There was an Israeli opposition politician on the panel. She argues that the legal construct of marriage came about as a means of allowing men to control access to assets and offspring and that this is still very much the case in many parts of the world. She wants marriage to be replaced by some other contract that could exist between any parties that pool resources or share assets - that could be a man and woman, two men, three women, or a whole bunch of people living together. Nothing to do with sex or love. Just an agreement that provides the same protection for all parties without the associated baggage of marriages that comes with people’s ‘traditional’ concepts of what marriage is. Something that many people are struggling with today. They cannot separate the legal from the symbolic.
I believe it will get through, regardless of the plebiscite result, when it does come up the debate will rage with all the pollies trying to get on the band wagon as " Look how tolerant and open minded I AM ’ and their’l all say ‘I was for it from the beginning’. except for pauline and tony of course.
Mr Turnbull will say aren’t we great we gave the people of Australia a say and we listened to them.
Mr Shorten will say we could have fixed this without a costly plebiscite
I do wonder though how the vote would go if it was a ‘secret vote’ on the issue by the pollies.
But then I think all the voting taken in the parliament that concerns motions, should be secret, to stop the blocking of things that would be good for Australia, being blocked on party lines.
There was an Israeli opposition politician on the panel. She argues that the legal construct of marriage came about as a means of allowing men to control access to assets and offspring and that this is still very much the case in many parts of the world. She wants marriage to be replaced by some other contract that could exist between any parties that pool resources or share assets
That’s a concept I would have difficulty arguing with!
Another cock up , Apparently when you get the Same sex marriage paper , and you have voted , sealed the envelope, hold a torch under the envelope and you can see the vote inside. Also each paper has a unique bar code that can identify you,So much for a secret vote ![alt text](image url)
Churches can refuse anyone now, as it is most individual churches are welcoming of gay members although I have no idea if there are any limits, I would have thought none at the moment. Some churches have openly gay clergy, I suspect they have come out after ordination. We seem in the main to becoming more tolerant, I would have thought going on public comments from the pollies churches will have protections which mean they can refuse a gay marriage, they can certainly refuse a marriage now. They also cannot accept a marriage that contravenes existing laws, so that rules out goats for the foreseeable future. I think I read this week it was legal here up until the 1950’s for a man to marry a 12yo girl. Laws continually evolve and protection of minors and others will probably also change as time goes on. After all we are now more accepting of sexual relationships with the disabled as well as long term relationships. Things swing back and forth, based on our current understanding. However it is poor behaviour when we talk about multiple spouses, beastiality, and other prohibitions likely to become more possible as a result of gay marriage, any changes in those areas could only happen on their own, if worried you would ban marriage altogether and then wouldn’t that just open to door to everyone doing what they want, can’t see that getting legs. The no group seem to saying if we allow things to change in any way the sky will fall in despite the fact there are regular changes to greater protect the community, a convenient truth they ignore.