when a party does actually try to implement a promise like in this case, well... do I really need to elaborate? [editline]12th August 2017[/editline] I want marriage equality. I would have greatly preferred if the Liberals took not just a conscience vote stance to the last election, but an absolute promise to implement marriage equality instead. But unfortunately, they took the plebiscite idea to the election. They are in government now, but they have presented a pathway towards marriage equality, and the best thing that Australians can do now is just get on with it and vote yes in the postal plebiscite. For the sake of decency, and same-sex couples all across the country.
[QUOTE=cartman;52564192]For any uninformed individual liberal party went to the election saying they would let the nation vote on same sex, they won and they have the mandate In the end labour party had multiple years to enact same sex marriage but they are just using this as a way to say oh evil liberal. Why has Labor not implemented this when they had the chablce, tell me why. I think it's bill shortan realising he's about to be axed as opposition leader and he's trying to get poll points.[/QUOTE] I'll tell you why. Labor didn't implement this when they had the chance because they did not have majority support at the time. [B]That was 5 years ago[/B]. A party policy is allowed to change over time, and sorry, but it's pretty mind numbing that you bring out this argument that because Labour used to not support same sex marriage, that it's somehow wrong, or disingenuous that they are fighting for it now. Should party policy just never change ever? Do you seriously want people to list the amount of times the coalition has changed policy even within their time of government, or as opposition? Did you criticise the liberal party for backflipping on the emissions trading scheme during their time in opposition? Or is that too inconvenient for you? Let me make a real "for the uninformed" post: The liberal party took a plebiscite to the election and were voted in by a narrow margin in the house of reps, and have a minority in the Senate (our upper house). The liberal party then took the plebiscite to the House of Reps, where it passed, but marriage equality campaigners were concerned about the effect a plebiscite would have on the mental health of LGBTI Australians and as a result, both Labor AND a majority of the crossbench (third parties) in our Senate voted against the plebiscite. So at this point, they clearly do [I]not[/I] have a mandate. So again, the Liberals had the plebiscite struck down, thus they don't have a mandate on this issue. They had a mandate to form government, yes. But, if they had a mandate on this election promise, it would have passed the senate. It did not. There are numerous possible repercussions to enabling a population-wide vote on the rights of a minority and none of them are good. At best, it ignites an incredibly negative debate which we are already seeing play out - at worst, it creates a precedent where a government is able to abdicate it's responsibility to protect the vulnerable in society by exposing them to a sort of trial by fire to answer questions of basic human rights. Now it's a postal plebiscite. First of all, there's a high court challenge in play, because nobody even knows if a postal plebiscite for this is even legal. Also, the postal plebiscite is not even subject to the same regulations of debate that a plebiscite or referendum is subject to. There is no obligation for the media to present both sides neutrally, there is no obligation for protections against hate speech during this campaign. The reason for this is because instead of the postal plebiscite going through our Electoral Office (The AEC), it is instead being handled by our Bureau of Statistics (the ABS). The ABS have made a commitment that you don't have to give any personal info during your vote. The thing is, that makes the whole process vulnerable to voter fraud, because if there is no identifying information on your ballot, then any old mook can put in a letter and it would be difficult to know if it is legitimate. However, if they DO make you put your name, or info, then it's an invasion of your privacy which is an important part of any voting process in a western democracy. Battle lines are currently being drawn. Tony Abbott (our former PM) is framing this not as a vote for SSM, but a vote against 'political correctness'. The No campaign will look to frame SSM as a sort of "political correctness gone mad" sort of thing and use that to bring anyone angry at "PC culture". The Yes campaign is saying that while this process is legally and ethically questionable (at best), if we have to do it, we're going to push hard for it. The government have decided against campaigning for a yes or no vote, instead they are letting it play out and washing their hands of it. As there are no extra rules that govern what speech can be used in this process, this has the potential to get ugly very quickly. So Cartman I ask you - what would you do to fix this situation apart from complaining that the Labor Party are wreckers? [editline]12th August 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=BF;52564241]Because they went to the last election saying that if they were voted back in, they would take the issue to a plebiscite. And they won government from that election. People shit on politicians for promising something to get elected and then do something else after they're elected, but when a party does actually try to implement a promise like in this case, well... do I really need to elaborate?[/QUOTE] The liberal party went to the election promising a full plebiscite - not a postal one. Public opinion is against this. The postal plebiscite has a huge number of problems that have been left unresolved by the government. They have not led in this issue. I expect a government that leads. I want marriage equality too. I don't deny that the government were mandated to take the issue to the plebiscite by their election results. I do believe that when they were struck down in the senate initially, that was the end of their mandate on the issue - but also the end of their responsibility in that regard, unless a private members bill was brought forward. This postal plebiscite is a fraud. It is not at this point to do with the election - a postal vote was never mentioned. A postal vote has numerous problems a normal vote does not. They are in government, but the pathway they have presented is vulnerable to fraud and has the potential to ignite a hateful debate which will do undue harm to LGBTI people.
Aren't politicians meant to be representative of the people anyway? They should just vote on it in parliament already. This postal-vote is a massive waste of time and money.
[QUOTE=cartman;52564192]For any uninformed individual liberal party went to the election saying they would let the nation vote on same sex, they won and they have the mandate In the end labour party had multiple years to enact same sex marriage but they are just using this as a way to say oh evil liberal. Why has Labor not implemented this when they had the chablce, tell me why. I think it's bill shortan realising he's about to be axed as opposition leader and he's trying to get poll points.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/samesex-marriage-law-high-court-challenge-confirmed-20131010-2vaqe.html[/url] Just want to throw this in here for you to read. ACT Labor had implemented SSM in 2013. When the Coalition won the federal election, they challenged this in the high court. The case went to the federal govt's favor and SSM got repealed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.