OMG! Bernardi isn’t just a conservative! He’s a libertarian! Gasp.

Oh dear – a fine example of lazy journalism.

[Cori] Bernardi is no conservative. Rather, he is the ringleader of a set of political misfits inspired by a discredited American-style, muscular Christian, radical right-wing politics ill at ease with the mainstream sensibilities of Australian politics. …

A similar lesson applies to his fellow-travellers in the ”conservative” commentariat. Whether it is Andrew Bolt, Tim Blair or Piers Akerman (who lies awake at night worrying about the left-wing bias of the ABC TV children’s program Peppa Pig), or think tanks such as the Institute of Public Affairs, few qualify as genuine conservatives. Many are better described as libertarians.

I suppose I should be pleased that someone in the Fairfax press has finally realised that the IPA is better described as being libertarian. But I just wonder why anyone who knows the word ‘libertarian’ could describe Cory Bernardi as being anything other than a social conservative – he is certainly not a libertarian.

But this does really raise another issue. Why is the left and its spear carriers going berserk over a back-bencher with conservative views? Especially why are they trying to demonise him – creating publicity for his views while labelling them as extreme? I suspect they are trying to delegitimise views that a largish minority of the population share.

Update: Nick Dyrenfurth writes on Twitter that his views have been misrepresented. I have invited him to write a guest post reply correcting he record.

This entry was posted in Libertarians don't live by argument alone. Bookmark the permalink.

496 Responses to OMG! Bernardi isn’t just a conservative! He’s a libertarian! Gasp.

  1. Pedro

    Here is a left showing the alf is wrong, but I don’t think alf will understand why

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/01/09/global_inequality_it_s_falling_but_so_what.html

    In fact, I predict he will draw exactly the opposite conclusion and think that the article supports his view.

  2. Jazza

    Forgot to add:
    What is that self important jumped up little tart on Ch10 thinking, telling the cameras that Cory can P off???
    Better she and her juvenile half grown cohorts did!

  3. Leo G

    It’s da inequality… Da inequality.

    Do I hear a shibboleth? Do you not fear the Fink?
    Can you not talk about “communal brotherhood” without udder disrespect?

  4. JC

    Pedro

    What’s lost on these leftist arseholes is that in fact the past 20 odd years have been a golden age in terms of reducing da inequality as 100′s of millions of people in the developed world have joined the ranks of the middle class.

    12 million illegals entering the US left grinding poverty and on the whole doing relatively well there.

    Alfies will tell you this is the dark age for humanity though. This is why they are a total waste of time. There’s no point in discussing anything with them.

  5. No, Gab and CL, the majority don’t share your religious views on everything. That is why Obama was twice elected – people are frightened of the religious nuts in the republican party like Michelle Bachmann. They can look forward to losing again and again if they don’t get rid of the religious right.

    Australia is one of the least religious countries in the world. Nobody cares about Christianity any more, and are wary of politicians who mention it, with good reason. Bernadi is an albatross around Tony Abbott’s neck, and the Liberal party should dump him.

  6. JC

    oops developing world... not developed..

  7. JC

    So out of Gillard vs Bernardi you’d choose Gillard, right yobbo. You think defunding abortions, single motherhood, and getting a grip on violent youth coming from broken homes is far more important than getting rid of the carbonic tax, the mining tax and getting a handle around the debt. Okay. That’s an opinion at least.

  8. FYI, 70% of Australians say religion has no importance in their lives. You god-botherers are not in any sort of majority, you are a tiny minority of deluded people who believe in fairies, and you should keep your ridiculous fantasies to yourselves.

  9. Pedro

    And even more than that JC, the part of the world catching up is the one that has less of of what Alf wants and the part that is stagnating is his over-regulated social-dem paradise!

  10. Pat Warnock

    Some of the issues Mr Bernadi raised should be subject to serious discussion not just reviled.

  11. No JC. The ALP is a shambles. I want the liberals to win government. That’s why I want Bernardi out. Because he is actively making it harder for them to be re-elected with this shit.

  12. JC

    FYI, 70% of Australians say religion has no importance in their lives. You god-botherers are not in any sort of majority, you are a tiny minority of deluded people who believe in fairies, and you should keep your ridiculous fantasies to yourselves.

    That doesn’t apply to me for instance. How do you feel about dissing activist gays with a far left agenda?

  13. candy

    Australia is one of the least religious countries in the world. Nobody cares about Christianity any more, and are wary of politicians who mention it, with good reason.

    I’m not so sure about that, Yobbo. Australians can also be very quiet about their religious views and don’t force them on others as we are a very tolerance peoples.

  14. Pedro

    “So out of Gillard vs Bernardi you’d choose Gillard, right yobbo”

    No you wouldn’t, but I’m going to vote labor in the next state election because I will never support a govt that runs a police state. Somethings are more fundamental.

    Also, that’s not an argument for Bernardi. I’d rather a cold than the flu, but I still don’t want the cold.

  15. JC

    And even more than that JC, the part of the world catching up is the one that has less of of what Alf wants and the part that is stagnating is his over-regulated social-dem paradise!

    France.

  16. Alf

    Changing the definition of poverty does make those who are poor any less so. I wouldn’t want to be in the alleged 1.1 per cent on minimum wage and I sure wouldn’t want to live in a place that had no minimum wage at all.

    What happened to free speech JC? Being banned wouldn’t upset me at all – do that if you want. But by a left leaning society I am not talking about a communist dictatorship. You’d have to be insane to wish that on anyone and, like right wing dictatorships, they all go the same way.

  17. JC

    No you wouldn’t, but I’m going to vote labor in the next state election because I will never support a govt that runs a police state. Somethings are more fundamental.

    Queensland! I don’t live there, but he’s dead to me.

  18. Pedro

    “Some of the issues Mr Bernadi raised should be subject to serious discussion not just reviled.”

    Saying they are wrong is serious.

  19. JC

    No you wouldn’t, but I’m going to vote labor in the next state election

    Don’t do that. Spoil the ballot or better yet vote LDP.

  20. Pedro

    Another good example JC. Where’s alf gone I wonder?

  21. Infidel Tiger

    FYI, 70% of Australians say religion has no importance in their lives. You god-botherers are not in any sort of majority, you are a tiny minority of deluded people who believe in fairies, and you should keep your ridiculous fantasies to yourselves.

    Plenty of atheists and agnostics believe that abortion is abhorrent and marriage is the optimal environment to raise children.

  22. Pedro’s Slate link argues that it’s silly to suggest there is no need to be concerned about growing American income inequality just because of less global inequality. Just because people in China on average now earn closer to what the average American does, why does that matter to the situation in America.

    Why does Pedro seem to think this is an anti- Leftist argument?

  23. Plenty of atheists and agnostics believe that abortion is abhorrent

    Well, if “plenty” means the dozen or so who comment here.

    Just face it, you libertarian conservative weirdo, nearly all Australians think abortion is justifiable in a wide set of circumstances as a regrettable but not unreasonable option, particularly during early stages of pregnancy.

  24. JimD

    Jesus you pricks go on about not engaging with the spud then engage with the fucking yobbo. Dumb.

  25. Infidel Tiger

    Just face it, you libertarian conservative weirdo

    That would make a nice t-shirt or coffee cup slogan.

  26. How do you feel about dissing activist gays with a far left agenda?

    If they actually do have a far-left agenda, then go ahead and diss them. If they only want equal treatment under the law (which is what allowing gay marriage is) then I agree they should get it. And the whole “get the government out of marriage” trope is a canard used by cowards unwilling to say what they really think: Fuck The Fags.

  27. candy

    If that’s true, Steve, does it not make you as a Catholic feel a little unease, a little sadness?

  28. JimD

    Fuck The Fags
    Been up your own arse have you fucking heap of shit..

  29. Yes, I think it is sad when abortion is treated lightly, candy.

    On the other hand, it’s not as if women have not been trying various methods for centuries to induce the miscarriage of an unwanted pregnancy. I doubt that women have changed much psychologically over the period, and suspect that a majority of women have never felt the “oh my God I am carrying a fully fledged person within me, how dare I seek to interfere with such a glorious thing that pregnancy is!” attitude that Pro Lifers seem to think is the “natural” reaction.

    Women are more pragmatic than men, on the whole, I think. [Unless you talking the likes of Philippa. As I have made clear, Pro Lifers who are against contraception have irritated me for decades. ]

  30. Cato the Elder

    And the whole “get the government out of marriage” trope is a canard used by cowards unwilling to say what they really think: Fuck The Fags.

    Bullshit. I for one think the government should get out of the “marriage” business and I couldn’t give a rat’s rectum either way about gays getting married.

    The biggest blow against marriage has already been struck, when the laws of the several states to recognise “de facto” relationships as the same a being married effectively removed the right of the individual to choose to not be married. That changed marriage from a voluntarily entered into relationship with some social and legal consequences into to a compulsory legal relationship dependent on government determined rules.
    If you tick the boxes then you are “married” in the eyes of da grubbermint, regardless of your intention or what you might think on the subject.

    Many people, not surprisingly, have come to view marriage in the same light as any other government coercion. To restore the status of marriage, people have to be able to decide to not be married – and the law and society must acknowledge that choice.

    The government should fuck off out of it and let people do whatever they please.

  31. Andrew

    Yobbo said:

    No, Gab and CL, the majority don’t share yourthe Greens’ religious views on everything. That is why ObamaAbbott666 was twice elected in a landslide – people are frightened of the religiouswarmist nuts in the republican Green party like Michelle BachmannChristine Milne. TheyALP can look forward to losing again and again if they don’t get rid of the religious rightGreen left.

    Australia is one of the least religiouscarbon-phobic countries in the world. Nobody cares about Christianitygerbil worming any more, and are wary of politicians who mention it, with good reason. BernadiSHY is an albatross around Tony AbbottBill Shorten’s neck, and the LiberalLabor party should dump himher.

    Makes more sense this way – around 50% of Americans voted for the Magic Negro, but 92% of Australians voted against the “zero carbon” economy lunacy of our extremists trying to inflict their fundamentalist Flanneryism on the rest of us.

    I assume you have no trouble with me advocating centrism away from either extreme, Yobbo?

    (BTW, I was up the road from you the other week.)

  32. struth

    Most people in Australia believe in the Principles of christianity.
    Our laws are based on them.
    Whether they actually believe in christ is different.
    Aussies are pragmatic enough.
    They realise the christian way is the best way, but may not believe in christ.

  33. roger

    Most people in Australia believe in the Principles of christianity.
    Our laws are based on them.
    Whether they actually believe in christ is different.

    Well said. Undermines the major argument of the atheists and their fellow-travelers, as follows:
    Because, c’mon, Moses surely did not really split the Red Sea with his stick and
    Jesus could not have possible really walked on water – and the Bible tells us these happen and the Bible also tells us of the importance of marriage – let us destroy the institute of marriage!

  34. JC

    And the whole “get the government out of marriage” trope is a canard used by cowards unwilling to say what they really think: Fuck The Fags.

    Except that it goes to the core of libertarian thinking.

  35. Combine_Dave

    This. Pedro seems to be caught up in the idea that being a libertarian means that you stand for everyone getting a subsidy, rather than no-one at all.

    From a libertarian perspective this is where Pedro appears to have fallen down.

    I am reasonabley certain that it would better serve freedom to remove the gov from the marriage business (not something likely to win favour with leftist social engineers nor social conservatives). Ending government subsidies/tax breaks for all family structures would seem a good fit with this perspective rather than expanding it to subsidise gay marriage, single mums, and breaded men’s many wives…

  36. JC

    i

    t to subsidise gay marriage,

    What subsidy to gay marriage. There isn’t any.

  37. Tom

    equal treatment under the law (which is what allowing gay marriage is)

    No it’s not. Marrriage is a heterosexual institution designed to protect children and profilerate the human race. Gay “marriage” is an attempt by leftards who represent a tiny minority of gays who otherwise hate marriage to sodomise a heterosexual institution for sport. Representing SSM as an equality issue is a poisonous, Orwellian corruption of the concept of liberty.

    Fuck The Fags.

    Tolerance of poofters to do what they like in a free society isn’t enough for leftard fuckwits like Yobbo. We must be forced to eat the political shit of a tiny minority of leftard activists on behalf of the 3% of the population who are gay who don’t like what comes naturally for the other 97%.

  38. Bons

    As a product of a Catholic boarding school, I hold no residual religious beliefs, but nor do I hold any negative views regarding those who prefer religious belief (well, not until Fascist Islam appeared on the screen).
    But I do hold a passionate humanitarian disgust in relation to abortion which I consider to be the most disgusting infringement of human rights since the Nazis. The argument of “women’s right to choose” is possibly the most obscene justification of murder in history.
    I am old enough now to no longer be cowered – I state my opinion and will not accept abuse for that belief. If the senator hold the same view, good on him – it is his right to make his own moral judgments and to declare them – Australia is not a campus debating society, real issues (in this case lives) are at stake.

  39. I for one think the government should get out of the “marriage” business and I couldn’t give a rat’s rectum either way about gays getting married.

    Nobody was asking the government to get out of marriage before gay marriage became an issue. The reason they are asking for that now is a bullshit one: They know that “getting the government out of marriage” is a political impossibility, so as long as that’s the only solution they accept, gay marriage will never be legal.

    It’s a bullshit coward argument and you know it.

    By all means, hold the eventual goal of getting government out of marriage, but in the meantime, allow gay couples to benefit from the same legal advantages that married heterosexual couples do.

    leftard fuckwits like Yobbo.

    It’s pretty sad that you are so stupid that you can’t get your head around the idea of libertarianism.

  40. Combine_Dave

    What subsidy to gay marriage. There isn’t any.

    If gay marriage/gay adoption is legalised will they recieve the same tax breaks, centrelink benefits as hetro families?

    I have no problem with all peeps being teated equal, I just don’t see why everyone needs others’ tax monies $$$ to fund their life style choices; whether one is pursuing gay marriage, single motherhood or abortion as a form of contraception…

  41. Bruce

    equal treatment under the law (which is what allowing gay marriage is)

    No its not. A civil union is equal treatment under secular law. Man-woman, man-man, woman-woman, defacto or whatever. Marriage is a technical term developed by several religions. That is why Philippa’s suggestion is the most elegant.

    Remove the misuse of the word in the legal canon and legislate actual equality in secular law (which is basically already there – but cleaned up and made more consistent). Let the religions use their term the way they want unhindered by the gay and lesbian mafia who want to use the law to beat on people not like them – Christian pastors, cake manufacturers and photographers.

    That would be the fairest outcome for all.

  42. Tom

    It’s pretty sad that you are so stupid that you can’t get your head around the idea of libertarianism.

    You are a leftard fuckwit, Yobbo. You’re on board every leftist bandwagon in the current fashion from everything you’ve posted here in the past two years. There are plenty of leftard fuckwits like you who believe in anarcho-libertarianism — human garbage like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, who never saw a big government they didn’t like.

  43. stackja

    Tintarella di Luna
    #1144497, posted on January 10, 2014 at 6:00 pm
    Tinta to be accurate you have linked to a niqab. I have linked to a burqa above at 5:11. This is even worse than the niqab because the eyes are hidden and arms and hands can also be. I am against both burqa and niqab.
    Also while France has banned the burqa and niqab, they weren’t enforcing the ban when I was in Paris last year.
    thank jupes I see them on a daily basis, in my face but not their face, driving cars and the whole shebang so I don’t really give a hoot if it’s the niqab or the burqa I think it is a mode of dress that is offensive to free-born citizens end of story.

    To me the burqa is a joke. Koran says something like cover nakedness. I believe nakedness was common in Moho’s time. How modesty became a burqa in some weird way is known only to the silly people.

  44. JC

    Nobody was asking the government to get out of marriage before gay marriage became an issue.

    Oh bullshit. I’ve been talking about how state intervention in marriage has basically fucked it beyond all recognition. I’ve been saying how any young man contemplating marriage ought to be talked out of it.

    I’m not the only one.

    For decades the left has taken a machete to marriage and now they’re for it. It’s fucking sickening.

  45. You are a leftard fuckwit, Yobbo. You’re on board every leftist bandwagon in the current fashion from everything you’ve posted here in the past two years.

    Oh Please, dude. I have been posting here for over 10 years. I don’t need to defend myself from illiterate retards.

    I take the libertarian bandwagon side. It’s just that you can’t tell the difference, because you’re stupid.

  46. Tom

    You’re an arrogant cnut as well. Dime a dozen.

  47. roger

    A lot has been said about how misleading the term of “Marriage Equality” is.
    But, with the Left, the problem is their belief in “equality” at all. They want a society where everyone is “equal”. That is, if you ask me, bullshit. We are not equal as human beings.
    The only place where equality should apply is when it comes to legal rights. The Law should apply to everyone.
    But here is the thing: marriage and Law are two separate things. There is no single legal right or responsibility that applies differently to any person in Australia based on their marital status.
    So, definitely, keep the state out of marriage.

  48. JC

    They know that “getting the government out of marriage” is a political impossibility, so as long as that’s the only solution they accept, gay marriage will never be legal.

    So is zero income tax in my lifetime probably, but that doesn’t stop me from advocating something close to that. So is advocating against the suffocating nanny state.

    It’s a bullshit coward argument and you know it.

    No it isn’t.

    By all means, hold the eventual goal of getting government out of marriage, but in the meantime, allow gay couples to benefit from the same legal advantages that married heterosexual couples do.

    I really don’t think it makes much difference either way. I haven’t spoken up against nor for it. Prior to the change in the law, which dragged gay relationships into the family court dragnet I always maintained that gay people needed to take a smart pill if the supported gay marriage, as it would mean the family court would impose the exit. The family court is a rogue Marxist institution.

    Yobbo, you really ought to take into account what a large number gay think about this issue. Even for them it’s not as clear cut support as you think…. at least not for militant leftwing gays. There are mixed feelings about it.

  49. C.L.

    No, Gab and CL, the majority don’t share your religious views on everything. That is why Obama was twice elected – people are frightened of the religious nuts in the republican party like Michelle Bachmann. They can look forward to losing again and again if they don’t get rid of the religious right.

    Yobbo, how is it that you arrive at every thread and draw me into your essays of outrage?

    I haven’t even mentioned religion, Obama or Bachmann.

    What the hell are you talking about?

    But as you’ve mentioned his re-election: Obama won because the media arranged it. And, as you might recall, his oppenent wasn’t a conservative Christian but a social liberal Mormon.

  50. C.L.

    Here it is in a nutshell: advocates of homosexual “marriage” are like the skinny kid in the playground trying to set up a brawl between the big bruiser (the state) and the kid they hate (heterosexual Christians). They want the state to monster their enemy using its monopoly on violence. And then they laughably call themselves libertarians.

  51. Rabz

    Remember, peoples – the lady boy fondler has never heard of David Bowie or the Sex Pistols, but he’ll happily presume (and state) that you’re all as indescribably ignorant as he is.

  52. There is no single legal right or responsibility that applies differently to any person in Australia based on their marital status.

    Yes, there is. A few of them actually. We have been through this hundreds of times.

  53. So is zero income tax in my lifetime probably, but that doesn’t stop me from advocating something close to that. So is advocating against the suffocating nanny state.

    What you are arguing with gay marriage is the equivalent of opposing tax cuts because you think the government should get out of the taxing industry.

  54. JC

    Hey Yobbo, are you still in Thailand or back on the farm?

  55. Yobbo, you really ought to take into account what a large number gay think about this issue. Even for them it’s not as clear cut support as you think…. at least not for militant leftwing gays.

    If there are some gay people who think getting married is a bad idea, they are still free not to get married.

  56. JC

    What you are arguing with gay marriage is the equivalent of opposing tax cuts because you think the government should get out of the taxing industry.

    ummm no I’m not. Read what I said. I commented that i don’t give a shit either way about gay marriage.

  57. roger

    Yes, there is. A few of them actually. We have been through this hundreds of times.

    Yes, you got my attention.

  58. JC

    If there are some gay people who think getting married is a bad idea, they are still free not to get married.

    The point being that it’s not as popular in gay circles are you think it is. You realize there are guys who think gay marriage is ridiculous as they too think marriage is between men and women.

  59. Remember, peoples – the lady boy fondler has never heard of David Bowie or the Sex Pistols

    Of course I have heard of them numbnuts. My objection to your list was the fact that your apparent 4 favourite Bowie songs (and your favourite songs from any band bar the Pistols) were all relatively unknown, obscure songs. A classic indication of someone trying too hard to display their musical knowledge. Just like the people (like John Quiggin) who post “What I’m reading” on their blog. They never seem to be reading the back of a cereal box or their power bill, only some very highbrow and topical book.

  60. Yes, you got my attention.

    The most obvious one is immigration law, Roger. Married couples get far easier entrance requirements than de facto couples. And gay couples that are married legally (e.g. if they got married in Sweden where gay marriage has been legal for a few years), will still be treated as De Facto by the Australian government, because fuck gays.

  61. JC

    Of course I have heard of them numbnuts. My objection to your list was the fact that your apparent 4 favourite Bowie songs (and your favourite songs from any band bar the Pistols) were all relatively unknown, obscure songs.

    What’s this stoush about as I missed this one? Ladies please. There are far more important things to bicker about.

  62. The point being that it’s not as popular in gay circles are you think it is.

    Smoking isn’t very popular either. Just ban it I reckon.

  63. Rabz

    A classic indication of someone trying too hard to display their musical knowledge.

    Oh bullshit, you fucking wanker.

    They happen to be my favourite Bowie songs and I’ve heard all his catalogue. It was an entirely subjective list, posted after other commenters on this blog asked to see what was in it.

    What really galled me was your putdown of all the other commenters here who might have taken an interest, you fucking creepy, z-grade tosser.

  64. What’s this stoush about as I missed this one?

    Rabz posted his favourite 25 songs of all time in the open forum a while back, which included maybe 3 songs that have ever been broadcast on a radio station.

  65. What really galled me was your putdown of all the other commenters here who might have taken an interest

    I think you missed the point of that part. I wasn’t putting them down at all. I was making the point that such lists are generally a condescending lecture from the hipster list-creator about how mainstream we all are.

  66. JC

    Rabz posted his favourite 25 songs of all time in the open forum a while back, which included maybe 3 songs that have ever been broadcast on a radio station.

    Which led to a Catallxy style “debate” no doubt. How could it not.

  67. And what really galled you was that the truth hurts, hence you bringing it up again in a completely unrelated topic. Seems like you’ve been stewing over this for weeks. Ouch.

  68. Rabz

    and your favourite songs from any band bar the Pistols

    Again, for the morons present, they weren’t my ‘favourite songs’. It was a list for my niece of artists and songs that I knew she’d never heard and may have wanted to hear, to broaden her musical knowledge.

  69. ummm no I’m not. Read what I said. I commented that i don’t give a shit either way about gay marriage.

    Ok, then you’re arguing the equivalent of “I don’t care if they raise or lower taxes, because taxes should not exist anyway”.

    If you really don’t care about gay marriage, then you should support it. Because there are quite clearly people who want to get married, and the law is preventing them for no good reason.

    Maybe you do support it in private, but pretend not to in the new-and-improved deeply conservative Catallaxy comment threads to fit in?

  70. Rabz

    No, sex tourist, it was because you didn’t cop a proper, well deserved bollocking for your patronising of the commenters on this blog.

    If you hate the music I like, that can only be a good thing.

  71. It was a list for my niece of artists and songs that I knew she’d never heard and may have wanted to hear, to broaden her musical knowledge.

    Really? Because your headline simply said: Rabz’s 25 top-rated songs. No mention of a niece or anything like that.

  72. If you hate the music I like, that can only be a good thing.

    I don’t hate the bands you listed, I was just pointing out how wanky it is to comprise a list of songs most people have never heard and then call it your “top 25 of all time”. It’s just screaming “look how alternative I am!”

  73. Rabz

    a condescending lecture from the hipster list-creator about how mainstream we all are.

    Still not getting it.

    Oh well, you’ve always got your ‘thai pop classics’, creepy boy.

  74. Rabz

    your “top 25 of all time”

    It wasn’t called that.

  75. JC

    Ok, then you’re arguing the equivalent of “I don’t care if they raise or lower taxes, because taxes should not exist anyway”.

    Stop being an idiot. Taxes would impact me either directly or indirectly.

    If you really don’t care about gay marriage, then you should support it. Because there are quite clearly people who want to get married, and the law is preventing them for no good reason.

    I don’t have to have an opinion about everything. I’m not even undecided about it. I really don’t care either way. I do however have an opinion about marriage, which I think is totally fucked up as a result of the family court.

    Maybe you do support it in private, but pretend not to in the new-and-improved deeply conservative Catallaxy comment threads to fit in?

    Oh please, I’ve had the most stoushes out of anyone here with the Bolt zombies and you know it.

  76. Gab

    Rabz
    #1135276, posted on January 4, 2014 at 10:55 pm

    sdfc and carol – take it somewhere else, I’m trying to compile a groundbreaking youtube collection for my niece, FFS!

    Rabz
    #1135373, posted on January 5, 2014 at 12:14 am

    The Rabbi’s top rated Songs – a Taster*:

  77. Thanks Gab. I did not see the post made 90 minutes earlier, obviously. I apologise to Rabz for calling him a hipster.

  78. Stop being an idiot. Taxes would impact me either directly or indirectly.

    So you only care about laws that impact you directly?

    So you don’t care about live export debate, because you aren’t a farmer. You don’t care about Uranium mining since you’re not in the mining industry. You don’t care if we execute all aboriginals because you aren’t aboriginal?

    That’s just a copout.

  79. Rabz

    The Rabbi’s Favourite Songs – a Taster

    I’m not going to go back and find the reference to my niece, which established the premise for the list being compiled in the first place. It was of songs she’d not heard of. We’d had a lengthy discussion at a wedding about music and I noted what she was familiar with and what she wasn’t and promised to send a list of music she’d never heard that she might like.

    And yes, they are some of my favourite songs, but wouldn’t fill out more than a top 100, most of which even you would have heard of.

  80. Rabz

    FFS, I’m not offended at being called a hipster – makes a change from being called a dinosaur!

  81. roger

    Yobbo, I wrote:

    There is no single legal right or responsibility that applies differently to any person in Australia based on their marital status

    You replied:

    Yes, there is. A few of them actually. We have been through this hundreds of times.

    When I asked you to elaborate on what they are, you wrote (emphasis mine):

    The most obvious one is immigration law, Roger. Married couples get far easier entrance requirements than de facto couples. And gay couples that are married legally (e.g. if they got married in Sweden where gay marriage has been legal for a few years), will still be treated as De Facto by the Australian government, because fuck gays.

    If that is the best you could do, mate, then I don’t think you got much of an argument.
    Firstly, I said “in Australia”. Immigration candidates are by definition not Australian Citizenship. Would it be ok to discriminate against an Australian citizens on the basis that they, for example, got AIDS? No, but Immigration freely discriminates against applicants based on that – and many other – bases. They can make a judgement whether or not you will contribute to Australia. (They will also ask you how much money you have. Is that discrimination against the poor? Certainly, but applicants are not citizens yet).
    In any case, as for marital status, I also noticed you did not use definitive/legal terms, just said “easier”. Seems a bit vague for what you call “the most obvious” example.
    As for:

    And gay couples that are married legally (e.g. if they got married in Sweden where gay marriage has been legal for a few years), will still be treated as De Facto by the Australian government, because fuck gays.

    Ummm, if Australia does not recognize gay marriage, wouldn’t it be unlawful to recognize them as married because of the some fuckin’ Swedish law that Australians decided (in their wisdom, if you ask me) that they are not ready to implement here? Sweden is Sweden, and Australia is Australia. In conclusion: the fact that you went to immigrants, rather than Australian citizens, I think says a lot about whether you are really able to challenge my claims.

  82. JC

    So you only care about laws that impact you directly?

    You’re really not good at reading are you?

    Stop being an idiot. Taxes would impact me either directly or indirectly.

    Gay marriage has absolutely no direct nor indirect impact on me. None.
    All those examples would as it would mean reduced economic activity.

  83. Rabz

    Thanks Gabs for doing all the hard work!

  84. Combine_Dave

    I think you missed the point of that part. I wasn’t putting them down at all. I was making the point that such lists are generally a condescending lecture from the hipster list-creator about how mainstream we all are.

    It was a list for my niece of artists and songs

    These two statements are by no means mutually exclusive.

    Also…

    Oh well, you’ve always got your ‘thai pop classics’, creepy boy.

    Waaacist!

  85. Gab

    lol it’s not “hard work”. It took me less than 2 minutes :) Yes, I’m that good!

  86. But as you’ve mentioned his re-election: Obama won because the media arranged it. And, as you might recall, his oppenent wasn’t a conservative Christian but a social liberal Mormon.

    A social liberal Mormon who represents the party of socially conservative fundamentalist Christians.

    Romney was fine. People voted against the republicans in general, not Romney. And that’s the problem they will face going forward. Younger people are increasingly socially liberal and have little tolerance for the morals of 2000 BC.

  87. JC

    Younger people are increasingly socially liberal and have little tolerance for the morals of 2000 BC.

    You realize libertarianism would have the affect of actually promoting socially conservative behavior at the margin, right? Consequences can be costly and people respond to incentives.

  88. Gay marriage has absolutely no direct nor indirect impact on me. None.
    All those examples would as it would mean reduced economic activity.

    Banning gay marriage results in reduced economic activity. Weddings are a decent industry, and Gay couples are comparatively richer than hetero couples, meaning they’ll have lots to spend on a truly fabulous wedding.

    You don’t have a leg to stand on here. None of the arguments you have put forward are consistent with your stance on other things. You might as well just admit its the vibe, or Mabo or whatever.

  89. You realize libertarianism would have the affect of actually promoting socially conservative behavior at the margin, right?

    Voluntary conservative behaviour is fine by me. Feel free to avoid smoking dope when it’s inevitably made legal. I am not concerned with what you do voluntarily. I am concerned with laws banning things that shouldn’t be banned.

  90. candy

    Rabz
    What about the Jet’s “Are you Gonna be My Girl” for your niece. A classic. Just putting that suggestion in there. Even Yobbo might like it? :)

  91. JC

    Banning gay marriage results in reduced economic activity. Weddings are a decent industry, and Gay couples are comparatively richer than hetero couples, meaning they’ll have lots to spend on a truly fabulous wedding.

    Yobbo, I’m indifferent to it. When i say i couldn’t care either way, i really do mean that. If it succeeds in getting done it wouldn’t concern me in the slightest.

    In fact I think it will get done and get done by the liberal government. It’s a hunch i have in that Abbott will get it done.

  92. Yobbo, I’m indifferent to it. When i say i couldn’t care either way, i really do mean that. If it succeeds in getting done it wouldn’t concern me in the slightest.

    You couldn’t give a fuck about the rights of gay people, I get it. Catallaxy has been very clear on their attitude towards gays in the last year or so.

  93. Rabz

    Best we not go there, candy!

  94. Rabz

    Catallaxy has been very clear on their attitude towards gays in the last year or so.

    Yobbo, you don’t do yourself any favours with absurd, generalised smears such as the one above.

  95. Please Rabz, pretty much every thread on Catallaxy has numerous examples of unprovoked anti-gay slurs.

  96. If you don’t agree with the sentiment, maybe you could call them out on it now and then, as I have done (which has seen me branded a “leftist” by some morons).

  97. JC

    Yobbo

    Your argument is absurd from a libertarian point of view. You’re actually demanding that you require a bureaucrat to legitimize a relationship.

  98. Tom

    Banning gay marriage results in reduced economic activity. Weddings are a decent industry, and Gay couples are comparatively richer than hetero couples, meaning they’ll have lots to spend on a truly fabulous wedding.

    You really are a fucktard.

    After the left tires of its excellent gotcha on the straights, there will be about three dozen Priscilla wedding extravaganzas a year for the Oxford Street queens. It will be a non-industry, you gullible fucking clown.

  99. No JC.

    I am arguing that there is already a bureaucracy in place, and that it operates in a discriminatory manner.

    I would be happy to do away with it when it becomes politically feasible. But I do not see any reason to continue to discriminate against gay couples in the meantime.

  100. jupes

    And gay couples that are married legally (e.g. if they got married in Sweden where gay marriage has been legal for a few years), will still be treated as De Facto by the Australian government, because fuck gays.

    What is it with you and gays Yobbo? The complaint above is trivial in the extreme yet here you are week after week, post after post hysterically carrying on as if they are being sent to gulags.

    Get a sense of perspective FFS.

  101. It’s not trivial to the people who are affected by it.

  102. The complaint above is trivial in the extreme yet here you are week after week, post after post

    Actually, it’s the gay obsessed bible thumping crowd who bring up this topic in every post, every week.

  103. For instance in this thread, the topic was brought up by Mr “I don’t give a fuck about gays” himself, in this comment.

  104. roger

    It’s not trivial to the people who are affected by it

    How are you affected by it? Besides… you know… being…. offended? Waaaaaaah!
    P.S.
    I noticed that you did not reply to my previous post. Too many arguments that you don’t know which to choose, right?

  105. jupes

    It’s not trivial to the people who are affected by it.

    Possibly but why does it upset you so much?

    Actually, it’s the gay obsessed bible thumping crowd who bring up this topic in every post, every week.

    No. The most gay obsessed person on this blog is you. Every time your avatar appears, as sure as the sun rises in the East, the subject will turn to the horrendous human rights abuse of gays being treated as de-factos by the Australian government.

  106. Actually, it was way earlier in the thread. By guess who?

    That’s right. Mr “I dont give a fuck about it” brought the topic up twice in the same thread.

  107. No. The most gay obsessed person on this blog is you.

    I have just provided evidence to the contrary. Why don’t you find a thread where I made the first reference to gay people and get back to me.

  108. jupes

    For instance in this thread, the topic was brought up by Mr “I don’t give a fuck about gays” himself, in this comment.

    Sure. That was at 6.32, here you are nearly four hours later still sooking.

    Maybe -just maybe – he was goading you because you are so predictable. Not that JC would do anything so sneaky …

  109. Rabz

    Yobbo, this is a matter of individual perception and thus opinion.

    If two men want to consider themselves married, that’s their prerogative. if I happen to think the concept is absurd, that’s my prerogative.

    What I will not tolerate, is the former being able to use state power to sanction and or render illegal my opinion.

    That doesn’t mean I’m in favour of belittling or abusing gays and lesbians, however much I disapprove of their sexual proclivities.

  110. rebel with cause

    The view that a ‘proper’ libertarian shouldn’t have social preferences regarding marriage or religion etc is very childish and represents a bastardisation of libertarianism.

    I’m a libertarian on the grounds that government intervention usually makes things worse, not better. Being a libertarian doesn’t preclude me from believing that some relationships are superior to others for raising kids. It just means I don’t want the state interfering to promote my preferences, or indeed those of any other individual. Me in a private capacity working to promote my ideals is not however in any way inconsistent with being a libertarian.

    Just because I’m in favour of freedom does not mean I have to approved of all the ways a man may choose to exercise his freedom.

  111. Gab

    Actually the first person to “bring up gays” was Nick Dyrenfurth, but I guess some people never bothered to actually read the article Sinclair linked to. And as usual Yobbo was the first on the thread with the Christian bashing.

  112. Rabz

    I guess some people never bothered to actually read the article

    Why on earth would I want read anything spewed forth by that dire, malignant illiterate?

    If I want to look at rubbish, I’ll go to a tip waste transfer station.

  113. roger

    In this page the phrase “fuck the gays” was used in two different posts.
    (It was quoted in posts several additional times, but used originally only twice).
    Interestingly, these were the only two and both were by the same poster… Guess who?

  114. The view that a ‘proper’ libertarian shouldn’t have social preferences regarding marriage or religion etc is very childish and represents a bastardisation of libertarianism.

    You can have whatever preferences you like. But gay marriage is an issue of law, not preferences.

  115. In this page the phrase “fuck the gays” was used in two different posts.
    (It was quoted in posts several additional times, but used originally only twice).
    Interestingly, these were the only two and both were by the same poster… Guess who?

    What’s your point Roger?

  116. roger

    But gay marriage is an issue of law

    Bullshit.
    We already showed that earlier, before you disengaged the discussion.
    Marriage and Law are totally separate.

  117. james

    Ten is now using the Carrie bickmore comments to promote the Project.

    I think ten is trying very hard to capture a youth market increasingly uninterested in network television. Channel 10 is going broke.

    No wonder.

    also any supposed libertarian willing to support the coercive power of the state to change the definition of the oldest cultural institution universal to the sedentary human existence is no libertarian at all.

    Take a long walk off a short pier and make love to yourself.

  118. We already showed that earlier, before you disengaged the discussion.
    Marriage and Law are totally separate.

    No, you didn’t show that earlier. In what way is this not an issue of law. The law currently does not recognise gay marriages. People want the law changed. If that isn’t an issue of law, then there is no such thing.

  119. Nobody (certainly not me anyway) is asking to mandate laws that say you have to like gay marriage. Only that the government should allow gay couples to enjoy the same rights as hetero couples, by recognising their marriage in the same way they recognise hetero marriage as a more substantial commitment than a de facto relationship.

  120. also any supposed libertarian willing to support the coercive power of the state

    Who is being coerced by allowing gays to get married?

  121. .

    Rabz
    #1144964, posted on January 10, 2014 at 10:34 pm

    FFS, I’m not offended at being called a hipster

    You should be.

    I think a lot of Australians are less than uninterested in religion. It doesn’t register.

    Same for abortion. They don’t like it. They don’t want it completely banned. For the most part, they just don’t care.

    Bernadi has a bunker full of ammo regarding economic management e could hit the ALP with and he still gets drawn into their culture war crap that the ALP’s traditional constituents are simply not interested in.

    Bernadi is wrong and hysterical. If it were legal (by legislation or repeal) for a Mormon mad to marry more than one wife or a gay couple to be married – *insert slipperey slope argument*. Slippery slope has flattend out where these have been legal. No one outside of Peter Singer and some perverts from Holland and Germany want to marry their pets (and eat them).

    As for the argument that families are better off with a traditional family or society is – this is purely rhetorical. It is not the legal basis for anything. It would violate s116 of the constitution (as either positive OR negative rights). This can never be formalised. If you believe in this ideal, I suggest you set up a charitable trust – and do not sell your beliefs to the leviathan.

  122. roger

    What’s your point Roger?

    It is you, champ, that is stirring the pot. Like so many gay activists – I assume that you are one – you are manufacturing gay hatred so you would have what to complain about.
    In America, it is a fact that many (most?) so-called-homophobic hate crimes are later exposed as perpetrated by their alleged victims.
    Your actions in this blog is a form of that bullshit that is going on in America. You got no argument, so you use the alleged hatred. Because there really no hatred for gays here as people here pass judgement on others by what they do publicly rather than what they do in their bedroom – you are forced to manufacture anti-gay hatred because you are desperate and losing the argument. You got no case. There is no discrimination in the law.
    As for our previous discussion re separation of Law and Marriage:
    I wrote:

    There is no single legal right or responsibility that applies differently to any person in Australia based on their marital status

    You tried to refute that but – I claim and posted about it before – failed miserably. You did not reply to that post. You ignored it, but simply got back to re-instate your original claim, though it was contradicted already by me in a previous post you conveniently ignored.
    You are losing the argument, mate. Stop digging.

  123. Andrew

    It is little wonder that Avaaz and so many others left groups are determined to stop any further Fox News media units anywhere in the world

    Some of the filthy leftoid scum I know are outraged that New York based billionaire Murdoch666 can interfere with our elections by actually stating his opinion in meeja he OWNS. And yet they were happy for billionaire-funded NY-based Avaaz to come here and interfere with the election. And get support from Fewfacts in doing so.

    Of course, the same grubs were thrilled by GG Shorten to announce her opposition to the Queen, but outraged that Tim666 is a HRC Commissioner despite opposing the organisation.

  124. steiner

    It’s not possible to contract to the point of equal rights for both partners of a non-marriage relationship. Even if it were, unmarried couples, particularly same sex unmarried couples, are not assumed to have equal rights where it matters: hospital emergency rooms, schools, and retirement homes among many other situations.
    If you think equal rights is a situation where non-married couples just need to have a QC on retainer for all eventualities where their non-married status will cause problems in their decision making for their spouse, then I challenge anyone to argue this represents genuine equality.

  125. .

    In America, it is a fact that many (most?) so-called-homophobic hate crimes are later exposed as perpetrated by their alleged victims.

    ???

    Who mentioned hate crimes? This is seriously OT now.

  126. Because there really no hatred for gays here as people here pass judgement on others by what they do publicly rather than what they do in their bedroom

    What a load of horseshit Roger. Anti-gay epithets like “poofta” 9and worse) are mundane, daily occurrences in the comments thread at the Cat.

    You tried to refute that but – I claim and posted about it before – failed miserably. You did not reply to that post.

    I did reply to that post. I told you about the immigration law. You ignored it. Do you want a link to back up my claim? Here is the immigration website:

    Married applicants

    Your marriage must be valid under Australian law. Underage, polygamous and same-sex marriages are not legal in Australia. The marriage could be valid under limited circumstances if one person is younger than 18 years of age. Same-sex couples can apply for this visa based on their de facto relationship.

    De facto applicants

    Your de facto relationship must have existed for at least 12 months immediately before you apply for this visa. Time spent dating does not count towards the length of your de facto relationship.

    I don’t see how I can make it any more clear. De Facto is both much harder to prove and must be a longer established relationship than a marriage visa. Heterosexual couples can get married to speed up the immigration process. Same sex couples cannot. This is a very real issue of discrimination in law.

  127. Rabz

    Only that the government should allow gay couples to enjoy the same rights as hetero couples, by recognising their marriage in the same way they recognise hetero marriage as a more substantial commitment than a de facto relationship.

    Sorry, but that’s not the government’s role. Gay couples already have the same state mandated ‘rights’ as heterosexual couples.

    You sound as though you’d be happy for them to end up in the family kangaroo court. That’s the one factor that makes me almost want to step back and say, “go for it, you idiots – you wanted it, you got it”. Then we can all sit back and laugh at the horror stories and think, well thank goodness, it’s not only those boring mediocre ol’ straights who are being fucked over by the family kangaroo court.

    And oh how we’ll laugh, long time.

  128. Gay couples already have the same state mandated ‘rights’ as heterosexual couples.

    No sir they do not. See my post directly above yours.

  129. .

    Get rid of the right to be offended /allow private entities to discriminate and clean up the Family Court and society will be a lot better off. Any problems revolving around gay marriage disappear.

    Perhaps it is self centred to think the only reason why some gays want to be able to be married is because they are politically opposed to you and dislike your religion.

  130. Rabz

    There is a very good reason for not recognising same sex marriages declared in foreign jurisdictions.

    Just as there’s a very good reason for not recognising polygamous marriages declared in foreign jurisdictions.

    It’s inconsistent, absurd and contravenes the law in this country.

  131. It is you, champ, that is stirring the pot. Like so many gay activists – I assume that you are one – you are manufacturing gay hatred so you would have what to complain about.

    I didn’t invent JC’s attitude to gay marriage (which basically amounts to: I don’t care if they are discriminated against, because I am not gay). I rephrased it as “fuck the gays”, but that doesn’t change the meaning of what he believes.

    I’m not manufacturing anything. The hatred of gays on this site is very real.

    That’s the one factor that makes me almost want to step back and say, “go for it, you idiots – you wanted it, you got it”. Then we can all sit back and laugh at the horror stories

    The only consolation Rabz can get from the impending legalisation of gay marriage is that it will make some gay people miserable. Nope, no hatred there at all. Nosiree.

  132. steiner

    Get rid of the right to be offended /allow private entities to discriminate and clean up the Family Court and society will be a lot better off. Any problems revolving around gay marriage disappear.

    Great idea – a religious retirement home can switch off the life support of a person over the objection of their same sex partner. Perhaps even over the objection of their married spouse. This is certainly allowing the right of private entities to discriminate. Death panels here we come.

  133. roger

    De Facto is both much harder to prove and must be a longer established relationship than a marriage visa.

    So this is what the terrible anti-gay discrimination comes down to? That for gay couples it is a bit harder (but should still be easily possible) to prove they are couple than married couples? For this little issue you want to radically change the Marriage Law?

  134. It’s inconsistent, absurd and contravenes the law in this country.

    Duh. That’s why people are asking for the law to be changed. You know, the entire argument.

  135. So this is what the terrible anti-gay discrimination comes down to? That for gay couples it is a bit harder (but should still be easily possible) to prove they are couple than married couples? For this little issue you want to radically change the Marriage Law?

    This is not even remotely close to the only issue Roger. You asked me to prove it, and I proved it.

    Now you are shifting the goalposts, like everyone who lost an argument ever.

  136. Rabz

    You slimy cur – you equate my citing of an entirely logical endpoint of the ‘legalisation’ of same sex marriage with a hatred of ‘gays’.

    You’re not worth arguing with, you sanctimonious pillock.

  137. steiner

    And oh how we’ll laugh, long time.

    Well, I suppose you would laugh about it when the hospital switches off life support over the objection of their gay partner because they didn’t have all the required paperwork with them in the emergency room.

  138. Rabz

    You know, the entire argument.

    Australia is still a sovereign nation, pal – as much as self haters like you would wish it to be otherwise.

    Get over yourself.

  139. .

    steiner
    #1145154, posted on January 11, 2014 at 12:12 am

    Get rid of the right to be offended /allow private entities to discriminate and clean up the Family Court and society will be a lot better off. Any problems revolving around gay marriage disappear.

    Great idea – a religious retirement home can switch off the life support of a person over the objection of their same sex partner. Perhaps even over the objection of their married spouse. This is certainly allowing the right of private entities to discriminate. Death panels here we come.

    Why is it when I have tried to be reasonable and civil I get replid to in a discourteous and manic fashion?

    You are saying that *The Baby Jesus Hospital* is going to renege on it’s affirmation of right to life principles because of gays?

    That will never happen. This is not how the church makes decisions.

    You posted here at first like quite a reasonable person, now you are spewing anti religious bigotry grounded in another dimension.

    From a profit based point of view, life support is great. Low running costs and a steady, high revenue stream per each bed.

  140. You do hate gays Rabz. You have never posted anything that was remotely favourable in relation to gay people. You have repeatedly voiced your disapproval of gay relationships, and wished misery and harm on gay people.

    So stop acting like a pissweak victim. Nobody is in any doubt how you feel about gay people. You hate them. You’re a bigot. Deal with it.

  141. Rabz

    Well, I suppose you would laugh about it when the hospital switches off life support over the objection of their gay partner because they didn’t have all the required paperwork with them in the emergency room.

    The same example could be cited in the case of a de facto heterosexual relationship.

    Next.

  142. Rabz

    wished misery and harm on gay people.

    Bullshit.

  143. Gab

    you equate my citing of an entirely logical endpoint of the ‘legalisation’ of same sex marriage with a hatred of ‘gays’.

    Of course to just disagree with homosexual “marriage” is hatred. It’s what all the gay “marriage” activists are saying. They cannot possibly see it any different. It’s the same for people saying they want the illegal boats to stop and are then branded “racists” by leftards. It shuts down the argument on emotive grounds. If a soft form of bullying.

  144. steiner

    “The same example could be cited in the case of a de facto heterosexual relationship.

    Next”

    Rubbish – the absence of gay marriage means there is a cultural assumption that gay partners do not have power of attorney over their significant others. This is an assumption among heterosexual couples.

  145. Rabz

    Wow – that comment at 12:16 really did get to you.

  146. Of course to just disagree with homosexual “marriage” is hatred. It’s what all the gay “marriage” activists are saying. They cannot possibly see it any different. It’s the same for people saying they want the illegal boats to stop and are then branded “racists” by leftards.

    There’s a key difference Gab: We want the boats to stop because the practice is endangering lives. Furthermore, stopping the boats would have zero effect on our total refugee intake. We would just source our refugees from elsewhere. So the left are indeed being retarded when they claim people who want the boats stopped are racist.

    On the other hand, you want Gay marriage banned because you think gay people don’t deserve it.

    The first is an example of compassion. The second, spite.

  147. Rabz

    steiner, produce the legal evidence or a case in point, or fuck off.

  148. Gab

    You need to change your supplier of skunk, yobbo and perhaps try some Nepalese hash to chill you out.

  149. roger

    You earlier wrote:

    The most obvious one is immigration law, Roger. Married couples get far easier entrance requirements than de facto couples. And gay couples that are married legally (e.g. if they got married in Sweden where gay marriage has been legal for a few years), will still be treated as De Facto by the Australian government, because fuck gays.

    I was only referring to what you described as The most obvious one ,when you later quoted me and then added your reply as follows:

    So this is what the terrible anti-gay discrimination comes down to? That for gay couples it is a bit harder (but should still be easily possible) to prove they are couple than married couples? For this little issue you want to radically change the Marriage Law?

    This is not even remotely close to the only issue Roger. You asked me to prove it, and I proved it.

    Now you are shifting the goalposts, like everyone who lost an argument ever.

    What you earlier referred to as “the most obvious one” is now “not even remotely close to the only issue”?

    Lacking consistency much?

    But, hey, let us not get bogged down in semantics and whatnot. Here is another chance, champ:
    What is the most terrible thing about how the Law in Australia discriminates against gay people?
    Looking forward to your reply to this post.

  150. You need to change your supplier of skunk, yobbo and perhaps try some Nepalese hash to chill you out.

    That’s deep, Gab. You are an intellectual lightweight who can’t even begin to mount an argument for your case.

  151. steiner

    That will never happen. This is not how the church makes decisions.

    You posted here at first like quite a reasonable person, now you are spewing anti religious bigotry grounded in another dimension.

    From a profit based point of view, life support is great. Low running costs and a steady, high revenue stream per each bed.

    I am mistaken – I guess you are an originalist scripturalist – the Church should pick up the tab forever for someone to be on life support.
    All hilarity aside, there is no question same sex couples are discriminated against when it matters most – in moments of crisis. There is no assumption of custodial decision making in emergency rooms, schools, or even retirement homes. This makes a mockery of those arguing that there is practical equality as a result of various state and federal laws.

  152. What is the most terrible thing about how the Law in Australia discriminates against gay people?

    The fact that they can never legally be considered spouses to each other, and therefore part of the same legal family, which leads to many cases where the wishes of the spouse are considered secondary to the wishes of the person’s actual legal family.

    You know, kinda like how if the government assumed your brother in law was the person to ask about your wife’s affairs instead of you.

  153. steiner

    “steiner, produce the legal evidence or a case in point, or fuck off.”
    Not buying it – prove what I say is wrong. Sensible people know there are TONS of examples where life support was switched off over the objection of gay partners.

  154. Gab

    I’ve argued a number of times before, posted links refuting your claims and yet your swan song of “you just hate gays and you’re spiteful” is all you’ve got.

  155. Rabz

    Sensible people know there are TONS of examples where life support was switched off over the objection of gay partners.

    You cited it, you prove it.

    Shouldn’t be that difficult if there are ‘TONS” of examples.

    Otherwise, you’re just another bullshitartist.

  156. Rabz

    “you just hate gays and you’re spiteful”

    It’s all they’ve got.

    Pathetic.

  157. roger

    The fact that they can never legally be considered spouses to each other, and therefore part of the same legal family, which leads to many cases where the wishes of the spouse are considered secondary to the wishes of the person’s actual legal family.

    Civil Union creates spouses for any legal purpose – to my knowledge. Actually, even De facto couples I think are spouses for any legal purpose.
    Anyone who is an expert in Law can comment, please?

  158. steiner

    “You cited it, you prove it.

    Shouldn’t be that difficult if there are ‘TONS” of examples.

    Otherwise, you’re just another bullshitartist.”

    I repeat – prove what I say is not true. You are the “bullshitartist” around here – BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS.

  159. JC

    I didn’t invent JC’s attitude to gay marriage (which basically amounts to: I don’t care if they are discriminated against, because I am not gay). I rephrased it as “fuck the gays”, but that doesn’t change the meaning of what he believes.

    I’m not manufacturing anything.

    Well you are because you’re being dishonest or simply unable to comprehend what is or has be told to you before.

    I’ve said a couple of times now, this:

    Oh bullshit. I’ve been talking about how state intervention in marriage has basically fucked it beyond all recognition. I’ve been saying how any young man contemplating marriage ought to be talked out of it.

    In other words I don’t care for marriage. Period. I said I would suggest to all young men to never get married. This is perfectly consistent with my indifference towards gay marriage.

  160. I’ve argued a number of times before, posted links refuting your claims

    You didn’t even participate in the marriage thread, because you weren’t up to it. The entirety of your contribution to that thread was

    Beagles.

    and other assorted single-sentence troll attempts. Pretty sad since you didn’t even come up with the beagle joke yourself, you stole it from CL.

  161. Rabz

    C’mon, steins, one li’l media link – you know you can do it!

    :)

    There’s “TONS” of them, remember?

  162. In other words I don’t care for marriage. Period. I said I would suggest to all young men to never get married. This is perfectly consistent with my indifference towards gay marriage.

    But you don’t want to ban marriage, right? Only keep gay marriage banned.

  163. Rabz

    you stole it from CL.

    Listen, pal, I’ve been responsible for some mighty beagle memes of my own on this blog.

  164. steiner

    “C’mon, steins, one li’l media link – you know you can do it!

    :)

    There’s “TONS” of them, remember?”

    You are saying there is not a single one, correct? C’mon big guy.

  165. Actually, even De facto couples I think are spouses for any legal purpose.
    Anyone who is an expert in Law can comment, please?

    De Facto couples can be asked to prove their relationship exists. Married couples can simply produce their marriage certificate.

  166. roger

    But you don’t want to ban marriage, right? Only keep gay marriage banned.

    Obvious JC has no particular opinion on the matter. When you have no particular opinion on a matter – it is normal that you will be inclined to stick with the status quo.
    JC’s position is the equivalent of “Abstain”, or Obama’s “Present”.
    You guys love those who have no opinion, because unlike people like me – who are staunchly against this idea of ever allowing gay marriage – they seem like easy pray for you. This is why you will not take JC’s “Abstain”/”Present” as an answer. JC – unlike, say, me – is sufficiently uninformed on the issue, eh?

  167. JC is plenty informed. I just plainly don’t believe he has no opinion. He has an opinion on everything. He just isn’t willing to state it, for whatever reason.

  168. JC

    But you don’t want to ban marriage, right? Only keep gay marriage banned.

    No let me repeat again, I’m indifferent to it as I’m indifferent to hetro-marriage which I believe the state has monopolized and fucked up.

    How do you read indifference as being anything other than indifference.

    Do I want to ban marriage? In a way I do sure. I want to state out of the marriage business completely.

    I really don’t understand why you want to twist what I’m saying.

  169. Maybe one of JC’s daughters is gay. Take pity on the poor old duffer.

  170. JC

    JC is plenty informed. I just plainly don’t believe he has no opinion. He has an opinion on everything. He just isn’t willing to state it, for whatever reason.

    You’re a mind reader now Yobbo?

  171. Rabz

    steiner – if you want to make utterly absurd, hysterical (and I would argue, totally fact free) claims on this blog, it helps if you are able to at least post some supporting evidence, e.g. in the form of a link to a media report/study, etc, that might, even if only tangentially, back up your claims.

    C’mon you legend, don’t be just another shouty, petulant, foot stamping li’l nonentity.

    Go!

  172. Rabz

    Oh great, mUttley’s blundered on in.

    :x

  173. JC

    Maybe one of JC’s daughters is gay. Take pity on the poor old duffer.

    What a stupid thing to say.
    Maybe you’re a fat idiot (and for that i have no pity). As far as I know (like any parent) neither of my kids are gay.

  174. dover_beach

    And the whole “get the government out of marriage” trope is a canard used by cowards unwilling to say what they really think: Fuck The Fags.

    Dot’s a homophobe then, I guess.

  175. roger

    De Facto couples can be asked to prove their relationship exists. Married couples can simply produce their marriage certificate.

    That is true for hetero couples as well.
    So let us summarize what we had this evening:
    Yobbo was asked what is the worst aspect of gays unable to marry.
    Reply: it is harder for gay people to establish that they are spouses. (This answer was given several times whenever asked). But, not so. It is exactly as easy for gay couples to prove it as to hetero. Civil union is just as easy as marriage for that purpose. I say, Yobbo, you got NO argument.

  176. dover_beach

    BTW, when did JC become a “gay obsessed bible thumper”?

  177. Rabz

    when did JC become a “gay obsessed bible thumper”?

    It’s not yet on his business card?

  178. JC

    BTW, when did JC become a “gay obsessed bible thumper”?

    I missed that. Is that what yobbo called me? hahahahahahahahhahaha

  179. JC

    Yes the US unemployment rate fell, but it fell because the participation rate fell again by .2% this month.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/payrolls-in-u-s-rise-less-than-forecast-jobless-rate-at-6-7-.html

    Nothing healthy in that.

  180. WhaleHunt Fun

    The best reason to support a ban on SSM is that it annoys the Greens. Whoever or whatever MP Bernardi is, he’s upset the stupid class and that’s always a good thing. Now if only he’d support whaling for fun and profit.

  181. It is exactly as easy for gay couples to prove it as to hetero. Civil union is just as easy as marriage for that purpose.

    Australia does not have civil unions either. And the civil unions that were conducted in the ACT are treated as de facto by the federal government.

    Wrong again.

  182. I missed that. Is that what yobbo called me?

    No, I did not call you that.

  183. roger

    Australia does not have civil unions either.

    From Wikipedia:

    Same-sex couples have access to domestic partnership registries in New South Wales, Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland. Same-sex couples do not share that right in South Australia, though such couples are referred to in state legislation as ‘domestic partners’ and may make a written agreement called a Domestic Partnership Agreement about their living arrangements, so as to be recognised by the state as domestic partners.

    In other words, there is a way to have a document similar to civil union/marriage cert for gays.

  184. steiner

    steiner – if you want to make utterly absurd, hysterical (and I would argue, totally fact free) claims on this blog, it helps if you are able to at least post some supporting evidence, e.g. in the form of a link to a media report/study, etc, that might, even if only tangentially, back up your claims.

    C’mon you legend, don’t be just another shouty, petulant, foot stamping li’l nonentity.

    Go!

    This is seriously tiresome. Please present your facts, or just shut up.

  185. steiner

    “Yes the US unemployment rate fell, but it fell because the participation rate fell again by .2% this month.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-10/payrolls-in-u-s-rise-less-than-forecast-jobless-rate-at-6-7-.html

    Nothing healthy in that.”

    So, acknowledgement after 5 years now that austerity is continuing to cause misery wherever it is inflicted?

  186. Rabz

    Right – so what’s the proportion of heterosexual de facto couples that go out and ‘formally legitimise’ their relationships?

    Until Centrelink comes a knocking, of course.

  187. Rabz

    This is seriously tiresome.

    Great.

    So you obviously have no idea how big an idiot you now look.

    Well done.

  188. dover_beach

    No, I did not call you that.

    and yet:

    Yobbo
    #1145041, posted on January 10, 2014 at 11:10 pm

    The complaint above is trivial in the extreme yet here you are week after week, post after post

    Actually, it’s the gay obsessed bible thumping crowd who bring up this topic in every post, every week.
    Yobbo
    #1145048, posted on January 10, 2014 at 11:13 pm
    For instance in this thread, the topic was brought up by Mr “I don’t give a fuck about gays” himself, in this comment.

  189. steiner

    Great.

    So you obviously have no idea how big an idiot you now look.

    Well done.

    You are now officially at the top of the charts of the dick-swinging-ometer.

  190. JC

    So, acknowledgement after 5 years now that austerity is continuing to cause misery wherever it is inflicted?

    No dickhead, because the US hasn’t followed a severe path of austerity. It’s all in your mind. Unless of course you “thunk” they should have tried to run deficits of 10% of GDP for the past 5 years instead of 6% now.

    They cut spending last year, or at least kept it flat and the economy grew faster than when they had deficits of 10%. Shut up as you have no fucking idea.

  191. squawkbox

    So, acknowledgement after 5 years

    now that austerity is continuing to cause misery wherever it is inflicted?

    So, the Fed printing zillions of dollars for five years is austerity? The trolls get dumber and dumber.

  192. JC

    You are now officially at the top of the charts of the dick-swinging-ometer.

    Well that’s good, no? Better than having a microscopic one.

  193. sdfc

    They cut spending last year, or at least kept it flat and the economy grew faster than when they had deficits of 10%.

    Wouldn’t have had anything to do with the financial crisis would it?

  194. JC

    Nope, unless you think the crisis of 2008 & 2009 in fact occurred in 2010, 11 & 12

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-budget

  195. sdfc

    Well for starters the crisis never went away. The policies of the major central banks tells us that.

  196. sdfc

    You are a leftard fuckwit, Yobbo.

    Dumbest comment ever.

  197. dover_beach

    I did reply to that post. I told you about the immigration law. You ignored it. Do you want a link to back up my claim? Here is the immigration website:

    Married applicants

    Your marriage must be valid under Australian law. Underage, polygamous and same-sex marriages are not legal in Australia. The marriage could be valid under limited circumstances if one person is younger than 18 years of age. Same-sex couples can apply for this visa based on their de facto relationship.

    De facto applicants

    Your de facto relationship must have existed for at least 12 months immediately before you apply for this visa. Time spent dating does not count towards the length of your de facto relationship.

    I don’t see how I can make it any more clear. De Facto is both much harder to prove and must be a longer established relationship than a marriage visa. Heterosexual couples can get married to speed up the immigration process. Same sex couples cannot. This is a very real issue of discrimination in law.

    Little to nothing of this isabout rights. Above you are talking about legal entry into Australia, which is not a right, but a privilege granted to those seeking entry by the state if and when they meet reasonable criteria it is quite entitled to demand. And given there is nothing stopping de facto, polygamous or SS-relationship currently, their rights are undiminished. Morever, why must heterosexual couples marry in order to speed up entry? By your own lights, that is a coercive and discriminatory requirement because it discriminates between de jure and de facto marriages. BTW, proving a de facto relationship is onerous only because you have to prove in fact what is otherwise established by a legal instrument; just as proving a oral agreement is more onerous than proving a written agreement.

  198. BTW, proving a de facto relationship is onerous only because you have to prove in fact what is otherwise established by a legal instrument

    Proving a de facto relationship is onerous because you have to prove 12 months of continuous cohabitation (which is not exactly a walk in the park when you live in 2 different countries) and documented proof of relationship such as joint bank accounts, photos etc (which is extra difficult for same-sex couples if they met in a country where such relationships are still taboo.)

    Hetero couples can avoid all that by simply getting engaged.

  199. dover_beach

    Proving a de facto relationship is onerous because you have to prove 12 months of continuous cohabitation … and documented proof of relationship such as joint bank accounts, photos etc ….

    Yes, proving a relationship in fact may be onerous without an existing legal instrument, just as proving a contract may be onerous without an existing legal instrument.

    Hetero couples can avoid all that by simply getting engaged.

    Yes, but why must they? This is coercive by your own lights. This hetero-couple may have conscientious reasons for avoiding the marital relation; why must they enter into the marital relation in order to expedite their application? Moreover, why privilege the marital relation above friendship at all? I’m unable to emigrate to another country simply because I have a very good friend in said country. Why the discrimination?

  200. Yes, but why must they? This is coercive by your own lights. This hetero-couple may have conscientious reasons for avoiding the marital relation; why must they enter into the marital relation in order to expedite their application? Moreover, why privilege the marital relation above friendship at all? I’m unable to emigrate to another country simply because I have a very good friend in said country. Why the discrimination?

    We get it, you don’t think gay relationships are real relationships. But there’s no anti-gay bias here at the Cat.

  201. Oh come on

    Proving a de facto relationship is onerous because you have to prove 12 months of continuous cohabitation (which is not exactly a walk in the park when you live in 2 different countries) and documented proof of relationship such as joint bank accounts, photos etc (which is extra difficult for same-sex couples if they met in a country where such relationships are still taboo.)

    What? Yobbo, are you making this up as you go along? Married couples have to provide the same kind of proof as de facto couples in poorer countries – in richer countries the requirement for proof of a genuine relationship are less onerous for both married and de facto couples. I know this because I had to do all of the above when applying for a visa for my wife, even though we were married and had a child who was a naturalised Australian citizen at the time the application was lodged. Everyone from that country applying for a partner visa must provide the same proof of a genuine, ongoing relationship that a de facto couple has to provide.

    Being married does nothing to expedite your application. It’s easy to get married.

  202. dover_beach

    We get it, you don’t think gay relationships are real relationships. But there’s no anti-gay bias here at the Cat.

    What? The only real relation is the marital relation? Your posts demonstrate precisely Sinc’s point.

  203. Oh come on

    Hetero couples can avoid all that by simply getting engaged.

    No, this is dead wrong. Have you ever actually done this before, Yobbo?

  204. Being married does nothing to expedite your application. It’s easy to get married.

    Being married removes the requirement to have lived together for 12 months prior to applying. Which is a significant difference.

  205. Oh come on

    Where? There is not a blanket global list of prerequisites. These differ from country to country.

  206. But yes, you are correct that it’s much harder to get your spouse a visa if they are from Thailand/Philippines/Cambodia etc than if they are from the UK or Japan.

  207. Where? There is not a blanket global list of prerequisites. These differ from country to country.

    This information is found on the immigration department page I linked to. De Facto has a requirement of 12 months cohabitation. Marriage does not. Read it yourself.

  208. Oh come on

    In countries where lengthy de facto relationships are uncommon (ie. much of the developing world), a hetero de facto couple need to have a bloody good answer as to why they are not married if they want to get a partner visa. A homosexual de facto couple do not.

  209. De facto applicants

    Your de facto relationship must have existed for at least 12 months immediately before you apply for this visa. Time spent dating does not count towards the length of your de facto relationship.

    Whereas in the case of a marriage, the 12 month requirement is not there. Only that you’re married and are living together now.

  210. http://www.immi.gov.au/Visas/Pages/309-100.aspx

    is the url

    I have to type some more stuff here otherwise the spam filter will eat this post

    blah blah blah

  211. Oh come on

    Yep I just saw it.

    Married applicants

    Your marriage must be valid under Australian law. Underage, polygamous and same-sex marriages are not legal in Australia. The marriage could be valid under limited circumstances if one person is younger than 18 years of age. Same-sex couples can apply for this visa based on their de facto relationship.
    De facto applicants

    Your de facto relationship must have existed for at least 12 months immediately before you apply for this visa. Time spent dating does not count towards the length of your de facto relationship.

    You might be granted a visa without having been in a de facto relationship for 12 months if:

    you can demonstrate compelling and compassionate circumstances, such as having dependent children
    your partner has been granted a permanent humanitarian visa and your de facto relationship existed before it was issued, and you told us about the relationship before the humanitarian visa was granted
    your de facto relationship has been registered in Australia (this is not available in all states and territories).

    The actual criteria used is not disclosed. In practice, a same sex couple can get a partner visa just as easily as a married couple. You can be certain that a married hetero couple who cannot show that proof that they’ve lived together or were in a serious, committed relationship for significantly longer than 12 months is going to face MANY questions and delays.

    In countries where it is forbidden for same sex couples to live together in a de facto relationship (ie Muslim states), they will easily be able to fulfil the following:

    You might be granted a visa without having been in a de facto relationship for 12 months if:
    you can demonstrate compelling and compassionate circumstances.

  212. dover_beach

    Whereas in the case of a marriage, the 12 month requirement is not there.

    Hang on, the 12 month req. is there to demonstrate what the applicant is claiming where there is no marriage certificate.

    Anyway, all of this establishes that we are not talking about a right but a privilege.

  213. Oh come on

    PS. when I applied for my wife’s partner visa, we were asked to provide evidence to show that we had been together for 3 years (usually photos – but also things like e-mail and other correspondence, bills, bank account details etc). We had been together for 5. They then wanted evidence to cover all 5 years. We gave them a whole bunch of stuff. They said we didn’t provide enough photographs (we’d given them 3 or 4 for each year we were together). We gave them another 3 or 4 for each year. That did the trick.

    And we had a strong application (my wife and I being of a similar age and having a child who was an Australian citizen. She rather unusually received a permanent visa straight away, allowing access to Centrelink benefits, study entitlements, full work rights etc upon arrival. Most have to wait 17 months and have a temporary residency visa). They don’t say on that website, but from my own experience and that of many others who have applied for a partner visa, it’s clear that if you’re a married couple and you’ve only been in a relationship for 12 months, you’re going to face SERIOUS obstacles if you don’t have a damn good reason why your relationship was so brief prior to marriage. That’s the way it works in practice.

  214. Oh come on

    A genuine same-sex de facto couple will find it just as easy (or difficult!) to get a partner visa as a genuine married couple.

  215. Yohan

    Putting aside the libertarian ideals about getting the state out of the marriage business (which is my preference), it looks like social trends are quickly moving to legalization of gay marriage, along with the same for marijuana use.
    A historical analogy would be the movement towards women voting and banning of slavery, it quickly spread from country to country within a decade or two.

    So does this mean we should just bite the bullet and get it over with?
    I know the silent majority just don’t like it, but will it be a vote winner for right-conservative parties? Abbott has already had to deal with the mad monk business, and look how they attack Cory Bernadi as an extremist.

    The coalition could open a new front in Labor heartland seats by informing migrant communities exactly of the lefts marriage equality stances. It would be bigoted, extreme, yes and very effective I think. Apparently the Canadian conservative party has done something similar.

  216. Oh come on

    The coalition could open a new front in Labor heartland seats by informing migrant communities exactly of the lefts marriage equality stances. It would be bigoted, extreme, yes and very effective I think. Apparently the Canadian conservative party has done something similar.

    Doubt it. They already know where the left stands on this kind of thing. Of course, when it comes to the hard, unavoidable decisions, the “rainbow coalition” will rupture (think Prop 8 in California). But in the meantime, the gay lobby has deep pockets and is desperate for allies. The “migrant community” is poorly funded and needs a wealthy patron. They’re very complementary allies in that respect, so folk who despise homosexuality will nevertheless hold their noses and break bread out of political expediency – for now.

  217. Keith

    Gosh another gay marriage thread. Quelle surprise!

  218. james

    Left wingers in libertarian drag tend to derail threads bitching about the latest left wing cause.

    Having the state socially engineer society to make things “fair”and”equal” is not libertarianism.

    Changing the definition of the oldest cultural institution in human society using the coercive power of the state is not consistent with libertarianism.

    Western countries embrace of this change is a symptom of the general decline in the importance of family in those lands, with the plummeting birth rates that go with it.

    Passing laws for SSM does not destroy society. Such laws are passed because society is already well on the way to destruction.

    When even the Damn Russians are questioning your commitment to unrealistic dead end ideologies it is time to perhaps take stock.

  219. jupes

    The best reason to support a ban on SSM is that it annoys the Greens.

    And Yobbo.

    11 hours the idiot spent arguing about the horrendous human rights abuse of gays only being recognised as de-facto by the Australian government.

  220. .

    Having the state socially engineer society to make things “fair”and”equal” is not libertarianism.

    No, equality of opportunity is entirely consistent with libertarianism.

    Equality of outcome isn’t. This is where the debate is really at.

    One side thinks it is about rule of law being absent and another thinks it already is being applied.

  221. Jazza

    Keith
    Quelle surprise indeed–though it has descended into a Yobbo/Rabz and JC thread mostly from my computer chair!
    Quelle boring!

  222. 11 hours the idiot spent arguing about the horrendous human rights abuse of gays only being recognised as de-facto by the Australian government.

    Is it a horrendous human rights abuse? Not really, there are far worse things happening around the world. But it is still an example of discrimination, which makes life worse for the people who suffer from it, and it could be done away with by changing three words of legislation. But you guys still refuse to let that happen, mostly out of spite.

  223. Oh come on

    Yobbo, is that the only instance you can find of how a same-sex couple could be disadvantaged* by the fact they cannot be recognised as legally married under Australian law? It’s not a terribly compelling impetus for change, is it?

    Incidentally, I’m in the ‘it’s none of the state’s business’ camp. I also think we have many more important battles to fight which are being neglected due to this incredibly tedious, unimportant debate.

    *for argument’s sake let’s accept this for the moment – even though in practice they are not disadvantaged in the slightest when applying for partner visas compared to married couples

  224. dover_beach

    But you guys still refuse to let that happen, mostly out of spite.

    No, this is a complete and utter lie. I’ve recommend other modes of recognition that don’t require changing the institution of marriage but which would nevertheless deliver the privileges discussed to those in SSM and beyond and this has been constantly rebuked. The reasons for this remain inexplicable.

  225. Yobbo, is that the only instance you can find of how a same-sex couple could be disadvantaged* by the fact they cannot be recognised as legally married under Australian law?

    No, of course not. There are also estate laws, custody issues, power of attorney in medical treatment and a lot of other instances where being formally legally related to your spouse is important.

  226. .

    The reasons for this remain inexplicable.

    As is your reason to “protect” something in all but name.

  227. roger

    As is your reason to “protect” something in all but name.

    The conservative approach to politics is – if you ask me – as follows: If it ain’t broken, don’t fix it.
    Accordingly, there is nothing broken with the definition of marriage as it is now – between man and woman. There is no reason to change it.
    Yobbo’s desperate, repetitive and pathetic attempts to argue otherwise demonstrate the point beautifully. The guy keeps coming back again and again to the need to have a formal document. He knows that such formal arrangement already exists as either civil union – or it may be called something different, which makes no different – in any jurisdiction which recognizes gay couples.

  228. He knows that such formal arrangement already exists as either civil union – or it may be called something different, which makes no different – in any jurisdiction which recognizes gay couples.

    This is simply not true. Australia does not recognise civil unions, and gay couples are treated as de facto in all cases.

  229. And FWIW I would be quite happy with civil unions if they resulted in the exact same legal standing as marriage. I really couldn’t give a shit about the word. But having 2 “separate but equal” legal statuses for what are essentially the same thing seems like an unnecessary bureaucratic burden.

  230. Yes, anyone who speaks out against the cult of baby killing must be drowned out by the bile of the left, it’s all they have left…

  231. roger

    I really couldn’t give a shit about the word.

    Bullshit.
    In my post that you yourself quoted I wrote:

    either civil union – or it may be called something different,

    The fact that it is called domestic partnership – as it is and you know it – rather that civil union does not make any difference in regard to your claim that there is no way for gay couples to formalize their relationship. There is and you know it. Therefore, when you insist that this is not all about the word “marriage” – you lie. Yes, it is. You are a troll.

  232. dover_beach

    Yobbo:

    There are also estate laws, custody issues, power of attorney in medical treatment and a lot of other instances where being formally legally related to your spouse is important.

    Yes, and there maybe no reason why these issues wouldn’t be treated in the same way under a marriage or civil union arrangement. But why assume that they are identical?

    And FWIW I would be quite happy with civil unions if they resulted in the exact same legal standing as marriage. I really couldn’t give a shit about the word. But having 2 “separate but equal” legal statuses for what are essentially the same thing seems like an unnecessary bureaucratic burden.

    Question-begging. Again, why assume they are identical? The claim that they are essentially the same thing has never been successfully argued in a way that avoids denuding the revisionist view of marriage a character distinguishable from friendship. Moreover, why give civil unions and marriage – understood now simply as private, emotional bond between persons of any number – these privileges while not providing them to other private relationships? What are the grounds for this discrimination?

    As is your reason to “protect” something in all but name.

    Dot:
    But I’m not protecting something in all but name. If you have two different legal instruments, one called marriage, and another called civil union, they can be dealt with in a manner appropriate to them when a case is before the court or as they are discussed as a matter of policy.

  233. james

    For near all human history marriage has been the central social institution for raising and socializing children.

    To legally change the definition to extend marriage to relationships without even the slightest biological capacity for child bearing is an absurdity.

    At least a barren straight couple has the plumbing for the perpetuation of life homosexuals do not.

    Apples and oranges are both fruit, but an apple is not an orange.

  234. duncanm

    Paul Sheehan finds points out the idiocy of the Bernardi attack with
    one quote:

    We know the statistics – that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioural problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.”

    And who said that? President Barack Obama, Father’s Day speech, 2008.

  235. Tom

    As Duncan suggests above, Sheehan’s analysis of the book-burning left’s tortured derangement over Bernardi is excellent. Essential reading. I wonder if ShakeMyHead.com will open the comments sewer.

  236. dover_beach

    Good article by Sheehan. What a disgraceful week of bigotry and know-nothingism.. Not since the misogyny speech has more calumny and stupidity been directed at one man.

  237. duncanm

    finds points out the idiocy

    coffee yet to kick in, it would seem.

  238. .

    But I’m not protecting something in all but name. If you have two different legal instruments, one called marriage, and another called civil union, they can be dealt with in a manner appropriate to them when a case is before the court or as they are discussed as a matter of policy.

    Please explain the third (last) clause in the second (last) sentence in that paragraph, DB.

  239. .

    Christ.

    This is hilarious..

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWRPrCg84Qs

    “I am a harvard law alumnus, I am a mining baron, I am driving a very expensive car and I don’t consider the $1000 in my back pocket a large amount of cash…now you are detaining me and you don’t have reasonable cause to even ask me why I used the ATM even if your colleague thinks I withdrew a ‘large’ amount of cash…”

  240. Combine_Dave

    To legally change the definition to extend marriage to relationships without even the slightest biological capacity for child bearing is an absurdity

    Lesbian marriage, ok?

Comments are closed.