THAT DAMN PLEBISITE

[Grazee]

I was angry to read that the same sex marriage Plebiscite was going to be held early next year. Even if it's passed being a Plebiscite doesn't make it law. What I'm concerned about is it NOT being passed. We all know the history of Australian Referendums . . . the NO vote usually wins. So does a NO vote mean that Gay Marriage will NEVER be accepted in Australia. I suspect that we , I mean we, have more to lose by this vote; even if passed it won't be legal and if rejected we will never have Gay Marriage legalized.

I don't know whether to vote YES ; vote in formal as a protest ; or just not vote at all. Anybody got some ideas??

[Cornstarch]

What cracks me up about the Liberal government is their arrogant attempts to pretend that "factions" do not exist in the conservative side of politics, and it is just the poor old Labour party that has to juggle factions.

As if they are above disagreement and are the only "united" force that can lead.

The plebiscite is direct evidence of Turnbull having to placate the factions!

A very expensive exercise in placating varying views if you ask me. The money would be better spent on mental health.

C'mon Australia we're all smarter than this folly.

[Grazee]

Hey Kaz . . . thanks for rearranging my little grey cells in proper order. You're absolutely right . . . the issue is more than Gay rights. IF the referendum fails it will be a vote for discrimination . . a big nasty black eye for Australia. After reading your comment I will vote and will ask my local member for his stance on the issue. Thanks for the clarification.

[Kazzl]

My pleasure Grazee ... 'a nasty big black eye for Australia' - excellent description! Exactly!

[Paul]

I wrote to my federal member. She happens to be the woman who stood up in parliament and argued for an immediate vote. Most of the opposition had left the room.

I asked her what she suggests we can do to get our message more directly into parliament. I also happened to ponder with her about how fertility magically turns on when a marriage happens and where the statistics come from that children are harmed by having loving same sex parents. I also wondered in my letter to her how the Christian right can redefine the institution of marriage from the bible where its natural form is one man, many women - polygamy.

*CAUTION* product on the box is not indicative of contents. The plebiscite is not binding and can be ignored by parliament despite a resounding "yes" result. The funding for the campaigns to argue their sides will be used on the "no" side to spread hate, bigotry and untruths. Socially constructed conveniences from the religious right without statistical base and actually against what the bible says.

[Paul]

I can't remember what I voted last plebiscite to change the marriage act. I only remember that John Howard was extremely proud to say that the parliament has complete control of the marriage act and changed it to lock it into the sacred institution it is. "One man and one woman for life"

Can't use the Christian argument...

Exodus 21:10 ... You can marry more than one woman

Matthew 19:1-12 ... If you fall out of love you can divorce and re-marry

[Kazzl]

It's the religious right that do my head in. How can they possibly claim any kind of moral high ground, or any role as the definers or protectors of what's 'sacred', after the recent royal commission into child sexual abuse?

As for 'one man one woman for life', I think our high divorce rate shows how effective that was.

[Wednesday]

Love your work Kaz!

[Grazee]

Yeah, I'm still disgusted with Howard's referendum. It was loaded towards the NO vote. It still amazes me that 48% did vote yes and of the NO's I'm told that over 50% of them wanted to vote for a Republic. Howard, in my view, will go down as one of the worst PM's that this country has ever produced. That he lost his own seat is poetic justice.

At the time the conservatives were in power and we can expect the same twisted question in the coming plebiscite. Let's hope the Senate blocks the proposal.

[Jeb_CC]

I just really don't understand why anti-gays get so mad over this. The sooner gay-marriage is a thing, the less pride-parades they gotta deal with, lol. It's a win-win situation! And what's so harmful to them? Do their eyes start bleeding whenever they see two men holding hands? I'm a Christian but I'm disgusted with how some gays are treated by us religious folk. And it's really unfortunate that the majority of votes seem to be no. 😕 Come on guys, it's love. Let them have what they want, stop being over-controlling snobs.
And any Christian/Catholic who calls a gay a sinner has gotta remember they themselves sinned pretty hard too. XD And I don't get how loving someone is a sin at all. I like to create my own characters for stories and heck, even those got criticized by people for being bisexual. :I Like seriously? Don't you have something else better to do than bash how other people live their lives? At least you can get married in New Zealand which is something.

[Kazzl]

Hi Jeb - thanks for sharing your perspective, it's good to see a Christian voicing a view that I think many (most?) Christians hold. That love is love.

What we are already seeing and will continue to see are the views of the more extreme religious (Christian) right wing spewing forth as if they represent the majority. I'm not a Christian, but it occurs to me that allowing the extremists to speak for all Christians could do enormous damage to the Christian 'brand'.

The rest of us might start to think all Christians are haters, who support things like advertising campaigns featuring someone with a rainbow noose around their neck (Marriage Alliance online campaign, google).

We might start to say 'why don't the moderate Christians speak out' whenever there is an act of violence or hate perpetrated by a Christian in the name of God.

We might find our own versions of Pauline Hanson to grab headlines saying we should stop Christian immigration, or a Donald Trump to say let's deport them all.

Familiar?

I have faith in the Australian people. We might be apathetic but I don't believe we are a nation of haters. We are largely a secular society now, and I think the influence of religion is waning - but it would still be good to hear more from the compassionate, peace-loving, humane Christians who worship a God of love.

Cheers

Kaz