Diane Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 So Shorten has recommended to Labor's caucus that they vote against holding a marriage equality plebiscite. Good on him. I can't believe in this day and age the government thinks it's acceptable to publicly fund anti-marriage equality advertising on TV! It's gonna be an expensive three years for the country (again) if they insist on putting every small piece of legislation to a public vote before deciding on it. Not even as if the result of a plebiscite would be binding. So many of the far right in the Libs have already said they'd vote against marriage equality regardless of the result. I wasn't here at the time, but did Howard hold a plebiscite before changing the wording of the marriage act in the first place? What a waste of bloody time and money! It's just such a no-brainer - people should be treated equally in law regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation and appearance. Why do we need a public vote on the fact? Just treat everyone equally, and get on with the job you get paid for, you useless bunch of politicians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JockinTas Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 So Shorten has recommended to Labor's caucus that they vote against holding a marriage equality plebiscite. Good on him. I can't believe in this day and age the government thinks it's acceptable to publicly fund anti-marriage equality advertising on TV! It's gonna be an expensive three years for the country (again) if they insist on putting every small piece of legislation to a public vote before deciding on it. Not even as if the result of a plebiscite would be binding. So many of the far right in the Libs have already said they'd vote against marriage equality regardless of the result. I wasn't here at the time, but did Howard hold a plebiscite before changing the wording of the marriage act in the first place? What a waste of bloody time and money! It's just such a no-brainer - people should be treated equally in law regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation and appearance. Why do we need a public vote on the fact? Just treat everyone equally, and get on with the job you get paid for, you useless bunch of politicians! A total waste of time and money. Just get on with running the country properly. A more hopeless bunch of bull sh!tters would be hard to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 If you go to an election with a proposal to do it you have a moral obligation to follow through with what you said you would do. Of course the plebiscite should go ahead on such a serious social change as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 So Shorten has recommended to Labor's caucus that they vote against holding a marriage equality plebiscite. Good on him. I can't believe in this day and age the government thinks it's acceptable to publicly fund anti-marriage equality advertising on TV! It's gonna be an expensive three years for the country (again) if they insist on putting every small piece of legislation to a public vote before deciding on it. Not even as if the result of a plebiscite would be binding. So many of the far right in the Libs have already said they'd vote against marriage equality regardless of the result. I wasn't here at the time, but did Howard hold a plebiscite before changing the wording of the marriage act in the first place? What a waste of bloody time and money! It's just such a no-brainer - people should be treated equally in law regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation and appearance. Why do we need a public vote on the fact? Just treat everyone equally, and get on with the job you get paid for, you useless bunch of politicians! You may well be with the majority, but could also be with the minority! lets find out shall we. Remind me now, who voted in this useless bunch of politicians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 The Australian public Keith. You are right. The Liberals/Nationals went to the election with a clear policy of holding a plebiscite and they won the election. I want to find out what people really think too on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 Why on earth do you think you - or anyone else - has the right to pass judgement on whether a particular group of people should be treated equally? Particularly and primarily if you are not a member of that group yourself. It's not a 'serious social change' - it's basic human rights and as such shouldn't be open to question in any way! One of the basic tenets of a democracy should be equal rights for everyone. Why on earth do you think you have a right to decide whether a group of people in society should be treated as equal or not? There have been enough opinion polls already to show how the public feel about this. Just make the bloody change. There are no plebiscites on "Shall we participate in a foreign war?" "Shall we give tax breaks to big companies?" "Shall we pay politicians large salaries and unsubstantiated expenses?" and I haven't heard Malcolm offering a plebiscite on "Shall we have a Royal Commission into banks/politicians/unions?" And on the mandate question - a lot more people voted against this bunch of miscreants than voted for. "For starters, the Coalition received 42% of first preference votes which means 58% of the electorate did not endorse their policies." http://theaimn.com/now-that-the-election-is-over/ This makes me so damn angry - no wonder a few of the far right want to get rid of the law that stops them saying offensive stuff in public - as another article on AIM says "When your words make her put her wrist to the razorI don’t defend your right to say it!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Sounds like you are worried the people of Australia will vote No to same sex marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 Makes no damn difference what the public vote - it's a non-binding plebiscite. Total and utter waste of time and money. Using your argument that this bunch of useless dicks were elected to do a job, then why don't they just get on and do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 They are. They are doing what they promised to do and were elected to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicF Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 I doubt the plebiscite will get through the senate anyway. Apparently Bill Shorten is expected to recommend that Labor MPs don't back it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Why on earth do you think you - or anyone else - has the right to pass judgement on whether a particular group of people should be treated equally? Particularly and primarily if you are not a member of that group yourself. It's not a 'serious social change' - it's basic human rights and as such shouldn't be open to question in any way! One of the basic tenets of a democracy should be equal rights for everyone. Why on earth do you think you have a right to decide whether a group of people in society should be treated as equal or not? There have been enough opinion polls already to show how the public feel about this. Just make the bloody change. There are no plebiscites on "Shall we participate in a foreign war?" "Shall we give tax breaks to big companies?" "Shall we pay politicians large salaries and unsubstantiated expenses?" and I haven't heard Malcolm offering a plebiscite on "Shall we have a Royal Commission into banks/politicians/unions?" And on the mandate question - a lot more people voted against this bunch of miscreants than voted for. "For starters, the Coalition received 42% of first preference votes which means 58% of the electorate did not endorse their policies." http://theaimn.com/now-that-the-election-is-over/ This makes me so damn angry - no wonder a few of the far right want to get rid of the law that stops them saying offensive stuff in public - as another article on AIM says "When your words make her put her wrist to the razorI don’t defend your right to say it!" To you maybe not, but it could well be to others. Also If the coalition received 42% of the vote then individually what % did each of the other parties receive? I would bet non of them achieved a larger %? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 If you go to an election with a proposal to do it you have a moral obligation to follow through with what you said you would do. Well, that would be a novelty for this government - "no cuts to education, no cuts to health, no changes to pensions...and no cuts to the ABC or SBS". They've managed to do all those. And a whole heap more...but I'm not going to ruin my day remembering them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Or Gillard's "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" - a bald faced lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Makes no damn difference what the public vote - it's a non-binding plebiscite. Total and utter waste of time and money. Using your argument that this bunch of useless dicks were elected to do a job, then why don't they just get on and do it? So are you now saying if there is a vote and public do vote to your preference, that we do not do anything anyhow and leave things as is now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 I wasn't here at the time, but did Howard hold a plebiscite before changing the wording of the marriage act in the first place? No, he certainly did not. There have been only 3 in Australia's history - one about choosing the national anthem (1977) and two (1916-17) about conscription in WW1. These two were highly divisive for Australian society...created a lot of angst and violence within communities....and if these numpties advocating the plebiscite knew their Oz history they wouldn't be going there again on such a contentious issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 So are you now saying if there is a vote and public do vote to your preference, that we do not do anything anyhow and leave things as is now? No - they should hold a vote in parliament - as they do for everything else. Hopefully then it would pass and people could get married tomorrow if they so wished. And 4000 extra jobs would be created, $200 million would be saved, and THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE DOING THE JOB THEY GET PAID FOR! http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/whereyourmpstands/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 The fact it is such a contentious issue is exactly why it must go to a plebiscite. Otherwise you have no idea whether the majority of Australians support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 No - they should hold a vote in parliament - as they do for everything else. Hopefully then it would pass and people could get married tomorrow if they so wished. And 4000 extra jobs would be created, $200 million would be saved, and THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE DOING THE JOB THEY GET PAID FOR! http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/whereyourmpstands/ That has been done before and defeated every time. Last time under Julia Gillard who was a staunch opponent of same sex marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 "Not a serious social change".....To you maybe not, but it could well be to others. To whom? and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 That has been done before and defeated every time.Last time under Julia Gillard who was a staunch opponent of same sex marriage. How ironic that Turnbull is a supporter of Marriage Equality and yet he's too damn spineless to stand up to the fascists in his party and do it then. At least Julia did what she was paid to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parley Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Perhaps what you fail to appreciate is that it is a position of the whole party. The leader is there to represent the party not be a dictator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diane Posted September 14, 2016 Author Share Posted September 14, 2016 Perhaps what you fail to appreciate is that it is a position of the whole party.The leader is there to represent the party not be a dictator. That's why Julia put it to the vote in parliament, rather than coming up with some expensive time wasting delaying tactic - Turnbull is such a disappointment - weak, ineffective, and totally useless at his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skani Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 Or Gillard's "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead" - a bald faced lie. “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let me be clear: I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme.” Not quite the bald faced lie of John Howard's "there will never ever be a GST"...a few years before he introduced it. Or Abbott when Health Minister just before an election: an absolutely rock solid, iron-clad commitment not to change the Medicare safety net. Just after the election...he changed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 To whom? and why? Pretty damn obvious really, to those whom do not share your view! of which there must be some otherwise you would not have needed to start this thread, as to why they would have a different view to you? well it is up to them say should they wish, but maybe they would just like to say it by voting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith and Linda Posted September 14, 2016 Share Posted September 14, 2016 No - they should hold a vote in parliament - as they do for everything else. Hopefully then it would pass and people could get married tomorrow if they so wished. And 4000 extra jobs would be created, $200 million would be saved, and THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE DOING THE JOB THEY GET PAID FOR! http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/whereyourmpstands/ Would this be a "free" vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.