Breaking News: SSM Plebiscite is On

This entry was posted in Australian Story, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

183 Responses to Breaking News: SSM Plebiscite is On

  1. Leigh Lowe

    Costs awarded against the mincers and spiky-dykes?

  2. Caveman

    Cool now i can marry my rabbit.

  3. Good line by PM in Parliament saying Shorten must be relieved his previous promise to Australian Christian Lobby will be kept.

    SSM to foot the bill for the Court appearance.

  4. stackja

    Yes will demand No not be heard!

  5. David

    SSM postal vote approved by High Court.

    Greens, Labor devastated

  6. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Silence as court rules

    The High Court has ruled for the federal government in two challenges over the postal survey on same sex marriage. In unanimous decisions the court found for the government and ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs.

    The decisions were met with silence by the court, which was full of supporters of same-sex marriage.

    Two legal challenges to the plebiscite were lodged by independent MP Andrew Wilkie and lobby group Australian Marriage Equality, supported by Greens senator Janet Rice and Rainbow Families convener Felicity Marlowe.

    The parties argued Finance Minister Mathias Cormann invalidly invoked his power to appropriate $122 million for the Australian Bureau of Statistics to run the postal survey, without fulfilling the necessary criteria of an “urgent” and “unforseen” need for the expenditure.

    They also claimed the ABS was not empowered to collect information relating to personal opinions.

    Solicitor-General Stephen Donaghue QC told the court yesterday that the appropriation for the survey was made exactly the same as previous appropriations by governments of both sides.

    Dr Donaghue said there was “no public interest” in the plebiscite being challenged and disputed the claim that receiving the survey form would be offensive for some homosexual people who felt it cast aspersions on the validity of their relationships.

    From the Oz. There is a God – I can imagine Andrew Wilkie doing the hurt face tilty head..

  7. chrisl

    Terrible news…. The people get a say.

  8. RobK

    I can hardly wait for my participation coupon.

  9. C.L.

    Me, earlier today …

    I’m no legal scholar but I can’t see how the Vibe Court can possibly stop the Commonwealth from spending money via the ABS on the marriage survey. Governments have been unilaterally spending money on all sorts of things for years. Unless, of course, they Mabo-miracle some sort of bespoke ‘implied’ bullshit into existence for the occasion.

    I’m putting a lazy thousand on a green light.

    Then there was this bloke:

    Same-sex marriage postal survey ‘likely to be struck down by High Court’.

    George Williams, dean of law at the University of New South Wales, predicted the court would rule quickly on the matter but declared he would be “surprised to see the government emerge with a victory”.

    When do I get a booking at the National Press Club?

  10. Peter Castieau

    Good!

    I’m voting No.

  11. Lysander

    CL – I suspect Dean of Law, George Williams should become an expert at the Australian US Studies Centre.

  12. John64

    The High Court has ruled for the federal government in two challenges over the postal survey on same sex marriage. In unanimous decisions the court found for the government and ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs.

    BTW it’s not the first time the learned Professor George Williams has completely beclowned himself when it comes to opining on Constitutional Law.

  13. George Williams is a first rate clown.

  14. Mike of Marion

    Now those disruptive “NO” bastards get to play ‘spoiler!!”

  15. v_maet

    @CL

    Most people with half a brain could see this was going to go ahead.

    Those who suggested it shouldn’t and hold positions in education or government should be removed from their roles as they are clearly incompetent.

  16. stackja

    George Williams is the go to ‘expert’ for MSM.

  17. A Lurker

    It really is quite simple –

    If you trust politicians – Vote Yes
    If you don’t trust politicians – Vote No

    I wonder what the attempt will be to try and subvert democracy in Australia?

  18. Carbon Emitter

    The said Professor is Labor to the core!

    Now to vote NO

  19. Entropy

    By ‘plaintiffs pay costs’ what does that mean for the upright Mr wilkie and Senator Rice?

    I would be pissed if it means I pay it.

  20. A Lurker

    Gah, that should read…
    “I wonder what the next attempt will be to try and subvert democracy in Australia?”

  21. Leo G

    SSM postal vote approved by High Court.
    Greens, Labor devastated

    I thought they were already married.

  22. John64

    Have the plaintiffs appealed to the Privy Council yet?

  23. Tom

    George Williams, dean of law at the University of New South Wales, predicted the court would rule quickly on the matter but declared he would be “surprised to see the government emerge with a victory”.

    Williams will now be forever a wrongologist who barracks for the lefty tribe against the public interest. Fuck the law and the constitution, eh, George? The tribe is everythink.

    What an advertisement for the severely educated.

  24. stackja

    Entropy
    #2491065, posted on September 7, 2017 at 2:44 pm
    By ‘plaintiffs pay costs’ what does that mean for the upright Mr wilkie and Senator Rice?

    I would be pissed if it means I pay it.

    MPs have much OPM.

  25. chrisl

    I can’t believe taxpayers get a say in a democracy. It seems so unfair!

  26. Senile Old Guy

    ABC:

    The voluntary postal vote will go ahead as planned with the High Court ruling it is indeed constitutional. This is the option the Government was hoping for.

    The ABS will start sending out ballot papers from Tuesday and everyone should have received their survey form by September 25.

    They paper will ask “should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry?” but returning the survey and participating in the ballot is optional.

    As usual…

    The Australian Greens are “disappointed” with the High Court’s decision but have promised to continue campaigning for same sex marriage. Here’s Senator Janet Rice:

    I’m very disappointed that the High Court challenge was not successful, especially in the face of what has already been a damaging and untruthful campaign by the ‘no’ side.

    It has been a real privilege to be part of this legal challenge alongside Australian Marriage Equality, and to be so well represented by the legal team led by the Human Rights Law Centre and our barrister Katherine Richardson.

    It is shameful that the government has chosen to put a matter of human rights to a public opinion poll.

    So it is “shameful” for us to vote on human rights but fine for parliament? Because they are better than us?

    The “damaging and untruthful campaign” consists of one dodgy poster, which was photographed once, before disappearing without trace? Or perhaps she is referring the phony image printed by a newspaper?

  27. Geriatric Mayfly

    What an advertisement for the severely educated.

    Tom. Nice to see David Thompson’s pearler getting currency. There will be a huge muster of the severely educated for tonight’s fillas on the ABC and SBS.

  28. manalive

    A non-issue, a distraction from the severe problems facing the nation, I don’t give two hoots and won’t be voting.
    Why does any couple straight or gay need state recognition?

  29. lotocoti

    Will JC’s Hotline be rostering on an extra shift?

  30. Geriatric Mayfly

    the claim that receiving the survey form would be offensive for some homosexual people who felt it cast aspersions on the validity of their relationships.

    They can always run to the HRC tears welling, thumb in mouth, trailing their bysies behind them.

  31. Baldrick

    Love is Love:

    Simon Chote @SimonChote
    Fuck the “High Court” of Australia. Bunch of c*nts. Who are probably high.
    ______
    Artisan @Skualg
    Fuck the High Court of Australia.
    ______
    Chrisentiae @Chrisentiae
    FUCK the Australian Government and FUCK the High Court !!!
    ______
    jenn 👸🏽🐝 @witheyesshut
    Turnbull is a c*nt and so is the ABS and the high court
    ______
    ashley🌈 @rosesrowan
    thanks for nothing @ high court you fuckers xoxoxo

  32. Snoopy

    Baldrick
    #2491081, posted on September 7, 2017 at 3:07 pm
    Love is Love:

    Feel the lurve!

  33. Senile Old Guy

    Love is Love:

    Simon Chote @SimonChote
    Fuck the “High Court” of Australia. Bunch of c*nts. Who are probably high.

    I see the “respectful” discussion has already begun!

  34. Boambee John

    The tears of the left are as fine red wine to me!

  35. Tom

    Love is Love

    … in a hatey-hate kind of way.

    The left is in a rage against democracy and the common man.

    They think no-one has noticed.

  36. Slim Cognito

    I’m interested to see where Wilkie gets the case from. Not his own pocket for sure.

    BTW, JOHN64, appeals to Privy Council have been abolished. The High Court is the end of the line. Not sure if your comment was tongue in cheek. My sarcasm filter is on.

  37. Senile Old Guy

    Exchange in Senate:

    WONG: Is this postal survey “a referendum on freedoms and radical LGBTIQ sex education in schools” as Mr Lyle Shelton from the ACL has asserted?

    BRANDIS: No, it is a survey to determine the opinion of the Australian people on the question that is asked, and the question is should the law be changed to allow same sex couples to marry. That is the only question to which the Australian people are being asked their advice.

    WONG: Is this issue to be determined by this survey a vote on “political correctness” as Senator Eric Abetz has asserted?

    BRANDIS: No Senator and I refer to my earlier answer.

    Aren’t you glad we pay for this? Wong, having been on the losing side (despite earlier arguing against SSM), will have a tantrum.

  38. RobK

    The “yes” vote did say it would get divisive and ugly. Now we see what they mean..

  39. John64

    Not sure if your comment was tongue in cheek.

    It was; then again, maybe not, given the topic under discussion. 🙂

    The SSM activists will stop at nothing to sabotage the postal survey. Could the CEPU instruct its members not to deliver the letters containing the survey forms?

  40. H B Bear

    Leigh Lowe on the Open Thread
    Part of me sort of wanted the HC to come down with an clear and unequivocal ruling that no spending could be made on a discretionary basis without going through Parliament.

    Yep would have been nice to see the High Court impose some constraints around unlegislated, discretionary pork barrelling but I can’t see it happening.

  41. candy

    The Left are secretly happy. By all accounts and polls, the SSM vote will be “yes” by quite a margin.

    There’s a tiny tiny tiny chance it could go 51-49 to either side, and each side would be justified in saying the vote is invalid, as it is voluntary.

  42. True Aussie

    Its not a plebiscite Sinc. Its a giant waste of taxpayers money that is going to be abused by ‘box stuffers’. Trumble should have not backed down on the real plebiscite.

  43. cui bono

    George Williams has tweeted:
    “The High Court has spoken. I thought the result might go the other way, but it shows what difference two days of argument can make.”

    So they should have had half an hour each?
    He comments without bothering to read the HC’s reasoning?

  44. Senile Old Guy

    ABC:

    Independent Tasmanian MP Andrew Wilkie took the same sex marriage postal survey to the High Court and lost. Here’s the media statement he released a few short moments ago.

    I’m obviously disappointed that the High Court did not rule in our favour and strike down the Government’s wasteful, non-binding, non-compulsory postal vote on marriage equality. Regardless of the legality, this is and always was bad government policy. We’ve already seen how divisive and hurtful this postal vote can be, and the best solution remains for parliamentarians to just do their jobs and vote on the issue.

    Hypocrite.

  45. Hydra

    What a terrible, terrible precedent that has been set.

  46. Senile Old Guy

    Its not a plebiscite Sinc. Its a giant waste of taxpayers money that is going to be abused by ‘box stuffers’. Trumble should have not backed down on the real plebiscite.

    With the ALP and Greens opposed and a majority in the Senate? How does that work?

  47. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    The tears of the left are as fine red wine to me!

    May I steal that phrase, and use those words shamelessly and without attribution?

  48. Mark M

    That moment when you realise you lost:

    2.17pm note for Opposition Leader Bill Shorten

    https://twitter.com/ellinghausen/status/905652801786658818

  49. Cool now i can marry my rabbit.

    And I can marry the leaf blower. (2 stroke)

  50. Tim Neilson

    The Left are secretly happy. By all accounts and polls, the SSM vote will be “yes” by quite a margin.

    The Left are never “happy”. They’re either screaming with incandescent fury or belligerently jeering in triumphalism. “Happiness” is a totally foreign concept to them.

    And I think their incandescent fury is genuine this time. I agree that they are probably going to win by a large margin (whether legitimately or by some sort of “adjusting the data”). However I think that they don’t regard that as certain, which is why they are going full H1tlerite in their opposition to all those ghastly ordinary people being allowed to express an opinion.

  51. stackja

    Nigel Farage‏Verified account
    @Nigel_Farage
    You’ve got to be joking.

    Oxford student union offers emotional ‘support’ for those affected by vice-Chancellor’s ‘snowflake’ comments

    Luke Mintz Camilla Turner, education editor
    5 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 8:37PM
    Oxford University students have been offered emotional “support” by their student union ​if they were adversely affected by their vice-Chancellor’s comments that it is not her job shield them from controversial opinions.

    Professor Louise Richardson provoked a furious backlash when she said that students who are upset with their tutors for expressing views against homosexuality should “challenge” them, rather than reporting their tutors to university authorities.

  52. RobK

    Hydra,
    What a terrible, terrible precedent that has been set.

    How so?

  53. Cool now i can marry my rabbit.

    Do you use duct tape?

  54. RobK

    Hydra,
    “What a terrible, terrible precedent that has been set.”

    How so?…….the government seeks to know the will of the people.

  55. rickw

    Great!

    And the answer is:

    NO!

    Terrible news…. The people get a say.

    Yep, but just wait until our noxious politicians get an answer the don’t like: “the people have erred in their judgement and therefore……”

  56. Up The Workers!

    Q.W.E.R.T.Y.L.G.B.T.Q.I.S.S.M.A.L.P.A.C.T.U.A.L.P.B.C.- F.U.!

  57. Cool now i can marry my rabbit.

    Yes. It will serve the children of your union well.

  58. C.L.

    George Williams has tweeted:
    “The High Court has spoken. I thought the result might go the other way, but it shows what difference two days of argument can make.”

    What a nimrod.

  59. Atoms for Peace

    So many ways to say no.
    Hmmm ; Hawaiin “A Ole” works for me .

    ne, nee, nein, no , non..the list goes on

  60. Senile Old Guy

    The No campaign will now ramp up its campaign, as will the Yes campaign. And the conservative rump inside the Coalition will switch its attention to the religious protections inside the Dean Smith bill. Smith et al argue the bill offers the most extensive religious protections of any one of the 16 bills that have dealt with marriage over the years. And Christopher Pyne, for one, told ABC TV’s Insiders program on Sunday the protections inside the Smith bill are sufficient.

    And we will have to trust them.

    Vote “no”.

  61. Robber Baron

    Where are the adults? The spoiled brat children are in charge and we ordinary taxpayers and electors need to send the strongest message possible to these people.

    NO.

    NO.

    NO.

    NO MORE.

    ENOUGH.

    GO. AWAY.

  62. The Deplorable Barking Toad

    Thank you Mark M @3:43

    That link has just been emailed to a fair few…hehe

  63. stackja

    2GB quoting Alex Greenwich Mean Time about been what?

  64. C.L.

    LOL. Radio news reported that Yessers are saying they’ll battle on despite being clear “underdogs.”

  65. stackja

    C.L.
    #2491136, posted on September 7, 2017 at 4:07 pm
    LOL. Radio news reported that Yessers are saying they’ll battle on despite being clear “underdogs.”

    Yessers underdogs “the beaten dog in a fight”? SSM want dogs?

  66. rickw

    “What a terrible, terrible precedent that has been set.”

    Yes, but:

    The last thing on any career politicians mind is voting and acting in accordance with the wishes of their constituency or the founding principles of Australian Democracy, or even Western Democracy, or Judeo Christian principles, or any other relevant concept you care to mention.

    They are all clearly beholded to something else, and from all indications, this has been done quite cheaply.

    On this basis I would prefer to be occasionally ravaged by unrestrained democratic votes by the people, rather than consistently ravaged by the unrepresentative swill that is our political class.

    Consider an important turning point such as JWH’s 1996 Gun Laws, all principles were cast aside by our politicians. In hindsight, gun owners getting fucked by politicians was a certainty, gun owners getting fucked by a direct vote on the matter was only a possibility.

    Direct votes on issues by citizens is currently less dangerous than votes on issues by our treacherous politicians.

  67. Up The Workers!

    Well, I guess it is now left in the hands of those good A.L.P.-affiliated members of the C.P.S.U at the A.B.S. to creatively “lose” the parcels of “No” votes, just like the A.L.P.-affiliated members of the A.E.C. “lost” the parcel of Liberal votes in that close W.A. Senate election a few years ago, and all those evidentiary items concerning Juliar Gillard which collectively “disappeared” from Court files and secure Government archives.

    A.L.P. – they’re so bent, they can corrupt around corners.

  68. duncanm

    It is shameful that the government has chosen to put a matter of human rights to a public opinion poll.

    the Greens seem confused. There is no international human rights convention that requires the state to recognise same-sex marriage.

    Right to Marry

    ICCPR Article 23 states:

    1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
    2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized

  69. Fergus

    The Labour pollies only support it when they are not in power. If they were in power they would football it elsewhere, despite what Shorten says about introducing it in the first 100 days. The margin to get their pollies across the line in many electorates is dependent on voters who would be against SSM, eg Muslims, some Aboriginal communities. Same for the Liberals. Both lots “support” SSM so long as it’s not them introducing it. That’s why it’s gone on for so long, and why they haven’t made one scintilla of effort to address the religious and “slippery slope” issues. And both issues can be addressed.

  70. stackja

    Now can we have a plebiscite on who gets welfare, and another on electricity generation, etc.
    More plebiscites less parliament.

  71. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Now can we have a plebiscite on who gets welfare, and another on electricity generation, etc.
    More plebiscites less parliament.

    Indeed – plebiscites on further immigration, the practice of certain religions – could always go “totus porcus’ and vote as to whether we bring back capital punishment.

  72. stackja

    Zulu Kilo Two Alpha
    #2491152, posted on September 7, 2017 at 4:20 pm
    Now can we have a plebiscite on who gets welfare, and another on electricity generation, etc.
    More plebiscites less parliament.

    Indeed – plebiscites on further immigration, the practice of certain religions – could always go “totus porcus’ and vote as to whether we bring back capital punishment.

    People telling MPs? Oh, shock horror!

  73. Fergus

    AHRC , on it’s website, cannot even give a definition of Human Rights”. It wriggles and squirms.
    https://www.humanrights.gov.au/human-rights-explained-fact-sheet-1-defining-human-rights

  74. Tim Neilson

    WONG: Is this issue to be determined by this survey a vote on “political correctness” as Senator Eric Abetz has asserted?

    The correct answer is that every Australian is permitted to vote how they like for whatever reason they like, and if Wong doesn’t like it she’s at liberty to emigrate to North Korea.

  75. stackja

    Tim Neilson
    #2491162, posted on September 7, 2017 at 4:31 pm

    Wong can’t go home!

    LGBT rights are largely unrecognised in Malaysia.

  76. old bloke

    John64
    #2491068, posted on September 7, 2017 at 2:49 pm

    Have the plaintiffs appealed to the Privy Council yet?

    No, they are going to follow the same process taken by WADA’s appeal against Essendon, and take the matter to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. They might be able to buy the decision they want there.

  77. A Lurker

    Opening Pandora’s Box.
    What’s changed in Britain since same-sex marriage?
    From the Spectator magazine.

    “Four years ago, amid much uncertainty, 400 British members of parliament voted to redefine marriage in the United Kingdom.
    Then prime minister David Cameron announced that, despite having made no mention of the issue in his party’s pre-election manifesto, it would be MP’s who decided the fate of marriage.
    Now, it’s Australia’s turn to choose. There’s one key difference. Unlike in Britain, it will be the people who decide.
    Everyone agrees, whether they admit it or not. This is a decision of enormous significance.
    Therefore, it seems sensible to analyse the consequences of the potential change, within nations in which redefinition has previously been carried out.
    In the United Kingdom, it has become abundantly clear that redefinition has affected many people, across many spheres. At first glance, these spheres appeared distinct from marriage redefinition. However, subsequent changes, have proved that they are entirely intertwined.”

    The rest of the article is a must-read.

  78. candy

    Malcolm Turnbull, J. Bishop and G. Brandis picture themselves invited to the first gay wedding in Australia.
    (not joking).

    M. Turnbull especially sees himself as the hero of gays, bringing SSM to Australia, a hero to progressives everywhere.
    Bill Shorten very sad; he wanted to be the hero.

  79. Tim Neilson;
    The Left are never happy. They are either at your throat or at your feet.

  80. Roger

    The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    Protection, not subversion; we expect nothing less than subversion of traditional virtues from the Greens & New Labor but with a couple of notable exceptions the Liberals have let Australians down badly by their lack of leadership on such a fundamental matter.

    [Btw, George Williams is a Labor lawyer whose speciality in Constitutional law makes him a go to commenter on such matters for the ABC. He is a serial wrongologist who would have been dropped from any impartial roster of expert commenters ages ago.]

  81. Senile Old Guy

    This attitude is surprising. The Attorney-General was unhesitating in slamming One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson for offending ‘religious sensibilities’ by wearing an Islamic cultural garment in parliament – to the delight of Labor and the Greens – but just days later was blasé about legal impediments potentially being placed on Australians with religious and traditional beliefs.

    The only one engaging in trickery here is Brandis. As the chief legal officer of the Crown, he surely understands that all Acts of Parliament, regulations and the common law form a single, interconnected body of law. So while the Attorney-General may believe the marriage debate should be held in isolation, there is an inevitable question that must be acknowledged as to how a change to the Marriage Act would affect other areas of law.

    Above is from a piece just up at ipa.org.au

  82. stackja

    Roger
    #2491176, posted on September 7, 2017 at 4:41 pm

    Most MPs today have lost the common touch. Just using MSM and little contact with people.
    Voters have to ignore any ‘MSM politics’.

  83. Atoms for Peace

    Do you reckon that an SSM dummy spit will cause more damage than a champagne cork? I’m always curious about things like this..

  84. alexnoaholdmate

    Every constitutional expert from up hill and down dale states that the plebiscite will be found to be illegal.

    High Court rules unanimously in its favour.

    Yet these same shameless wrongologists will be lining up to give their expert opinions to the media next time, no doubt.

  85. Senile Old Guy

    Liberal MP Warren Entsch was someone who agitated for a free vote in Parliament. He’s just given an interesting quote to Sky News:

    I have always said that I am determined to have a vote in Parliament, one way or another.

    While this could be read as being supporting of the postal vote going ahead, it could also be read as a warning of what could happen if the Australian public comes back with a no vote.

    To be fair, Mr Entsch was then asked about what he would do in the case of a no vote and he said he would not be speculating on that.

    So that’s an up yours from Entsch.

  86. alexnoaholdmate

    Cool now i can marry my rabbit

    Q: What do you get when you cross an elephant and a rabbit?

    A: A dead rabbit with an arsehole this big…

  87. Oh come on

    I’m putting a lazy thousand on a green light.

    Did you? If so, nice one!

  88. Tom

    What a terrible, terrible precedent that has been set.

    Yes, Hydra. It’s dreadful that voters should be allowed a say in our democracy.

  89. Sparkle Motion

    I guess the high court wasn’t feeling plebiscidal.

  90. Oh come on

    I am voting ‘no’ for the following two reasons:

    – this is a Trojan Horse project of the left to blow up one of our society’s most important institutions by corrupting its definition and then use the proxy violence of the state to force other predominantly conservative institutions to accept that corrupted definition

    – why would you vote yes in any referendum or plebiscite when you have no idea what the substance of the related legislation would be? That’s insane, regardless of the issue

  91. Boambee John

    Zulu at 1538

    May I steal that phrase, and use those words shamelessly and without attribution?

    Be my guest, spread it far and wide!

  92. Lysander

    To anyone who votes “yes” or abstains from voting because you’re a “libertarian,” I’d just like to make one point:

    – If the yes campaign gets up, it will prove to their ABC that they can peddle a question every Monday night for years, make it a Feature Story every night on every outlet until it becomes their political play thing, a “real” issue, then a reality.

    I couldn’t give a shit if you don’t want to vote for “libertarian” reasons, this vote is about telling the ABC: “You don’t run the agenda.” (and no, I did not take this advice from SRR)

  93. Gab

    So what’s their next tactic? How are they now going to thwart the plebiscite?

  94. Caveman

    How are they now going to thwart the plebiscite?

    Those that had registered to vote but dont vote will then be deemed to have voted Yes.

  95. hzhousewife

    I look forward to an increased explosion of outrage to come from every quarter, because all it will do is recruit more “no” votes, most people are heartily sick of the increasingly disgusting behaviour of unhinged “yes” thinkers.
    Thank you Lurker for the Spectator article link, I am sharing it.

  96. hzhousewife

    Those that had registered to vote but dont vote will then be deemed to have voted Yes.

    How so?

  97. Tim Neilson

    So what’s their next tactic? How are they now going to thwart the plebiscite?

    The postal unions will vet the ballot papers.
    Or even if they can’t actually tamper with them, ballots from rural and regional areas and places with large pentecostal populations will never arrive at the ABS.

  98. hzhousewife

    I will walk my ballot into the AEC office in the block over from the supermarket I use.

  99. hzhousewife

    Those that had registered to vote but dont vote will then be deemed to have voted Yes

    Geez Caveman, don’t go giving them ideas

  100. Empire GTHO Phase III

    When do I get a booking at the National Press Club?

    I’d like to see that CL, but the moment five minutes into your address when the presstitutes simultaneously and spontaneously commit harakiri, will not be televised.

    Still, it’s all about the result, not the entertainment value.

  101. Empire GTHO Phase III

    All those young progressive folks who registered to vote for lurrrv, will vote at the next federal election.

    Trumble has just guaranteed his own demise.

  102. Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    One of the added benefits of voting NO is how much it will irritate Shorten.

  103. Marcus Classis

    manalive
    #2491075, posted on September 7, 2017 at 2:58 pm
    A non-issue, a distraction from the severe problems facing the nation, I don’t give two hoots and won’t be voting.
    Why does any couple straight or gay need state recognition?

    Unfortunately, not voting is the same as voting ‘yes’.

  104. JC

    It’s wrong, it’s criminal behavior but I just couldn’t stop laughing – especially when the older woman said she had to drive home with a giant penis on her car.

    Netflix trailer for a new show. I reckon he did it too.

    The dramatic story of 27 giant penises on 27 cars.

  105. Mike of Marion

    hzhousewife
    #2491226, posted on September 7, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    ABS are running the Vote, not the AEC.

    I’d wait to see how the postal votes will be handled.

  106. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    One of the added benefits of voting NO is how much it will irritate Shorten.

    And Andrew Wilkie and Penny Wong…

  107. Just Interested

    It is reported that:

    In a decision lasting only minutes, High Court Chief Justice Susan Kiefel dismissed the plaintiffs’ challenges, and ordered them to pay costs. She said the minister had acted within his right in authorising a $122 million advance for the postal survey, telling the court: “Section 10 [of the Appropriation Act], on its proper construction, did authorise the Finance Minister to make the determination.”

    Section 10 of the Appropriation Act reads, as relevant:

    10 Advance to the Finance Minister
    (1) This section applies if the Finance Minister is satisfied that there is an urgent need for expenditure, in the current year, that is not provided for, or is insufficiently provided for, in Schedule 1:
    (a) because of an erroneous omission or understatement; or
    (b) because the expenditure was unforeseen until after the last day on which it was practicable to provide for it in the Bill for this Act before that Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives.

    The reasons will be some time away, however, best stab at the reason the Government got up:

    1. The ABS has the legal capacity to do ‘surveys’;

    2. The ‘proper construction of the phrase ‘Finance Minister is satisfied that there is an urgent need….’ means that the test is what the Finance Minister subjectively thinks is urgent – his state of mind is all that matters;

    3. I guess that no-one knew on budget day that the Parliament would knock back the plebiscite and so the expenditure was not unforeseen; therefore

    4. Presto – funding a (mega) ABS ‘survey is a valid use of the Finance Minister’s advance.

    This approach to construing appropriation laws would at least be, for better or worse consistent to the Combet case and also consistent with the post Mason-Brennan Court practice of effectively letting the ballot box rather lawfare settle legal controversies.

    Will be interesting to see how close this is to what is contained in the decision!

  108. hzhousewife

    hzhousewife
    #2491226, posted on September 7, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    ABS are running the Vote, not the AEC.

    I’d wait to see how the postal votes will be handled.

    Ahhh, yes, silly me. Bummer.

  109. Uh oh

    Adam Bandt says he will be working his backside off to get the yes vote through. I dare say he won’t be the only one.

  110. Tim Neilson

    Adam Bandt says he will be working his backside off to get the yes vote through. I dare say he won’t be the only one.

    The strange thing about a double entendre is that it only means one thing. (Ronnie Barker, from memory.)

  111. P

    Uh oh #2491244, posted on September 7, 2017 at 6:08 pm

    Adam Bandt says he will be working his backside off to get the yes vote through.
    I dare say he won’t be the only one.

    Thank you Uh oh. The best on this thread!

  112. RobK

    “Adam Bandt says he will be working his backside off “
    Oh dear, things are starting to get ugly. Why doesn’t he just say he’ll be rooting for them.

  113. Tom

    Unfortunately, not voting is the same as voting ‘yes’.

    Correct.

  114. I like Candy on this one, I don’t know why anybody is celebrating, this is a huge blow to the democratic process, and a loss to freedom. They would not allow a postal vote if they could not control it.

    We were not allowed to have a proper referendum and had to settle for a unrepresentative easlily manipulated procedure. The postal plebiscite will be gamed and defrauded to the point of cruelty.

    They will be empowered in the persecution of dissenters because they will say, WE WON the referendum and its our right to crush the evil Christians who oppose us.

  115. RobK

    Put more correctly, not voting is giving your vote to the opposition of what you would have voted for.

  116. Senile Old Guy

    I like Candy on this one, I don’t know why anybody is celebrating, this is a huge blow to the democratic process, and a loss to freedom. They would not allow a postal vote if they could not control it.

    It is the closest thing to a win that the LNP could get. The ALP and Greens blocked everything else. So it is either this or a vote in Parliament (known to favour SSM). The ALP and Greens have the numbers in the Senate to block anything and would only vote “yes” to SSM.

  117. Muddy

    Could the CEPU instruct its members not to deliver the letters containing the survey forms?

    That pressure has already begun. A week or two ago (my memory isn’t where I left it), there was mention that a union had written to Australia Post to remind them of some obligation not to carry mail that could be seen as threatening, or some such thing. So it wouldn’t be surprising if mail went missing. How would they know if a vote was for yes or no, though?

    The so-called Liberal Party, if there were any bright sparks within it, could use this SSM business to annihilate at least the Year Zero ferals (the ‘Greens’), if not Labor as well. It is such a political gift going begging.

  118. Tim Neilson

    We were not allowed to have a proper referendum and had to settle for a unrepresentative easlily manipulated procedure. The postal plebiscite will be gamed and defrauded to the point of cruelty.

    They will be empowered in the persecution of dissenters because they will say, WE WON the referendum and its our right to crush the evil Christians who oppose us.

    That may well be true but if they got their way and we didn’t have a vote they’d do it anyway. Peanut Head will win the next election with a policy of legislating SS”M”, it will be put through, and the totalitarians will say “we won the election, a democratically elected Parliament has enacted it [no doubt with zero protections for free speech and religious belief] and its our right to crush the evil Christians who oppose us”.

    We might as well have the vote. It’s just possible that, like with Trump in the US, it’s too hard for them to achieve the fraud.

  119. Tim Neilson

    PS Jannie, at least with the vote, the totalitarians may well put some lies on the record saying “oh don’t worry free speech and religious belief will be protected”. Sure those promises will be meaningless, but at least they’ll have to reveal their dishonesty when the time comes. On the other hand if it just goes straight to a Parliamentary vote, especially under a Peanut Head regime, free speech and religious belief protections won’t even be mentioned.

  120. Old Guy, what is the point of taking the best on offer when it is a guaranteed dud? It would be better for them to force the issue without the fig leaf of a democratic process. The Senate is unrepresentative swill, that’s understood, but a plebiscite implies a peoples vote and history will not remember the fraud involved.

  121. Atoms;

    Do you reckon that an SSM dummy spit will cause more damage than a champagne cork? I’m always curious about things like this..

    Depends which orifice it is occupying when the object is ejected…

  122. Roger

    They will be empowered in the persecution of dissenters because they will say, WE WON the referendum and its our right to crush the evil Christians who oppose us.

    No, no; George Brandis has promised us that won’t happen.

    [Need I add “sarc off?”]

  123. Roger

    Richard di Natale on national news:

    “We will work our butts off” supporting ssm.

    No doubt.

  124. OCO:

    I am voting ‘no’ for the following two reasons:

    – this is a Trojan Horse project of the left to blow up one of our society’s most important institutions by corrupting its definition and then use the proxy violence of the state to force other predominantly conservative institutions to accept that corrupted definition

    – why would you vote yes in any referendum or plebiscite when you have no idea what the substance of the related legislation would be? That’s insane, regardless of the issue

    Thankyou. That went straight to the pool room.

  125. Senile Old Guy

    Old Guy, what is the point of taking the best on offer when it is a guaranteed dud? It would be better for them to force the issue without the fig leaf of a democratic process.

    The LNP took the promise of a plebiscite to the election, so they had to try to follow through. Turnbull, to his credit, has tried to. Not attempting a plebiscite, of any kind, would be the ruin of Turnbull, the LNP, and probably split the party.

    Further, the opinion polls show a consistent majority in favour of SSM (although they are probably biased), so it is a low risk strategy. If the “yes” is similar to the polls, no problem for SSM. If the “yes” vote is lower, it will show the polls, or the vote, has been rigged. If the “no” vote wins, the left will continue to lobby for SSM until they get it (when the ALP wins the next election).

    Finally, a vote in Parliament is democratic; or else you are arguing that the house itself is undemocratic and you will not get too far with that.

  126. stackja

    Left must be fought by any means at disposal. SSM is just another round.

  127. Oh come on

    To anyone who votes “yes” or abstains from voting because you’re a “libertarian

    You should vote no as a libertarian for the simple reason that you actually have no idea what you’re voting for and you don’t trust governments to do the right thing.

    The No camp should fly Nancy Pelosi over here to tell us all that we have to vote ‘yes’ to find out what’s in the bill.

  128. Deplorable

    Our household is a NO vote and we want our say.

  129. Oh come on

    Even supporters of SSM should vote no. They have absolutely no idea what they might be voting for.

  130. stackja

    Plebiscite is best at moment.

  131. Deplorable

    Richard di Natale on national news:

    “We will work our butts off” supporting ssm.

    Might stop some of the nonsense if there are no butts because they are worn out

  132. stackja

    OCO – yes supporters want a socialist dictatorship.

  133. Tim as you say, they would do it anyway, so why give them the cover of a democratic process. The technical flaw in this is POSTAL. It is very much easier to utter a fraudulent postal vote than defraud a ballot with the AEC. There will be teams of Getup and Qwerty activists following the postman and collecting sackfulls of votes for processing. Most people will not even notice that the didn’t get their postal allot, and those that do notice it went missing will simply get a replacement.

    I say we should have a proper AEC type vote, or none at all. They will have their way anyway, and I don’t like them to obtain the (fraudulent) democratic justification a plebiscite implies.

  134. Roger
    #2491290, posted on September 7, 2017 at 7:04 pm

    Richard di Natale on national news:

    “We will work our butts off” supporting ssm.

    No doubt.

    His proctologist will be on overtime rates. 🙂

  135. Tracey

    Australia Post don’t need any ill intent to f*ck this up. I’m still awaiting a wedding invitation that was mailed to me before Easter. Having said that, I believe that organisation will actively ‘help’ in whatever way it can to ensure a Yes result.

  136. Tracey

    “doesn’t” not “don’t”!

  137. Tel

    One of the added benefits of voting NO is how much it will irritate Shorten.

    And Andrew Wilkie and Penny Wong…

    And Trumble.

  138. Stackja:

    Plebiscite is best at moment.

    Your point is noted, but lets just step back a bit.
    There are many issues that confront Australian society at the moment;
    1. SSM
    2. The refusal of our politicians to carry out their duty to govern for the benefit of all Australians.
    3. The politicisation of our courts.
    4. The epidemic of corruption in our union/business/political classes.
    These need to be addressed before the people decide on a mass civil disobedience campaign to address them outside the normal political process. I don’t want that. No one in their right mind wants that. But if the system cannot or will not correct itself, what other means do the people have?

  139. Finally, a vote in Parliament is democratic; or else you are arguing that the house itself is undemocratic and you will not get too far with that.

    Old Guy, the reason the Left want a parliamentary vote and not a referendum is because a majority of the politicians are guaranteed to vote Yes. They know that in a proper referendum the will lose, they can rig opinion polls but election procedures are much harder to rig. A postal vote gives the illusion of the majority of peoples support.

    Maybe this is democracy, but the lower house does not represent the aspirations of the people much, and the Senate is as Keating once said, is unrepresentative swill.

  140. Splatacrobat

    They also claimed the ABS was not empowered to collect information relating to personal opinions.

    So when the census asked “who does the most unpaid work around the house”, is not this a matter of opinion?

    Rightly or wrongly I filled out the census on behalf of the family and shared the unpaid work between both of us. We have been arguing this point for over 25 years.

  141. Oh come on

    Look, we’re getting SSM. Even if this postal vote plebiscite falls through, it will be deemed illegitimate. The only possibility is that for some reason current polling of SSM is massively flawed and the postal plebiscite reveals popular and widespread opposition to SSM. This would mean that turnout would have to be extremely high and a thumping majority of voters would vote ‘no’. It would take a supermajority of eligible voters voting ‘no’ for both of the majors to realise SSM isn’t the progressive vote winner they think it is.

    I just can’t see this happening. Turnout will probably be, what? 60-70%? Even if the no vote squeaks through or even comfortably defeats the yes campaign, the ALP will ignore this result because turnout was too low, the results were skewed because huge numbers of young people who disproportionately support SSM can’t mail a letter etc etc.

    No no, legalising SSM will be the FIRST thing PM Shorten does once in office. It’ll be his ‘apology to the stolen generations’ moment, all very carefully planned and stage-managed.

  142. Tel

    It is the closest thing to a win that the LNP could get. The ALP and Greens blocked everything else.

    That’s rubbish, the LNP could have simply said, “It’s not a hugely important issue, our offer of a Plebicite still stands, we can include an extra question at the 2019 election.” End of story, get on with governance.

    If the news media says anything, just point out that it was a “core” election promise, and the offer is on the table, and if the other guys don’t want it *shrug*.

  143. stackja

    Jan – MPs don’t care. Plebiscite is one way.

  144. stackja

    Tel – Left/MSM lie about everything. Plebiscite is just the beginning.

  145. Catfeesh?

    Deplorable
    #2491304, posted on September 7, 2017 at 7:15 pm
    Our household is a NO vote and we want our say.

    Our household vote is No, and fuck off you lefty fuckers.

    I hope that is succinct enough.

  146. Muddy

    If the SSM postal vote goes down, I predict that a Year Zero (‘Greens’) feral will smuggle a unicorn into the Federal Senate and beat it to death with a battery-powered toothbrush.

  147. How is Trent Zipperman?
    I hope he is OK and isn’t contemplating any self-harm or anything.

  148. Jimf

    George “Constanza” Williams – the opposite model in action.

  149. 2dogs

    We still haven’t had the ratio decidendi.

    My prediction:

    Andrew Wilkie group struck down due to no standing.

    Either: Janet Rice no standing because senate as a body had to sue; or,
    Or: Janet Rice group standing allowed because senator, but action failed because executive can interpret what unforseen means in relation to budget.

  150. P

    I pray a hymn which I learned as a 9 or 10 year old back 1949/1950 and has remained with me since.
    The hymn has now been taken over by the LDS (Mormans) but the words remain in my heart:

    1 Now to Heav’n our pray’r ascending,
    God speed the right!
    In a noble cause contending,
    God speed the right!
    May we live our lives before Thee,
    Like the good and great in story,
    If we fail, we fail in glory,—
    God speed the right!

    2 Patient, firm, and persevering,
    God speed the right!
    No event or danger fearing,
    God speed the right!
    Pains, nor toils, nor trials heeding,
    Never from the truth receding,
    And in heav’n own time succeeding,
    God speed the right!

    3 Still our onward course pursuing,
    God speed the right!
    Ev’ry foe at length subduing,
    God speed the right!
    Truth! Thy cause, whate’er delay it,
    There’s no pow’r on earth can stay it,
    Proudly let us then obey it,
    God speed the right!

  151. Jimf

    Apparently Trent “made a resolve to sort this by Christmas “.. give him plenty of time for shopping .

  152. stackja

    Leigh Lowe
    #2491354, posted on September 7, 2017 at 7:56 pm
    How is Trent Zipperman?
    I hope he is OK and isn’t contemplating any self-harm or anything.

    TZ will have to face the electorate.

  153. candy

    Now the SSM will very likely pass, and this will give M. Tutnbull the authority he needs to move left, that Bishop, Joyce, Brandis and Pyne long for.

    Goes with that is booting Abbott out. He might do well to move to the AuCons. Because if the postal survey gets up, he’s a goner with no cred.

  154. Deplorable

    Catfeesh?
    #2491349, posted on September 7, 2017 at 7:51 pm
    Deplorable
    #2491304, posted on September 7, 2017 at 7:15 pm
    Our household is a NO vote and we want our say.

    Our household vote is No, and fuck off you lefty fuckers.

    I hope that is succinct enough.

    Absolutely I was just being polite.
    How many windjammers are there in Sydney Harbour these days.

  155. Stackja:

    Tel – Left/MSM lie about everything. Plebiscite is just the beginning.

    Mind you, this vote through Australia Post sets a precedent in terms of ‘what is the popular will’ without the legal and Constitutional restraints and safeguards that a Referendum would demand.

  156. Deplorable

    That’s rubbish, the LNP could have simply said, “It’s not a hugely important issue, our offer of a Plebicite still stands, we can include an extra question at the 2019 election.” End of story, get on with governance.

    Unfortunately I don’t think that was possible as the QLNP MP’s and their camp followers want a different outcome. It would have been more truthful before the election to change their name to the QLNP and then we could have voted for a party that were interested in the country and not just queer marriage.

  157. Splatacrobat

    Lets hope the ACL work hard in western Sydney seats where Tony Burke and Albo sit.
    A letter box drop with details of what SSM is really about should at least win over the Muslims……..The enemy of my enemy and all that……

  158. Marcus Classis

    SSM is kinda boring, though.

    How about Freckle Puncher’s Pretence (FPP)?

  159. stackja

    Winston Smith
    #2491375, posted on September 7, 2017 at 8:24 pm

    ALP/Greens don’t want the legal and Constitutional restraints and safeguards that a Referendum would demand. ALP/Greens want SSM.

  160. Muddy

    Goes with that is booting Abbott out. He might do well to move to the AuCons.

    With the Lieboral Party still staggering around, the Australian Conservatives will have competition with an established, well-resourced party that still pretends to be ‘right’, and against which the rage-porn industry will pit them as ‘extremists.’ Bernardi’s crew will flourish better and get away with growing pains in an empty playground. Therefore, the first task must be to ’empty the playground.’ Herd the Festering Zombies into the groundsman’s shed and metaphorically set fire to it. Douse the ashes liberally with acid, then lay an enormous concrete slab over the location. Now the playground is free for the Australian Conservatives to roam, play bulrush, fall over and skin their knees, and generally grow.

  161. 2dogs

    Result predictions:

    1. Plebiscite returns yes.
    2. Vote passes parliament, Turnbull takes credit.
    3. Turnbull’s poll numbers still bad afterwards.
    4. Turnbull kicked out, Libs elect new PM.
    5. Everyone starts talking about real issues again, particularly power prices.
    6. Shorten blames power prices on electricity privatisation.

  162. Garry

    And when the silent majority forces a strong no vote will the parliament and the LBGTFYZ lobby finally respect the majority view and reflect the true political value of their extreme minority. Yeah right!

  163. Oh come on

    I dunno, stack. I think there are plenty of yes supporters who feel it simply isn’t their business to tell other people what they can and can’t call each other. I fact, I believe this myself. Doesn’t mean I have to agree with whatever they define their relationship as, but hey, free country and all. Free-ish. When the plebiscite policy was announced, I was in the Yes camp.

    But then I had some time to think about it. And observe the machinations of the gaystapo, the rainbow coalition of minorities and whatnot, and how they operate. Now it’s beyond question that civil rights, equality and love or whatever have nothing to do with this movement at all. It’s all about leftists extending their control over the cultural agenda. And, as Andrew Breitbart most wisely observed, culture is upstream from politics. The left is attempting to annex more political territory with its SSM push. By and large, it doesn’t give a shit about gays’ right to marry. Which is funny, because lots of gays don’t give a shit about being married, even though they’re currently kicking up a massive stink about this.

    However, the interests of the activist left and the activist homosexuals align for the moment. The left wants to smash a few conservative institutions. The gay lobby wants to mock, cheapen and belittle the important rituals of ‘straights’, and few are as important as marriage. Ten years ago they did this by jeering and sneering at the ‘breeders’ and their marriages and the dull little monogamous lifestyle this relationship entailed.

    But carping from the sidelines whilst being largely ignored – who’d settle for that when you could really put a dent in the conventional expectations of marriage by demanding the ‘right’ to MINO (Marriage In Name Only) while continuing to lead a lifestyle so debaucherous it has proven capable of nurturing and transmitting deadly pathogens so comprehensively throughout that community that these diseases almost wiped out everyone who led such a lifestyle.

    A lifestyle, of course, that is also the complete antithesis of a conventional marriage. But what better way to dynamite the concept of marriage by forcing everyone to describe a lifestyle that is the antithesis of conventional marriage, as marriage?

  164. C.L.

    But then I had some time to think about it. And observe the machinations of the gaystapo, the rainbow coalition of minorities and whatnot, and how they operate.

    You weren’t previously aware of how they operate?

  165. C.L.

    Good comment, OCO.
    Nice to see a real, quality thread contribution.

  166. Marcus Classis

    Well said, OCO. Very well said.

  167. Oh come on

    You weren’t previously aware of how they operate?

    Not at all! I thought they were all well-meaning humanitarians who simply wanted to make the world a better place but were sometimes mistaken in their approach.

    Tch of course I was but watching them swing into action over SSM made me realise I was batting for the wrong team (har har har) – that it’s a leftist proxy war which the left has invested a lot of political capital in.

    Fighting to defeat the left when they’ve gone all in on something is usually a far more important and worthwhile effort than carrying the torch for some libertarian rationale – especially when the outcome your rationale would result in is something very similar to what the left wants. That’s just madness.

    Nothing the left wants is good.

  168. Oh come on

    Sometimes the outcomes the left desires are good. But the means they employ to achieve them are bad. More rarely, the means they employ in attaining a bad outcome may be good. Most commonly, I’d say the means and the outcome are both bad.

    The left – it’s all bad.

  169. mareeS

    Next, can we have an ABS survey on immigration levels, and on electricity generation?

    This SSM process may open Australia to. Swiss style of public participation.

  170. Diesal

    Sitting OS I wonder how much people want Venestralia to collapse. But the changes in culture are bringing it forward.

  171. mareeS

    #2491481, posted on September 7, 2017 at 11:22 pm

    Next, can we have an ABS survey on immigration levels, and on electricity generation?

    This SSM process may open Australia to. Swiss style of public participation.

    Precisely what the political class and media elite fear … real democracy.

  172. Yohan

    Best result is for the postal vote to be NO, and then Labor vote in SSM when they get back into power.

    The de-legitimization of government and establishment politics will then be complete. Starkly presented.

  173. stackja

    Extracts below:

    ANTHONY FISHER: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: LET’S AVOID CONFUSION
    ANTHONY FISHER, The Daily Telegraph
    September 8, 2017 12:00am
    Subscriber only
    MARRIAGE is taking quite a beating right now. Many people are muddled about what marriage is, have lost confidence in its achievability, or have given up even trying.
    Those who do take the plunge often feel unsupported as spouses and undermined as parents by our culture, politics and economy.
    So what is marriage all about?
    Is marriage about bringing ­together two people of opposite sex so that, when they do what men and women do, any resulting children will have a mum and a dad for the long haul?
    In other words, is marriage really about sexual complementarity, procreation and family structure?
    Or is marriage just about two people who love each other, want to say so in a public ceremony, and want it registered by a government authority? In other words, is marriage really about romance, publicity and politics?
    Both sides should first put on the table what they think marriage is. That’s how a debate begins.
    Of course, marriage is not lived in isolation. Sustaining marriages ­requires a sound marital culture, forming people as good husbands and wives, as loving mothers and fathers, and helping them live marriage long-term. But our marital culture, as I said, has taken quite a battering of late.

    That’s because “it’s a natural reality”. The law may rename mothers as fathers, or call fathers “Parent Two”, or abolish terms such as husband and wife, mum and dad, male and female altogether. Schools may ditch Father’s Day for Special Person’s Day.

    But the facts remain: we all have a mum and a dad somewhere and, even if things don’t work out, what we most wanted as a child was the complementary care of both. Changing the legal definition of marriage won’t abolish the difference between the two understandings of marriage I have outlined. It will only add to the confusion and self-deception.

    Which is why Pope Francis thinks redefining marriage would be bad for everyone; “a backwards step for ­humanity”. With him, I think we can find better ways of doing justice and demonstrating love to people with same-sex attraction.

    No one should be ashamed of thinking marriage is special and that it’s about opposite sexes, commitment and kids. And no one should be cowed into silence for such a view.

    Anthony Fisher is the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney

  174. Iampeter

    In this thread, a group of big government leftists who believe in such a large and intrusive government that it should regulate who can marry who are discussing what “the left” is going to be doing next and how “the left” is trying to destroy everything, seemingly completely oblivious to the fact that they are themselves completely leftist.

    Seriously, watching Conservatives try to talk about politics is like watching Keynesian’s try to talk about economics or a horse try to perform open heart surgery. It’s horrifying AND unintentionally hilarious.

    But don’t let me interrupt, I’ll let you get back to calling for mob rule and majority imposing their position on everyone by force as a legitimate way to determine what is legal or not and who gets to do what with their life as you continue your battle against “the left”, you brave keyboard warriors of western civilization.

  175. Senile Old Guy

    But don’t let me interrupt, I’ll let you get back to calling for mob rule and majority imposing their position on everyone by force as a legitimate way to determine what is legal or not…

    Um, democracy — the form of government we have — is rule by the majority.

  176. Oh come on

    Iampeter misses the point, as usual.

  177. John of Mel

    Iampeter misses the point, as usual

    I get a feeling that he is not a libertarian as he claims, but simply an anti-conservative. The dislike of anything conservative is what drives him. Come to think of it, may be it’s the Christianity that he dislikes the most.

  178. Rayvic

    If Andrew Wilkie had thought the matter through as he would have at ONA, would he have challenged the postal vote proposal? No, is my assessment.

Comments are closed.