Media lecturing and celebrity endorsements won’t win same-sex marriage vote

Well, slap my arse with a postal ballot and call me Pericles the Dumber. Seems our “Strong Leader” Malcolm Turnbull is suffering a case of legislative weakness. He’s bang into representative government when it comes to cutting wages for our lowest paid workers. But, like the Athenians he loves to quote in his ostentatious speeches, he’s come over all (non-binding) direct democracy where tweaks to the Marriage Act are concerned.

If you ask me, the same-sex marriage mail survey—set to be held in the noble TV Week Logies tradition, but without the convenience of online—will be a nuisance to many. I mean, shit. I did not return the postal warranty for my dust-buster by deadline, and I take the matter of unsightly household lint much more seriously than I do the institution of marriage. Further, I resent being “given a say” by a government so openly unresponsive to the sound of my voice. Also, I begrudge the walk to the post-box right in the middle of magpie swooping season.

And, heck. If we’re all expected to uphold the fiction that this is a glorious moment of participatory democracy, then perhaps the Prime Minister should set an example. Turnbull has said that he supports a “yes” vote, but cannot commit to campaigning for this because he has “many other calls on his time”. Well, so the fuck do I, Malcolm. I work a fifty-hour week, I am fighting perimenopause daily with YouTube strength training videos and I have recently started seeing a podiatrist. I have bunions, Malcolm. Bunions. I have many calls on my time and feet more urgent than this. So, how’s about you get out there and show us all how a matter that has called for this exceptional non-mandatory walk to Australia Post is also exceptional enough to give a shit about.

Those folks enthusiastic about a “yes” vote are aware that not-giving-a-shit may be a great hurdle to this survey’s (non-binding) success. As are those in the Coalition whose preference is “no”—they’re counting on the support of retirees, a demographic both more likely to vote and more likely to vote for culturally conservative propositions.

“How do I put this nicely for moderately progressive media workers and celebrities? Your support for a cause is fast becoming the means for that cause’s defeat.”

So, a question for prominent yes campaigners, who reluctantly commit themselves to this farce, is how to motivate shit-giving. My answer is: not at all what you have been doing, you bunch of useless arse-dwellers.

SupportBadgeYou can insist for all you are worth that most Australians support the idea of same-sex marriage. Look! Every poll says so! Well, nearly every poll and prediction pointed to a Clinton victory and to the defeat of “Leave” in the British referendum. Culturally progressive media outlets declared, over and again, that the political choice and will was clear. Now, the USA is 205 days into a Trump presidency. And May is up to her neck into negotiations with the EU that will see her island nation transformed into Grand Cayman, but with much shittier weather.

Across the West, surveys and actual elections testing our faith in democracy return, in most cases, a resolute “few shits to give”. There have been exceptions, however—and, no, that centrist tool Macron was not one of them, because a record number of French people stayed home. Voter exceptions in the West occur not because of ardent media support, but in spite of it. How do I put this nicely for moderately progressive media workers and celebrities? Your support for a cause is fast becoming the means for that cause’s defeat.

Yanis Varoufakis, former Finance Minister of Greece, has said many times that the refusal of local media to take SYRIZA seriously worked to that (nominally) communist party’s advantage. Greek media treated the anti-austerity party as a joke, yet SYRIZA was elected. Bernie Sanders was ignored or derided by mainstream press outlets, but attracted crowds of historic size. Yep. Bigger than Obama’s. Sanders remains the most popular US politician, even in surveys conducted by those partisan twits at Fox effing News. As writer Briahna Joy Gray discusses in a fine piece from Current Affairs, Sanders’ likely successor Nina Turner, a woman of colour, is currently subject to more of the same derision by a knowledge class that can’t let the dream of Hillary go—but this time, with added racism. Apparently white and apparently progressive pundits feel no shame in calling Turner an “Uncle Tom” for her decision to support non-mainstream politics. And you faux-progressives expect actually progressive people to listen to you with your filthy arrogant speech?!

FFS, it happened in Britain, twice. “Progressive” media, still suffering the delusion that people don’t think they’re haughty dicks, supported Remain. “Progressive” media, still suffering the delusion that whacking a rainbow flag on everything is seen as consonant with revolution, opposed Corbyn. Let’s have a look at what the purportedly “left-leaning” Guardian had to say about the genuinely left-leaning Corbyn: he was  “no good for democracy”, “ self-righteous”, “lifeless” and “spineless”,   he had “no point”, he would lead his party to a “cliff-edge”, that he had  “betrayed” the young—presumably by imposing on them the burden of not paying exorbitant university fees— and should immediately “resign”. So committed was the Graun to the idea that Corbyn would be the death of the left and not the revival of it, it even permitted Australian commentators to hold forth on his inevitable electoral wipeout.

“There are arguments against same-sex marriage that are, even if marginal, quite reasonable, and also progressive.”

Feast your famished eyes on this tragic moment of VanSplaining: Corbyn is “unelectable”. The guy went on to produce the biggest swing to Labour since the election of the Attlee government in 1945. Corbyn was unelected, but is certainly not unelectable, however much “progressive” media works to ensure it.

Now, we can say, of course, that same-sex marriage is a genuinely progressive cause and that in this case, “progressive” media has noble and historic truth on its side. What we can certainly say, however, is that many people, progressive or conservative, have had a gutful of establishment media laying on the injunctions with a trowel. I am certain that Lenore Taylor, the Australian editor of the Graun, means very well when she declares that her publication will not entertain “spurious arguments” against same-sex marriage—personally, I’m all for rubbishing the confines of morality. But, she reasserts these in precisely the way we know now gets right up people. Taylor writes, “If there was a reasonable argument to say “no”, we’d certainly discuss it. I just haven’t heard it yet.” I would suggest that she train her ears on sources outside the liberal media echo chamber.

There are arguments against same-sex marriage that are, even if marginal, quite reasonable, and also progressive. Just as there were marginal and reasonable and progressive arguments against Brexit, against Clinton and for Corbyn. But all we have in establishment progressive media are accounts of Yes and No. I mean, of course I’d rather see same-sex marriage passed into law. Sure, it will confer no legal benefit not already available to all unmarried Australian couples, whether same- or opposite-sex (and, by the way, where the fuck was Australia’s progressive media when those extraordinary legislative changes were passed in 2008 after many years of struggle?). But, let’s just do it, enrol to vote by August 24 etc.

If we continue to hear endorsement from celebrities, as we did throughout Clinton’s campaign, and tut-tutting from editors who refuse to honestly interrogate the non-black-and-white opinions of supporters and opponents, as they did for Corbyn, what we might very well find is a “no” vote that defies all previous polls.

If what we want is “yes”, then that exhortation must not be seen to come from establishment sources. The messages “you’re an idiot if you disagree with me”, “we will not brook complexity of opinion” and “we’ve got it in the bag, anyhow, losers”, per Tim Minchin, all make some voters feel like they’re back at school.

I will probably vote “yes” if my bunions aren’t acting up in September. But, FFS. One more lesson on absolute morality by one of media’s assistant principals and those who have come to distrust media as much as do the “democratic” process might use any excuse to stay home. 

THIS ARTICLE WAS PAID FOR WITH THE SUPPORT OF DAILY REVIEW READERS. FIND OUT MORE HERE 

Featured image: Ian Thorpe campaigning for Australian Marriage Equality. Source: Facebook

48 responses to “Media lecturing and celebrity endorsements won’t win same-sex marriage vote

  1. The same sex marriage coverage by the progressive media just adds more gripe to the gripe mountain they’ve created in their coverage of everything else.

    I loathe them whilst still hoping that same sex marriage and other social minded policies come into place, would I vote against it just to piss them off? No, but it would cross my mind.

    So to me, your theory has some merit. I find the New York times and it’s ilk gag worthy and don’t read them anymore. I don’t need to be told what to think and for it to be inferred that if I think different then I just don’t ‘get it’.

    1. Yep. The NYT and others subscribe to the same view as the pig in George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’:
      “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

  2. Peter

    I hesitate to butt in. This is none of my business. I am not even member of the LGTBI community and this potentially limits my perceived involvement rights. I am somewhat embarrassed to be entering into this dialogue since I am not directly impacted, but I see that you are also in the same position as a heterosexual with an interest in supporting human and civil and procedural rights. BINGO.

    I will take I on the chin without hesitation if I am perceived to be a meddler. That is not my intent. I am a concerned participant in the policy debate and have not always believed that the interests of minority groups have been adequately represented
    I believe that the personal decisions of adult persons in consenting relationships should be entirely up to them and that neither Government of Church has any right to have a say in such matters.
    As an avid supporter of the general and/or specific human rights, civil rights; procedural rights and the like, I do not feel I can let you post go past without some input.

    My considered view is that abstaining from lodging a YES return in this unconscionable and humiliating process, which I do not condone may damage the enshrined rights of those directly impacted.

    This may not sit well with the author’s views; but it is my opinion. Whether the author chooses to publish my views in entirety is a different matter.
    I do support the LGBTI community as an outsider not directly impacted; and I do accept that people have the right to make their own decisions. That is why I am involved in the first place. It is my personal view that the YES opinion by everybody affected or not is the only way to go, since collectively we can place no possible faith on the naysayers and their influence.

    Good Luck. All I want is to see marriage equality principles upheld and without reservation. I will be returning a YES return for your minority community. It is the only thing to do.

    I may not be published or course, but my views have been elsewhere on mainstream and non-mainstream outlets. What is more, those far more articulate and informed inspired me. Just Google SSM.

    Again Good Luck. Of course you know I am on your side.

    Cheers, Madeleine

  3. I’m a gay man and I am tempted to vote no. The LBTI lobby (G missing intentionally) insists on absolute obedience to their agenda, and anyone who won’t xerox their world view and treat it as our own is the enemy. They need to lose a few times on a few issues, just to trigger a little introspection.

    This is a good issue for us to lose. Marriage is a poison pill for most of the heterosexuals I know who are in one or have ever been in one. You lose everything you own (eventually), and you are forced to spend time with someone who you may not even like in six months’ time. I don’t ever want to end up in that sort of misery. I need a lot of time alone to recharge my social battery. Besides, you shouldn’t need to avail yourself of a legal document just to shack up with someone. It has some merit where there are kids, or might be kids, but even that’s getting rare nowadays. We sure don’t need it.

    While losing the plebiscite will probably trigger a tanty rather than any actual introspection, and calls for parliament to ignore the public will and push ahead with a conscience vote anyway, hopefully a few more losses after that might do the trick.

    Thanks Helen for another good article.

    1. Great to hear your point of view.
      As a straight guy, I have wondered what all the people who may be directly affected by this matter actually think.
      It seems from the outside, that a lot of morally vain individuals who are NOT members of the LGBTQI community are expressing views on the behalf of those who are. I think it’s an ego thing.

  4. Helen Raser has fallen for he same ‘divide and rule’ ploy used by the opponents of change in the republic debate.
    Just vote YES for equal human rights.
    Brexit and Trump are not what this is about. Your cringe is showing, Helen
    We the voters must reiterate our support for equal human rights, as long as we need to, despite the venal,undemocratic, anti-constiutional delaying tactics of the fearful and fear mungering opposition to advancing equality for us all.

    1. Bernard Fitzgerald has fallen for the same “I didn’t actually read the article” ploy used by internet readers.

      1. The fact is ,Helen, like many ‘internet readers’ i manage to edit articles of extraneous,contrary, overly self referential matter and, although i agree with your headline statement ,you have not contradicted my belief that voters must reiterate their support for equal rights and not be distracted by any cunning muddying of the waters.

        1. Well you just missed the point of the article. Strange given how articulate and blunt it is.
          I guess ideology is stronger than the evidence in your case.

  5. Inequality is the norm for everyone
    I have yet to find equality in any society so what is the problem that is different from me the average citizen?

  6. Ian

    Tried to respond but there were technical problems. My end

    Thanks. You have summed it up much better than I could have done. I will be taking your position and voting YES without equivocation. I do not belong to the LGBT community but I have no hesitation about supporting fundamental human and civil rights. We cannot afford to leave this matter in the hands of the naysayers.

    Holding the nose will not work. Thanks

    Cheers, Madeleine

  7. Will marriage equality mean the sun won’t rise the following morning if it becomes a reality? If no, why worry about it? If yes, why worry about it? If the former happens, life goes on, if the latter happens, it doesn’t matter anymore!

    1. This comment looks as though it were meant for an entirely different article.
      There was no dispute of the issue. Just the way it’s bound to lose.

  8. You make some fair points, but completely miss the fact that there ARE positive legal ramifications for same sex couples who are married rather than just in a de facto relationship:

    “Married partners have immediate access to all relationship entitlements, protections and responsibilities. This contrasts to de facto couples who must live together for a certain period before they are deemed to have legal rights.

    A marriage certificate also allows married partners to easily prove their legal rights if challenged, for example in emergency situations. The capacity to quickly and easily prove one’s relationship status is particularly important for same-sex partners because prejudice against same-sex relationships can mean legal rights are denied.

    Another practical benefit of marriage is that it is a widely recognised legal relationship. The criteria for establishing de facto status, and the rights ascribed to de facto partners, are different between the Australian states and between Australia and other nations.”
    https://www.australianmarriageequality.org/faqs/the-legal-benefits-that-come-with-marriage/

    The poll is an egregious affront to LGBTI people and while I’m furious that it is likely to go ahead and force me into the disgracefully patronising position of “choosing” to give a minority the same rights other Australians take for granted, I will still vote YES and encourage every one I know to do the same.

    1. Cee

      Though not part of the LGBTI community, I vigorously support equality principles which includes marriage equality. I strongly endorse your position.

      Mine will be a YES vote if this pathetic voluntary postal opinion survey gets up and is not squashed by the High Court when it hears the substantive issues put forward by two groups, PIAC and the Australian Human Rights Law Centre.

      Thanks for your succinct summary of the actual legal and procedural gaps that apply to de facto relationships of all kinds. The authorities apparently apply the principles of inequality when distinguishing between those who can flaunt a marriage certificate and those who cannot. I am must congratulate you on the dignified manner in which you have used fact and reasoning to counter-act the arguments put forward by the author of this article,.

      I could not agree with you more that the proposal for a postal opinion poll conducted by the ABS with seconded staff from the AEC is “an egregious affront to LGBTI people.” In my view a YES return is the only reasonable course instead of leaving the ball in the court of the naysayers.

      Cheers, Madeleine

    2. Your information is outdated.
      Couples, now known as domestic partners and not “de facto”, no longer have a minimum time requirement.
      As a person in a same sex intimate partnership at the time of the 2008 changes, I know this because I had to.

      1. How is it that this fact of LGBTQI couples having exactly the same legal rights is hardly mentioned? It makes it even more bizarre that something which is people asking for equal recognition and acceptance has been framed in terms of such an anachronistic institution and in terms of legalities people already have. I guess I just don’t get it. What am I not getting then?

  9. Good work Helen.

    I have no idea why ‘alternative’ people are raising this SSM or equality issue when if it was all kept low key, most of the community has and would turn a blind eye to goings on. But as they are holding the country to thought ransom they will probably receive unwelcome outcomes.

    For instance, I am sure that much of the inequality concerns rest within the minds of the gays, not the wider community.

  10. Please explain – 0r list out for me Progressive Media publications and while you’re at it can “elite media be named for who they might be? Of course this is a rights based issue and it is deeply offensive to the LGBTQI community. A postal survey is inappropriate, ineffectual and a horrible waste of resources. The whole thing is humiliating and feels like being dragged backwards more than 30 years. I am, however not that picky when it comes to having support from any media if it helps to cheer on a “yes” vote. Guess we’ll see soon enough. People take care of each other and yourselves.

    1. Geez. The point, explicated in the headline, is that when mainstream, apparently progressive outlets (you must be one of about five Australian readers to have missed the fact that these are those large things Murdoch doesn’t own) offer support for a cause,it is ineffective. Even undermining.
      It doesn’t work. If you want a Yes vote, the Guardian is promoting its opposite.

    2. Jane, I empathize with the humiliation you must feel over this postal opinion poll. I agree that the whole processes of seeking the opinions of others on how people should lead their lives is an insult to the LGBTI community, to which I do not belong, but I do feel very strongly about equality rights for all, legal moral or procedural. I will be providing a YES response without equivocation if the proposed ballot gets up and the High Court does not rule against it.

      You have stated that you do not wish to be ‘picky’ about media support for the YES position. I believe that Helen Razer may be referring to a number of articles recently published by the AIMN network (Australian Independent Media Network).

      Mainstream media such as Sydney Morning Herald have also run some articles, including one by John Waterford (SMH 11 August) The ABS is prostituting its reputation with same sex marriage survey

      http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-abs-is-prostituting-its-reputation-with-samesex-marriage-survey-20170811

      Cheers, Madeleine

  11. Thanks for the “you’re an idiot if you disagree with me”, line .
    I tried to explain the inadequacy of this approach to my daughter the other night in about 20 minutes much less succinctly and less effectively in relation to a workplace issue in which she is undoubtedly correct but is having difficulty in persuading the committee of her voluntary organisation employer.

  12. Every word was bang on.

    Labor and the Greens could have supported the plebiscite from the begining because it largely has bipartisan support. A very personal and culturally important matter would have been resolved and SSM would have been a reality by now. Gay people would have experienced a genuine and very clear acceptance by the wider community as was the case in Ireland.

    Instead, for the sake of scoring cheap political points, old JellyBack Shorten made sure ths did not occur.

    Public support has diminished over the cause of this debate simply because we, the people (comprised of doctors, nurses, teachers, farmers, business people, builders, plumbers, electricians, pilots etc. etc.etc.) have had it up to the back teeth with the sneering and utterly misplaced condescension vomited down onto us (again) by the media ‘elites’ and the Leftie/Prog classes who comprise the morally vain.

    I have toyed with the idea of voting No just based on the suspicion that this matter is more about reinforcing a wider political agenda than this specific question.

    They can all fuck themselves; this country was made the beautiful and magnificent place it actually is by far better people than the clowns that make up this hubric minority.

    1. This is nonsense. There is no wider political agenda than the question of whether the marriage act should be altered to include same sex couples. Ireland had to have a constitutional change to allow same sex marriage. Its campaign was full of spite and propaganda against same sex couples. Their representatives would have been glad to the change without a referendum if they could.
      I can see no reason not to change the marriage act by voting “yes”. Helen’s article is OK but not spot on. too much information was supplied about her bunions and much else besides. A majority of 60% remains for the change. It is unlikely that “No” will win for the reason that Brexit won. The vote is not so close and young people are now aware that if they don’t bother opponents might do better than they ought. The real danger is that supporters of same sex marriage will hold their up their noses and stay away because the process is less than ideal. This was major part of how Trump came to be elected but not all.Trump was elected POTUS despite losing the overall vote. That can’t happen with the easterly postal vote.

      1. This is nonsense. The opportunity to have SSM by now was available long before now but was rejected.
        Unlike you I do not have the sneering contempt for other human beings that you have.

        The ‘debate’ has been going on for may months now; provide examples of ‘spite and propaganda against sames sex couples’ and I’ll show you a first world problem.

        1. What “sneering contempt”? I am so glad you don’t have “sneering contempt” as you show sneering contempt for views that show none. Ireland was where the change of constitution brought problems. We have already seen the sneering contempt of one traditional marriage campaigner for the so-called “stolen generation” of children who live with same sex parents. We will see many more.

  13. Why did we not take the opportunity to get rid of marriage entirely?!! A highly conservative institution if ever there was one. Do what many European countries do and have ‘civil unions’ – register at the local authority. Done. You can still have the churchy marriagey thing as an optional extra.
    A (so-called) secular nation needs to start being more secular and get the church/religion thing right the fuck out.

    1. Agree entirely with your comments. One of the most conservative institutions and still everyone wants their blessing …… has there not been enough suffering already?? Civil Unions seem a much better idea…and yes, ‘get the church/religion thing right the fuck out’.

      Excellent article Helen.

  14. Ha, ha, great piece about the sanctimonious media (some of my friends could stick this in their pocket too). You forgot to mention how useful the oldies are for these things, they only have to sign this letter with trembling hands, and/or been bussed to a day out for letter signing with tea and cake……….I can just see it (being 85 myself)
    Thanks Helen, you did it again!

  15. As with the Republic, endorsements by the press, celebrities and academics will be brushed off as an agenda of the elites. Obviously David Flint (how will he vote this time?) Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella etc were not of the dreaded elites.
    Their message is be proud of your ignorance. This got both Brexit and Trump home.

    1. You haven’t learnt the lesson of Brexit and Trump yet have you?

      It will be years before the UK experiences the true consequences of Brexit either positive or negative, overall. One fact is clear, the EU has stifled the Brits for over 40 years with spectacular one-size-fits-all regulatory bullshit.

      One consequence of membership of the EU if applied to Australia: The Australian wine industry would never been allowed to exist if it had been a member of the EU; instead Aussie grapes would have been grown only for consumption as fruit to protect the French/Italian/German wine industries.

      As a Trump hater you must find it troubling that his stance against Kum Jong Un over nukes and missiles is starting to pay dividends. The missiles tests aimed at Guam have been called off. President Trump is the first world leader to call KJU’s bluff and it worked. Forcing bullies to put up or shut up works.

      Just because you are ideologically opposed to someone, doesn’t make that person wrong.

      If there wasn’t such obvious contempt for the people, as displayed by people like you and the media/political ‘elites’, SSM would be in place today.

      Learn that you ignore the people in a democracy at your peril. That is the simple lesson of Brexit and President Trump.

  16. Helen, you are always ready to speak about a monarch’s new clothing. As a middle aged father of five, who consider themselves progressive I have worn outrage due to my “progressive” opposition to same sex marriage based on the concern that as it currently stands the reform only means that gay people will be able wreck their lives and their families just as easily as hetero-normative married people. What happened with Trump’s election was that Hillary’s candidacy signified permission to be viciously disrespectful and dismissive of anyone who disagreed with her supporters. You make it very clear that this was the petard they were all hoisted on. It could happen with the marriage equality case.

    How about this reform being coupled with a “marriage quality” reform model to encourage people to make better thoughtful choices re partners and support marriage generally so that all families and couples have the best possible chances for success? That could satisfy many of those who while loving and cherishing their gay family members and friends, still have reservations about the proposal.

    1. Your comment, “…encourage people to make better thoughtful choices re partners and support marriage generally…” is interesting. However because marriage is entirely an emotional decision, no ‘reform model’ could ever work.

      If anything we need the government and it’s laws and regulations out of our bedrooms.

      I understand where you’re coming from though.

  17. It was always a mistake of Australian Marriage Equality (AME) and other so-called marriage equality advocates to pitch this debate as a popularity contest. The fundamental human rights of any minority must never be subject to popular vote and that was the only argument worth having. Moreover, these advocates pushed the naive view that ultimately, the homophobic bigots vehemently opposed to marriage equality would somehow see the light.Bizarrely yet powerfully claiming that marriage equality equates to paedophilia is the catch cry of the bigots, a highly emotive claim that deftly bypasses facts and evidence. If we want to make marriage equality real for all Australians, we need to re-frame this as a rights argument. Either way, the false claims of the no campaign will incite much violence against LGBTI Australians.

    1. The homophobic bigots you hate so much are in a very small minority. A plebiscite doesn’t require any of them to vote Yes.

      People who have genuine concerns about SSM are still not a large enough number to cause a No result.

      In any case, it is utterly immoral to state that, “The fundamental human rights of any minority must never be subject to popular vote”.
      It appears you hate people generally and are at least to ideologically blinded to see the inherent decency in most people.

  18. Well done again… god forbid you sound like a real liberal not the big weird ones, but the little l ones. BTW Syriza was not a communist party, any more than PASOK was, in fact it was PASOK lite with lead by a wanna-be rock-star turned sort off economist.

  19. For once, Helen, I agree with almost everything that you say.

    This postal survey is a sham, a moral cesspit, a mistake of epic proportions, and a stain on Australia’s history – along with so many others , like Manus, White Australia, the stolen generations – from which the country will never quite recover. And that’s regardless of the outcome.

    This is about an elected government choosing to allow the majority vote on the rights of the minority. It’s not legitimate in its form, or in the process, let alone in the realm of it consequences. This is different from anything this country has ever seen before. Indeed, I think it might be almost unprecedented, anywhere.

    But I won’t be voting, Helen. I can’t. As a gay man, I will not be complicit in my own oppression. I won’t hold out my rights for you or anyone else to pass judgment on. I won’t be co-opted to take part in a vote, let alone a fake vote, on my human rights.

    I ask you to do the same. Send your ballot back to Turnbull with a hint of disgust. Tell Penny Wong that you remember what she said about marriage when she had her chance, and you won’t be buying into her crocodile tears. Ask the various LGBT organisations why they are willing to dignify this disgrace, especially – as you and I agree – it may go really, really badly.

    But please, I beg you, don’t legitimise this shameful act by our politicians. By all means – if you want gay marriage, vote Labor or the Greens. They’ll be in soon enough.

    But don’t vote in this survey. Not in our name.

    1. I will be voting in this survey but not in your name. The best way to counter the intentions behind this postal survey is to vote “yes” and I will do so because I do not want to see the government deny people their rights through this device. To vote ‘yes” is to oppose the idea that a simple majority vote can take away people’s rights. So I will do it. I will also do it because I do think marriage makes a whole lot of things easier and it allows others to join in celebrating your marriage if it is a success. My wife and I did not think marriage all that necessary and we were determined not to have the traditional institution, which had , in any case, already disappeared at least in law, if not in practice, from Australia. We therefore had neither of us promise to obey the other, just because that had been part of the nasty tradition of marriage. Nor did we think, like Senator Abetz, that it was better for our children to have a male and female model, if they modelled one person in charge of another rather than an equal partnership. We have celebrated our marriage ever since and others have been glad to join with us. I don’t see why same sex couples should not also be able to do that.

    2. Last time Labor were in power they voted against SSM.

      Look how well your “protest vote” tactic worked with the Republic plebiscite. If the No postal vote gets up, it could be decades before SSM is legislated in this country.

      Be careful what you wish for.

      1. It’s true this ‘survey’ is merely another delaying tactic by the fearful opponents of equality.
        And the wording of the question will probably be ‘challenging ‘ And manipulative
        But, the lesson I learned from the Republican fiasco, is to vote for change
        Vote YES to equality
        Helen need not have padded her prose with irrelevant connections.
        The scandal to me is the government is spending our money to solve a party matter. And introducing a voluntary component goes a against the spirit and constitution of the Nation

  20. Spot on as usual Helen. You are perhaps the only member of the progressive media who actually seems to understand what’s going on and (being rather a Brexiting free marketeer myself) one of the few left-wingers I would bother to read.

    Discouraging people from having an opinion by labelling them something -ist or -ic will not stop them from having that opinion but will simply stop them from discussing it openly. What the elite media don’t seem to realise is that their sanctimonious lectures only makes people angrier.

Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Newsletter Signup