John Adams: Conservatives should prepare for a new SSM plebiscite no later than 2027

No matter the outcome of tomorrow’s same sex marriage postal vote, conservatives should not accept the outcome.

In the parlance of public policy, the consideration and public debate on whether to allow same sex marriage (SSM) in Australia has been grossly flawed and mismanaged.

With any major reform to public policy, good government and experienced public policy practitioners typically seek to guide the reform effort through a robust policy development process.

Such a process often entails a thorough review of the issues under consideration, an articulation of the problem, canvassing and carefully considering all relevant policy options, anticipating any potential unintended consequences and then the selection of the option which best provides the largest net positive benefit to society.

This fundamental process to delivering robust public policy outcomes has been all but absent in the Australian SSM debate.

The lack of a robust process and independent dispassionate consideration of all available evidence exposes Australia to potentially disastrous outcomes which comes with tinkering with a religious and social institution which has served as the bedrock for at least 5,500 years to societal stability and humanity’s progress.

Instead arguments relating to homosexuality being a naturally-occurring phenomenon as well as ideological pleas to fairness, love and compassion have dominated the debate by those advocating for change.

Any proper policy reform process on such a fundamental question that carries potential societal‑wide and intergenerational impacts should have encompassed an independently prepared first principles review policy paper canvassing several foundational questions including:

  • What is the institution of marriage and why does it exist? (e.g. is the institution to bond two people’s love or is it an institution to facilitate procreation and the upbringing of children)
  • How does the institution of marriage differ across different societies around the world?
  • What public and private outcomes does the institution intend to achieve?
  • Who originally created the institution? (i.e. was it religions or ancient governments that created the institution?) Who rightfully can claim ownership to the institution today?
  • What has the Government’s historical role in the institution of marriage been? Who has dictated what marriage is and who can marry?
  • When, and under what conditions, has marriage been most effective in delivering public outcomes?
  • What historical attempts have been enacted to reform or change the institution of marriage and have they been successful?
  • What difference is there between theologically-recognised and government-recognised marriage?
  • What ongoing role does and should the Commonwealth Government have in regulating marriage?
  • What is the history of the SSM movement? Who funded the movement and what are their objectives? How has the movement been able to influence the perception of SSM over recent decades?
  • What societal or intergenerational impacts are expected from the introduction of SSM in Australia?
  • What data and empirical studies exist which may provide an evidence base to understanding any potential long-run effects from the introduction of same sex marriage?

A proper consideration of these and other critical questions would have allowed policy makers and citizens to make a well-informed decision.

For those advocates of evidence-based policy, the absence of a proper public policy process, a well‑articulated evidence base justifying the reform and any longitudinal data where SSM has been implemented to fully comprehend potential inter‑generational ramifications means that the current (and expensive) process is fundamentally flawed.

The postal survey process has left many Australians to cast (whether for or against) a largely ill‑considered opinion.

To her credit, former leader of the Greens, Christine Milne was correct when she stated in 2013 to the Australian Senate that Australian community attitudes have changed regarding same sex relationships and marriage over the past 30 years.

However, no one in the national debate has ever bothered to ask why this dramatic shift in social attitudes ever occurred.

There can be no question that an internationally integrated multi-dimensional and coordinated campaign has been pursued throughout the western world featuring Hollywood created or inspired cultural products (i.e. TV shows, Movies and Music) comprising of regularly featured gay characters as well as gay intimacy and sexual activity, educational messaging throughout primary and secondary schools, academically driven advocacy from University Arts Faculties as well as political and main stream media advocacy.

These elements have been the catalyst for the ‘normalisation’ of attitudes relating to homosexuality and same sex relationships.

This integrated process, according to former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov*, is referred to as ‘ideological subversion’ and was used extensively by the Soviets for nefarious geo-political strategic reasons and now appears to be a predominant technique in the western world.

Such an approach, while legal, does not provide any deductive rational evidential basis for the consideration of public policy reform proposals.

This means that the Milne rationale as the basis for why SSM reform should occur carries no legitimacy.

A majority Yes vote in the postal vote tomorrow should not be seen as the end of the matter.

Without a robust evidence base or longitudinal data, conservatives and independent social scientists will need to examine the long run impact of any amendments to marriage customs in Australia as well as other comparable countries.

Similar to understanding the impact of immigration flows or other major public policy reforms, the effects of the introduction of SSM customs are unlikely to be felt short term and are likely to be generational.

Any evidence which emerges that changes to Australian marriage customs leads to a net negative for Australian society should be the basis for the issue to be publicly re-examined.

Moreover, scientific research into why homosexuality exists is continuing to evolve. Recent peer reviewed scientific research of identical twins who share identical DNA material but have different sexual preferences have proven categorially false the proposition that people are born gay.

This body of research has proven that homosexuality arises from post-birth factors which may include post-birth DNA mutation (or epigenetics) or other environmental (or nurture) factors.

Indeed, the emerging science explains how homosexuality was publicly encouraged in Ancient Greece as a policy tool to enhance the fighting effectiveness of Sparta’s military personnel.

Recent scientific discoveries mean that policy makers and society at large have a legitimate basis to question the virtuousness of homosexuality, what quantum of homosexuality activity is optimal for society and to potentially develop new public policy tools to either encourage or discourage homosexuality activity across society.

Australia will know tomorrow as to whether we will embark on the greatest social experiment in our history.

Conservatives who believe that this social experiment is likely to have negative and disastrous effects on Australian society should call, and start to prepare, for a new plebiscite no later than 2027.

If within the next 10-year period, evidence emerges that this experiment has led to a net negative outcome to Australia, then conservatives should seek to overturn any legislation which is passed by Federal Parliament this year.

The experience of a constitutional prohibition of alcohol in the United States between 1920 and 1933 proved that some social experiments can lead to disastrous public outcomes and that a community, on reflection, can reverse previous decisions.

John Adams is a former Coalition Advisor.

* A video of Yuri Bezmenov’s explanation of KGB strategies and tactics can be found on YouTube.

This entry was posted in Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

124 Responses to John Adams: Conservatives should prepare for a new SSM plebiscite no later than 2027

  1. Sinclair Davidson

    My expectation is that the SSM referendum will result in a thumping loss to social conservatives. So the question is: Why shouldn’t “conservatives” accept the result? After all having a referendum was the social conservative preferred option. The turnout – despite being a postal vote – is quite high. So what is the problem?

    It seems to me that the government has no role to play in regulating marriage. True – marriage is a very social institution and and very public institution, yet at the same time a very private institution. The state has absolutely no role whatsoever in determining who you marry. None. Nothing. Nada.

    Social conservatives may well lose tomorrow and lose big. Lose with dignity.

    The problem as I see it is this – the No campaign had some very good arguments about the safe schools program and parenting – yet, NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT same sex marriage. By dragging all that into the SSM debate they have undermined what good they could have done on more serious issues. Shame on you.

  2. Natural Instinct

    It seems to me that the government has no role to play in regulating marriage. True – marriage is a very social institution and and very public institution, yet at the same time a very private institution. The state has absolutely no role whatsoever in determining who you marry. None. Nothing. Nada.

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
    So long as the state makes laws to do with polygamy, custody, alimony, divorce settlements, etc and uses the full coercive powers of the state to enforce orders, then the state has everything to do with marriage.

  3. Sinclair Davidson

    I agree the State plays a role but I argue it has zero legitimacy in that role.

  4. Natural Instinct

    Now that’s a whole different kettle of fish.
    And as John Adams in his questions (1) and (4) it could have been discussed, but wasn’t

  5. André M.

    The reason Mr Adam’s post above is so protracted is because falsehoods have to be wordy to have a chance. By contrast, the truth of this matter is very succinctly stated.
    The right-wing position is the libertarian position that you should be able to exercise your rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness unless doing so prevents someone else achieving the same. Gay people marrying each other does not harm you in any way and so is none of your business. That’s why Yes is the right and Right answer to the question that was asked.
    When the status quo is wrong, it’s time to stop being a social conservative.

  6. alexnoaholdmate

    I am absolutely against same-sex marriage: yet I cannot see why the result of this plebiscite should be rejected, especially as – as Sinc noted above – it was conservatives who wanted the plebiscite in the first place, and the turnout of 80% has been better than most actual elections in states where voting is non-compulsory.

    What, we don’t like the result so therefore it’s invalid? Hmm. That sounds an awful lot like what a Hillary / Black Lives Matter / Antifa supporter would say, or a member of the Labor Party after losing an election.

  7. zyconoclast

    Social conservatives may well lose tomorrow and lose big. Lose with dignity.

    Which is why they keep losing.

  8. Natural Instinct

    Gay people marrying each other does not harm you in any way and so is none of your business

    Section 45 is voided:
    “I call upon the persons here present to witness that I, A.B. ( or C.D.), take thee, C.D. ( or A.B.), to be my lawful wedded wife ( or husband)”;

    Under marriage laws, I become Partner A, and am no longer a Husband, as this will be deemed offensive.
    Under birth certificates I become Parent A, not Father, as this will be deemed hurtful.

    So Andre you do affect me, and my civilisation – that I wished to pass onto my offspring.

  9. zyconoclast

    it was conservatives who wanted the plebiscite in the first place

    CAn anyone tell me what significant socially conservative thing that TA* has actually done since he went into parliament in 1994?

    *Other than stopping the boats, which is a very good thing but undermined by increasing the refugee intake for no good reason and maintaining a +200k immigration intake
    2008–09 221,410
    2009–10 204,224
    2010–11 208,563
    2011–12 238,230
    2012–13 247,233
    2013–14 236,284
    2014–15 225,919

    With 30-40% coming from East Asia, South East Asia and South Asia.

  10. Natural Instinct

    Those people who are against SSM should take up the cudgels like the proponents did in the USA over 47 years ago and fight the long game

    On May 18, 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell walked into a courthouse in Minneapolis, paid $10, and applied for a marriage license. The county clerk, Gerald Nelson, refused to give it to them. Obviously, he told them, marriage was for people of the opposite sex; it was silly to think otherwise..

    All of the polls and focus groups yielded a major revelation. The message gay-marriage campaigners had been using—an appeal to reason that enumerated the benefits of marriage that were being denied to gay people—wasn’t persuasive at all. Straight voters saw gay people as wanting something different than their idea of what marriage was about, which was love and commitment. “One of the questions in that first California poll was, ‘Do you think gay couples are trying to join marriage or change it?’” recalled Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, director of social policy for the centrist Democratic group Third Way, one of the leaders of the research consortium. “The correlation between people who said ‘change’ and people who voted against us was almost exact,” she added. “We had to convince people that gay couples were trying to join this institution.”

    Public support for gay marriage crossed the majority threshold in 2011 and has skyrocketed since. By the time the court took up the final case, gays could marry in 36 states. Democratic politicians are almost unanimous in support and have begun using the issue as a wedge against Republicans, many of whom seem to want to avoid the issue. Skirmishes over religious freedom laws, like the one in Indiana, tended to end with a backlash in the other direction, in favor of gay rights.

    It was happiness that he felt, Wolfson knew—a profound, national joy, one echoed by celebrating crowds on the steps of the Court, by millions of people on Facebook, by the president of the United States. But it was something else, he realized: It was relief. “Through so much coaxing and cajoling, through so many losses and so much resistance, even from colleagues and my own movement,” he told me, “through so much just plain repetition over decades, I always had to convey optimism.” Now, at long last, gay marriage’s most unwavering believer could stop hoping against hope.

  11. Three natural vital milestones of life, marriage, along with birth and death, are registered by a single agency of the state. They would continue to occur even if the state didn’t register (ie. document) them, as they did thousands and hundreds of years before the state as a national sovereign entity existed. The state does not define or create these events – it acknowledges they occur. Pretending to re-define marriage is as much a travesty as a pretense that death isn’t death or that birth isn’t birth.

  12. Hugh

    Gary’s right.

    I can only add: what hope does traditional marriage have, when the state says a man can identify as a woman, and vice versa? We are sunk.

  13. What a load of bollocks this post is.

    Conservatives sabotaged any sort of normal process. Now they want to subvert an outcome they don’t like from the flawed survey they misbegot.

    What John Adams wants is authoritarianism, not democracy. This is not conservatism.

  14. Infidel Tiger

    The state has absolutely no role whatsoever in determining who you marry. None. Nothing. Nada.

    That’s exactly what I told my 8 year old sister on our wedding night.

  15. Infidel Tiger

    The best way to make SSM null and void is by making marriage sacred once again.

    Homosexual unions can never ever compete with heterosexual unions. They are a lesser sub category of coupling and it only because we continue to undermine what is special about a Sheila and bloke hooking up that this whole charade has come about.

  16. Seco

    Let the result stand (sigh). The Libs, they got gay marriage over the line and will get absolutely no thanks for it. Well done you clowns!

  17. Stimpson J. Cat

    The best way to make SSM null and void is by making marriage sacred once again.

    I agree.
    We need to raise the stakes.
    Each time you divorce?
    It will cost you a finger or a toe.
    Time to get rid of the timewasters.
    Only for the serious punters.
    Real Love.

  18. Stimpson J. Cat

    The Libs, they got gay marriage over the line and will get absolutely no thanks for it.

    Not true.
    I bet Timmy Wilson gets some love in the club.

  19. ArthurB

    I contend that sexual acts between consenting males have consequence for the rest of society.

    Around 1970, after organised protests and demonstrations by gay men, particularly in New York and San Francisco, the police ceased persecuting gays. One outcome was the rise of the bath house, where gay men could meet for casual, anonymous sex. From the mid 1970’s onwards there was a trickle of papers in the medical literature about the effects on gay men of their sexual practices and lifestyle.

    In New York and San Francisco it was not uncommon for gay men to have several hundred sexual partners per year, and 2500 and more in a lifetime. Their sexual practices included not just sodomy and oral sex, but also “rimming” (oral-anal contact) and “fisting”, in which one man inserts his fist and forearm into his partner’s anus. Many men were also heavy users of stimulants such as amyl nitrite.

    One outcome of the their lifestyle was that gays became a reservoir for all sorts of diseases. Among heterosexuals, the incidence of syphilis and gonorrhoea had declined, but ever-increasing in gays. They also became, along with haemophiliacs and drug addicts who shared needles, a risk group for hepatitis B.

    Another outcome was that gay men were sitting ducks for AIDS. Most sexually transmitted diseases manifest themselves within a short time, but with AIDS the symptoms may not become evident for several years, in which time a gay man can infect hundreds of others.

    HIV was introduced into North America around 1980, and due to the rampant promiscuity of gay men, it spread rapidly, and there are now millions in the USA who are HIV positive.

    Infection with HIV is no longer a death sentence, since there are now drugs which can halt the progress of the disease. These drugs are, however, expensive, and add to government spending on health.

    I would also point out that many women have been infected with HIV by bisexual men, and many recipients of blood donated by gay men have also died.

    To re-iterate: what gay men do in private has had consequences for other people.

  20. C.L.

    Excellent argument.
    Of course a ‘yes’ vote should be ignored – and eventually overthrown.

  21. Dapto Dog

    Not that I would know who he is, or have ever heard of him before … but where was this Jason Adams until (almost literally) one minute before midnight in this debate?

    One of the reasons, among many, why the No case will presumably fail is because simply not enough people could be bothered to help those of us who did go out there to wear out our shoe leather, spend hours on phones, and argue the case with the public.

    Instead, this guy just waits and sits back until the night before the result. He then composes some near-unreadable drivel that says the outcome doesn’t matter because he (whoever the heck he is) deigns that the process was invalid, not intellectually pure enough for him, and we can vote No in 2027 (for goodness sake!). Really? That’s about as insulting as it is ridiculous.

    The first sentence, in itself, just about says it all about his apparent lack of understanding and lack of reality about the modern political landscape. (Albeit that I do concede that him throwing the toys out of the cot and point-blank refusing to accept the result of a popular vote is very modern in that it is very reminiscent of the left’s response to most elections they lose these days.)

    Does he honestly believe his own argument that the process should have been far more cerebral? Or does he, in fact, know how naïve that is in modern Australia and therefore just wrote it for effect, because he thought it would make himself sound clever and edgy in some way? Let’s face it, it’s difficult to have a serious public debate about almost any issue any more. Even less so in the course of a campaign, and for issues like this one that are pushed by the authoritarian left. In fact, the very idea that there was actually a vote in the end (amid all the virtue signalling, as well as the abuse of anyone opposed) was a bit of a miracle in itself.

    Above all, Adams would do well to reflect on exactly why it is that he finds himself arguing for things that he thinks people other than armchair critics like him should have done. He would have been a lot better off if he had had a go at making a practical, positive and worthwhile contribution some time back, instead of staring into the middle distance and then pulling up a chair at his computer to scribble out this irrelevant nonsense at the last minute.

  22. Gay people marrying each other does not harm you in any way and so is none of your business.

    This is obviously false as others have pointed out. But more than that, it is deceitful. Australia in a social and community sense bares almost no resemblance to what it was barely 40 years ago. To give just a single example, over 40% of children in this country are now born out of wedlock, with all of the societal issues and problems that this entails.

    Gay marriage is simply another stepping stone in the moral perversion of our society. It will lead to the normalisation of homosexuality and the further destruction and degradation of the traditional family unit. The first victims will be the children of such liaisons, but the effects will eventually be broad reaching and affect all levels of society.

    Quite simply, it has everything to do with us.

  23. Turtle of WA

    Do mules now have the right to be called horses?

  24. True – marriage is a very social institution and and very public institution, yet at the same time a very private institution. The state has absolutely no role whatsoever in determining who you marry. None. Nothing. Nada.

    So people should be allowed to ‘marry’ their children or siblings, their pets, a car, themselves. All you are saying above is that the state has no legitimacy in determining whether or not these relations are contrary to marriage, I agree, but you’ve completely avoided the question of why these relations could be judged contrary to marriage. If they are contrary to marriage, the state or the courts would be perfectly entitled in not recognizing these relationships as marriages as it does right now. And since that is the case, there can be no reason why it should recognize same-sex relationships as marriages given your argument above.

  25. Three natural vital milestones of life, marriage, along with birth and death, are registered by a single agency of the state. They would continue to occur even if the state didn’t register (ie. document) them, as they did thousands and hundreds of years before the state as a national sovereign entity existed. The state does not define or create these events – it acknowledges they occur. Pretending to re-define marriage is as much a travesty as a pretense that death isn’t death or that birth isn’t birth.

    Liberty Quote indeed.

  26. Zatara

    Why shouldn’t “conservatives” accept the result? After all having a referendum was the social conservative preferred option.

    it was conservatives who wanted the plebiscite

    Because it was neither a referendum nor a plebiscite. Those terms, like the term ‘vote’, have specific meanings which have been hijacked to load the progressive argument.

    It was a national opinion poll. Nothing more, nothing less.

  27. Conservatives sabotaged any sort of normal process.

    FMD. He actually believes this rubbish.

  28. wal1957

    Dover Beach…
    “FMD. He actually believes this rubbish.”

    He surely does. One fully indoctrinated, made to order ‘social justice warrior’.
    I can only marvel at our so-called education system and the product that is being turned out.

  29. Mark A

    The western civilisation will collapse under the heal of Islam eventually, or sooner by its own effort.
    Good riddance, I hope I’ve kicked the bucket before that, but I feel sorry for the younger ones. Although they could have been conditioned by then to welcome their overlords and happy to convert or pay the jizya.

  30. Ellen of Tasmania

    It will eventually be overthrown simply because truth will eventually win. Reality has hard edges.

    “Art is limitation; the essence of every picture is the frame. If you draw a giraffe, you must draw him with a long neck. If in your bold creative way you hold yourself free to draw a giraffe with a short neck, you will really find that you are not free to draw a giraffe.”

    ― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

  31. Tel

    Pretending to re-define marriage is as much a travesty as a pretense that death isn’t death or that birth isn’t birth.

    Not exactly… birth and death are not voluntary, but marriage is. What’s more the structure of the average family in a society is to a large extent what defines that society. People can voluntarily choose to rebuild the way they relate to the other people around them, and when enough people do it things do get re-defined.

    Whether that’s a good or bad thing totally depends on your point of view, but other than the birth and the death, nothing in the middle there is set in stone.

  32. A Lurker

    There can be no question that an internationally integrated multi-dimensional and coordinated campaign has been pursued throughout the western world featuring Hollywood created or inspired cultural products (i.e. TV shows, Movies and Music) comprising of regularly featured gay characters as well as gay intimacy and sexual activity…

    …and Hollywood has revealed itself to be a cesspit of foetid depravity and not the moral exemplar that it considers itself to be.

  33. cynical1

    I am absolutely against same-sex marriage: yet I cannot see why the result of this plebiscite should be rejected, especially as – as Sinc noted above – it was conservatives who wanted the plebiscite in the first place, and the turnout of 80% has been better than most actual elections in states where voting is non-compulsory.

    It should be rejected because parliament is illegitimate.

    Find out where every one of the fuckers was born, and send a bill to the foreigners.

    Ala Centrelink.

  34. Tel

    The right-wing position is the libertarian position that you should be able to exercise your rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness unless doing so prevents someone else achieving the same. Gay people marrying each other does not harm you in any way and so is none of your business.

    Unless you happen to run a Christian bed-and-breakfast, in which case they come to you and make it your business. Or perhaps you are a Christian photographer, Christian baker, or if you have a bit of nice land in the country and some gay couple decides they would like to have their wedding at your place. We have had the advocates declaring they intend to go to the first Christian church they find and demand to get married there and go running to the courts the moment any questions are raised over that.

    If it was genuinely live and let live, I could easily deal with that, but it isn’t. Words are cheap, but the actions of the activists speak more clearly. If the gays think that their new found comrades will look after them once they stop being useful political idiots they are in for a horrible shock. Socialism does not tolerate behavioural diversity… it is driven by envy and lust for power, the end game is controlling everyone and everything. People who live an unusual lifestyle should be deeply respectful of tolerance in the mainstream, and deeply suspicious of anyone promising them the chance to rule over that mainstream.

    But besides that, the moronic “love is love” slogan is most annoying of all… apparently we have people believing that diversity has been redefined to mean that everything is the same! Of course homosexual love is different to heterosexual love. The damage to our intelligence from this alone makes it my business.

  35. A Lurker

    If within the next 10-year period, evidence emerges that this experiment has led to a net negative outcome to Australia, then conservatives should seek to overturn any legislation which is passed by Federal Parliament this year.

    Given the illegitimacy of many of those who currently sit in and have sat in Parliament, what then is the actual legality of any legislation that was passed and will be passed this year?

  36. Bela Bartok

    I am sorely tested by the creeping ‘social justice ‘ element in the Cat. Now this – a simple opinion poll is held to be a referendum or a vote?
    This ‘poll’ means nothing other than a public sentiment.
    If the result is No, the wailing and rending of (fashionable label) garments will begin because Hate.
    If Yes, it will expected to be approved in Parliament in days and enforced- sternly.
    An illegitimate parliament with corrupt politicians and morally corrupt decisions.
    And here are ppl on the Cat cheering for the illegitimacy to continue.
    If the vote is yes, the No perspective will be illegal.
    For shame, the lot of you.

  37. Not exactly… birth and death are not voluntary, but marriage is. What’s more the structure of the average family in a society is to a large extent what defines that society. People can voluntarily choose to rebuild the way they relate to the other people around them, and when enough people do it things do get re-defined.

    I don’t think this at all follows because one thing is non-voluntary, life or death, while the other, marriage, is voluntary, and this is even putting aside the fact that people can in fact choose when they die. Further, the fact that a society could choose to bear and raise children differently wouldn’t make any difference either. We could call the bearing, raising, educating of children by their natural parents in a situation where they have made a public commitment to each other before their community for the term of their natural life, marriage, and any other system of children bearing, raising, and educating, something else. No redefining is at all necessary, and where it occurs, it is mischievous.

  38. cui bono

    Wassn’t marriage really about the legal rights of offspring? ie: Legitimate children getting Daddy’s estate and titles?

  39. No, marriage was never only about anything of the sort.

  40. Baldrick

    Make no mistake, this isn’t an argument simply about marriage. The Lefts aim is to ultimately destroy the family unit. It’s the single biggest stumbling block to full totalitarianism and complete compliance to the State.

    The words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ will be the next institution the Left will attack once homosexual marriage is allowed.

  41. Suave Dave

    Although it sounds like the author has swallowed a thesaurus and the points he makes are rather obvious, the general thrust of this article is ok. But it’s ultimately a futile piece, because there was and is never going to be a serious, fully-reasoned and good-natured debate on this issue. Did the author not see the reaction on the one occasion this was attempted, in the Wilson-Hastie discussion?

  42. Let’s be precise here. Nothing presently prevents homosexuals from actually ‘coupling’, or publicly committing themselves to each other, etc. The only thing at present the law prevents is public recognition of this relationship as ‘marriage’.

  43. manalive

    Having any legislation empirically reexamined in say ten years seems a reasonable proposition, I image anything that has “enhance the fighting effectiveness” of the ADF would be welcome.

  44. Sinclair Davidson

    I see a whole bunch of you are intent on marrying your underage relatives etc. I didn’t realise that sexual deviancy is so common. I can think of no reason why the government should prevent you from doing so – yet I hope your other relatives would take a poor view of your intentions.

    More seriously – not being able to tell the difference between society and the government is part of the problem we now face.

  45. Chris M

    My expectation is that the SSM referendum will result in a thumping loss to social conservatives.

    Really? I’m expecting a NO vote…. we both find out in a few hours.

  46. Baldrick

    More seriously – not being able to tell the difference between society and the government is part of the problem we now face.

    I would have thought the government is made up as a reflection of society and not society is made up as a reflection of government.

  47. Leo G

    Conservatives sabotaged any sort of normal process. Now they want to subvert an outcome they don’t like from the flawed survey they misbegot.
    What John Adams wants is authoritarianism, not democracy. This is not conservatism.

    You argue that John Adams is a conservative and he wants to subvert an outcome he doesn’t like. Therefor all conservatives want to subvert an outcome they don’t like.
    You then conclude that is inconsistent with Conservatism, implying that conservatives do not want to subvert an outcome they don’t like.
    A two-rake argument?

  48. Viva

    It will eventually be overthrown simply because truth will eventually win. Reality has hard edges.

    “Counterfeit gold exists because there is such a thing as real gold to be copied.” (Rumi).

  49. I see a whole bunch of you are intent on marrying your underage relatives etc. I didn’t realise that sexual deviancy is so common. I can think of no reason why the government should prevent you from doing so – yet I hope your other relatives would take a poor view of your intentions.

    More seriously – not being able to tell the difference between society and the government is part of the problem we now face.

    Let’s imagine that the state has taken the same dim view of those intentions as their relatives, why would it be wrong for it to have that same view and, consequently, refuse to recognize such a relationship as ‘marriage’ as a matter of law and policy?

  50. Rabz

    Ultimately, I couldn’t give a rodent’s backside if gays want to consider themselves married – if people are happy to believe in such rampant idiocy that’s their prerogative.

    What I do get angry about is that the government redefining marriage will give it (and various screechy totalitarian SJW media and bureaucratic imbeciles) another excuse to persecute normal people for wrongthink – and let’s face it, the increased state license to persecute people is what this is really all about, isn’t it?

  51. Rabz

    The problem as I see it is this – the No campaign had some very good arguments about the safe schools program and parenting – yet, NOTHING WHATSOEVER ABOUT same sex marriage.

    That’s because the concept of a man being married to a man is utterly preposterous.

    That incontrovertible fact shouldn’t need pointing out to anyone, no matter how frigging stupid they are.

  52. Bruce

    One question to answer if the law is changed, “what comes next”? My crystal ball believes it won’t be pretty. BTW Sinclair would you be asking the yes side to ‘lose with dignity ‘ if the no side won? As if that would happen.

  53. A Lurker

    What I do get angry about is that the government redefining marriage will give it (and various screechy totalitarian SJW media and bureaucratic imbeciles) another excuse to persecute normal people for wrongthink – and let’s face it, the increased state license to persecute people is what this is really all about, isn’t it?

    That is the sum of it Rabz, and it does my head in that so-called ‘Libertarians’ are enabling the State to widen their sphere of persecution to ordinary plebs who just happen to believe in traditional marriage and traditional families.

  54. Ellen of Tasmania

    More seriously – not being able to tell the difference between society and the government is part of the problem we now face.

    The other part of the problem is not being able to tell the difference between those who want to increase government coercion and those who don’t.

    The ss’m’ advocates want government coercion in this and people like Sinc are helping them along. A yes vote will limit the freedoms of far more people than leaving things as they are. Big fail from the libertarians in this.

  55. Iampeter

    Yep agreeing with what Sinclair has posted.

    For my own part this article reads like its written by someone who doesn’t seem to understand anything about politics and appeals to gibberish like “robust process” and “longitudinal data”, instead of making a clear political argument one way or the other.

    Its clear what the authors position is on the issue of SSM by inference from his article but he doesn’t seem to state it clearly anywhere. Probably because he would not be able to clearly answer the very first question that would be put to him: why?

    Reading this has me asking “so?” after almost every sentence but taken together the biggest question I’d ask the author is: what exactly do you think the legitimate function of government is and why?

  56. Viva

    That incontrovertible fact shouldn’t need pointing out to anyone, no matter how frigging stupid they are.

    What hope when the incontrovertible fact that a man can’t be a woman shouldn’t need pointing out either.

  57. Its clear what the authors position is on the issue of SSM by inference from his article but he doesn’t seem to state it clearly anywhere.

    Nonsense. You could ask what he did and yet support the Yes case.

  58. Northshore Redneck

    If the question was “should same sex couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples?” I would expect the yes vote to exceed 99%.

    But it’s not about rights, it’s a subtle and sneaky way of social engineering away from tolerance of homosexuality, towards advocacy of it as morally equal to heterosexuality.

    While divorce rates are indeed horrendous, the ideal of marriage was straightforward for children to understand. Now because fairness and equalidy the kiddies will be taught at a young age that growing up and marrying your own sex is a completely normal and worthy goal.

    You know it will happen.

  59. The curious thing about the libertarian position is that homosexuals are precisely in the same position they are now as they would be under their own preferred option.

  60. Rabz

    If the question was “should same sex couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples?” I would expect the yes vote to exceed 99%.

    But it isn’t going to be, because the obnoxious fraudulent freaks already have those “rights”.

  61. Rabz

    The ss’m’ advocates want government coercion in this and people like Sinc are helping them along.

    Yep – “libertarians” 4 state coercion 4 evah.

    It would be laughable it wasn’t so frigging offensive.

  62. A Lurker

    It is time for the Libs to split and for the Conservatives to join Cory Bernardi’s party.
    The remainder of the Regressives can then happily go down with the rapidly sinking ship.

    PM rebukes conservative MPs who are demanding rollback of laws, saying it would have ‘virtually no prospect’ of passing parliament

  63. If the question was “should same sex couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples?” I would expect the yes vote to exceed 99%.

    Except there is no reason why same–sex couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, as opposed to same-sex or heterosexual persons. We need to stop confusing relationships with persons.

  64. flyingduk

    if the No vote gets up, conservatives should prepare for another plebiscite within a fortnight!

  65. JohnL

    Everybody on this blog and everybody in the general community that has at least two IQ cells agree that the current parliament, not only government the hole parliament; the house of reps, the Senate the whole shebang is a mess, an international joke and embarrassment. How can this Circus Grande make a decision on anything let alone on the important social change like this?!
    The whole shebang should be disbanded – now! And start again from empty edifice in Canberra called parliament house.

  66. H B Bear

    Q. Why, when you hear homo Photios hand puppet Trent Zimmerman say, “I think that Dean Smith’s bill strikes the right balance on religious freedoms …” do you know this is not the case?

    A. Because he is a Lieboral.

  67. H B Bear

    If the question was “should same sex couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples?” I would expect the yes vote to exceed 99%.

    But it’s not about rights, it’s a subtle and sneaky way of social engineering away from tolerance of homosexuality, towards advocacy of it as morally equal to heterosexuality.

    This. Just the latest neo-Marxist attack on the family unit dressed up as equality.

    The strongest argument against homo marriage is the enfeebled state of heterosexual marriage.

  68. candy

    Prof D means, I am fairly sure, conservatism is dead, Tony Abbott is done and he should resign and let PM Turnbull spread his wings and take the Liberals to the liberal place, and be who they want to be.
    I agree. TA has no place in the Libs and should hook up with AuCons. Conservatism is mostly dead in Aus. Face facts.

  69. Fitter

    If the government belies that marriage is an institution to be valued, give it more value by allowing income splitting.

  70. Jeremy

    People are free to marry whoever and whatever they choose. People can accept that ‘marriage’ or not.
    Government recognition is reserved for men and women marrying because that relationship results in children. Government is obliged to protect the welfare of future citizens.
    Government has no interest or business in involving itself in any other type of relationship except where it is protecting the vulnerable.

  71. Baldrick

    In any event, if the Yes case does have the majority and parliament subsequently enacts homosexual marriage into law, I look forward to a possible appeal of the laws once a full accounting has been done of the legitimacy of members in breach of S44.

  72. Mother Lode

    True – marriage is a very social institution and and very public institution, yet at the same time a very private institution.

    Society and the scope of government are not the same thing.

    Government thinks it is. That claque of venal self-serving perfidious mendacious nobodies who are not fit for anything in the real world where society exists are convinced that society is up to them to define and our role is to submit.

  73. H B Bear

    Government recognition is reserved for men and women marrying because that relationship results in children. Government is obliged to protect the welfare of future citizens.

    How do you explain the $600bn in debt run up against future taxpayers (including those not even born yet) then?

  74. Baldrick

    Social conservatives may well lose tomorrow and lose big. Lose with dignity.

    Labor has said it will not recognise a No victory and implement homosexual marriage if it wins gubbermint, anyway.
    By the same token, I won’t be recognising any Yes victory.

  75. Boambee John

    If within the next 10-year period, evidence emerges that this experiment has led to a net negative outcome to Australia, then conservatives should seek to overturn any legislation which is passed by Federal Parliament this year.

    The experience of more than 10 years of large scale Muslim immigration (actually dating back to the late 1970s), particularly of low skilled Muslims, has been a negative outcome to Australia.

    However, to question this is to be accused of Islamophobia. Equally, any questioning of SS”M” will be greeted with accusations of homophobia.

    We must not question the wisdom of our self-selected “elites”.

  76. PoliticoNT

    Sinclair – I appreciate your comment at the top reminding us of our principles and values (those of the Cat family that is). And I appreciate John’s post highlighting a lack of decent discussion on the issue. My own approach is articulated here:

    https://barbariapolitica.wordpress.com/2017/09/22/nation-on-homo-alert-as-yes-vote-climbs-to-10/

  77. Ubique

    The emergence of Islamic Republics in Europe will prove interesting for homosexuals.

  78. pbw

    ArthurB,

    The an epidemic of an previously unknown disease was first recognised in the US, it was first called GRID, gay-related immune deficiency. The response from many terrified medical pros was shameful, though understandable.

    As for effects on the larger community, these snippets from WikiP (that impeccable source) may be of interest.

    As Health Minister, he oversaw … a national strategy to combat HIV/AIDS. The strategy included a major education and advertising campaign (including the famous ‘Grim Reaper’ advertisements), and anti-discrimination legislation against HIV/AIDS sufferers.

    Neal Blewett was married for 26 years to Jill Blewett, a renowned Australian playwright, with whom he had two children. Jill died when she was accidentally electrocuted in their home in October 1988.

    Blewett revealed he was homosexual in a May 2000 issue of The Age’s Good Weekend magazine, which profiled his relationship with long-term partner Robert Brain, whom he had met as a university student 50 years previously. The couple live in Leura in the Blue Mountains, west of Sydney. Brain and Blewett moved in together in 1989, after which Blewett successfully sued a radio station and two doctors for claiming that he was imposing wrong AIDS policy because he was gay and because the gay community would not support a more appropriate policy.

    Note the dates. Accidents will happen.

  79. PoliticoNT

    For those advocates of evidence-based policy, the absence of a proper public policy process, a well‑articulated evidence base justifying the reform…

    If within the next 10-year period, evidence emerges that this experiment has led to a net negative outcome to Australia, then [the Government of the day] should seek to overturn any legislation which is passed by Federal Parliament this year…..

    Yep – John – sorry, but using ten years of data to overturn bad policy? That in itself would be the exception. Evidence based policy is only something people working in academia and the media believe in.

  80. marriage is a very social institution and and very public institution, yet at the same time a very private institution.

    Yes, and that was always recognized by having clear marks of what marriage was, as well as justly preserving the privacy of what occurred therein from public interference. There is nothing about your statement above that is inconsistent with denying that same-sex relationships are marriages.

  81. Rococo Liberal

    I have been continually frustrated throughout the whole SSM debate by the fact that no-one has publicy stated the real question.
    Governments don’t define what ”marriage” is. If gays get the right to register their couplings under the Marriage Act, society will still refer to those couplings as ‘gay marriages’. The government could indeed a mule to be a horse, but society will continue to treat those animals as different things.
    But what the argument should be about is the privileges and rights at law that arise from marriage.
    I doubt that anyone would disagree that a gay partnership should have the same staus at law as a marriage. Already a partner in a gay de facto relationship has the same rights as a partner in a heterosexual de facto relationship. What gays deserve is the right to have their unions offically registered like marraiges. Partners in such unions would then have the same rights as husbands and wives. That is all that is necessary.
    But the gay lobby, which isn’t really interested in equality but in making the world gay, would rather hurt people. it would rather paint people as homophobes worthy of sanction and penalty rather than actually achieve an equitable outcome.

  82. As I published before 7 am on 15 November 2017 at my blog http://www.scrid.com/inspectorrikati that the validity of the survey is and remains in question no matter the outcome. John Adams also highlight issues that are well worth to consider and likewise applies to the ‘citizenship’ nonsense where the constitution wasn’t amended but the perception how it applies.

  83. I doubt that anyone would disagree that a gay partnership should have the same staus at law as a marriage.

    RL, if they are not the same thing, as you say above, why should they have same status at law or policy?

  84. Michel Lasouris

    Quick! Anybody know what odds the Bookies are offering?

  85. Joe

    if the No vote gets up, conservatives should prepare for another plebiscite within a fortnight!

    If the YES vote gets up, the gays should prepare for another plebiscite within a fortnight!

    The left NEVER accept an pole/election that is counter to their goals. Neither should we.

  86. pbw

    Sinc,

    Your hypocrisy on this issue is breathtaking. An Orwellian Libertarian indeed.

    Is there something I should know about you that explains your abandonment of reason in this area?

  87. @Tel

    People can voluntarily choose to rebuild the way they relate to the other people around them, and when enough people do it things do get re-defined.

    Marriage (and family) creates a new entity which generates ever widening circles of collateral relationships – in-laws, aunts & uncles, grand-parents, even deceased great-great-grandparents. Relationships that span horizontally through communities and vertically through generations. Marriage isn’t about two individuals. It’s a complex cluster of relationships between a partnership and community. Legal marriage acknowledges this complexity, as demonstrated in contentious divorces where guardianship of children can devolve to relatives, and in contested probates.

  88. Mater

    If the question was “should same sex couples have the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples?” I would expect the yes vote to exceed 99%.

    That is exactly what most ‘Yes’ voters (whom I have spoken to) believe that they are ‘voting’ on.

    I wouldn’t have expected any in depth research on the topic beyond that which they are fed by the media , nor any in depth analysis. Generally speaking, more analysis goes into last weekends football match than typically occurs prior to polling days.

    Bread and circuses!

  89. A Lurker

    Time for the Liberal Party to split.

  90. Roger

    The state has absolutely no role whatsoever in determining who you marry. None. Nothing. Nada.

    I don’t know if that needs to be reduced to absurdity, but…

    So you ought to be able to marry your mum, your dad, your sister…or all three!

  91. littledozer

    Ultimately, I couldn’t give a rodent’s backside if gays want to consider themselves married – if people are happy to believe in such rampant idiocy that’s their prerogative.

    What I do get angry about is that the government redefining marriage will give it (and various screechy totalitarian SJW media and bureaucratic imbeciles) another excuse to persecute normal people for wrongthink – and let’s face it, the increased state license to persecute people is what this is really all about, isn’t it?

    Agree with this, been my argument to many people voting yes, who just don’t understand this point or don’t care.

  92. Viva

    Sky commentator: “A profound social change” quoting Wong .

    Really? I thought the Yes side argued Ss”m” would have little impact.

    Sky reporting at orgasmic levels.

  93. Sky commentator: “A profound social change” quoting Wong .

    Really? I thought the Yes side argued Ss”m” would have little impact.

    This contrast perfectly encapsulates the dishonesty of the Yes spruikers.

  94. Viva

    Malcolm rolling in this result like a dog in shit.

  95. BorisG

    I hoped for a no vote but I cannot see how you can blame MT or the Libs for this. Instead of leaving it to parliament They asked the people and people have expressed their preference.

    Seems like convenrvatives are sore losers.

    I think the right thing now is to focus on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Because arguing arguing against SSM out of concern for those rights was always confusing and not really convincing (I tried it on a number of people). But stated separately those arguments are perfectly valid.

  96. PoliticoNT

    Will be fun to see if Labor/Greens find a way to oppose the legislation.

  97. Viva

    Seems like convenrvatives are sore losers.

    This isn’t a bloody rugby match. There are much bigger things at stake and we are right to be profoundly disappointed and concerned at the direction society is headed following this decisionn.

  98. notafan

    as Sinc noted above – it was conservatives who wanted the plebiscite

    No I didn’t, and besides Abbott offered it up to prevent being forced to allow our Parliament to have a ‘conscience’ vote.

    Makes no different to me, you can vote a triangle is a square til the cows come home, won’t make it so.

  99. No I didn’t, and besides Abbott offered it up to prevent being forced to allow our Parliament to have a ‘conscience’ vote.

    Makes no different to me, you can vote a triangle is a square til the cows come home, won’t make it so.

    Indeed, and for the record, conservatives wanted the status quo.

  100. Tel

    … it was conservatives who wanted the plebiscite …

    Which we never got.

  101. Kneel

    “Why shouldn’t “conservatives” accept the result?”

    because the “Yes” case was based on a lie – the “marriage equality” lie.
    SS couples, just like heteros, can obtain a civil union and also claim a de facto relationship.
    There is no difference at law between hetero and homo couples in this regard.
    Indeed, I know a few couples that have held a civil union and declare themselves as “married” afterwards.
    No-one seems to mind this claim, or say it isn’t true, although it is demonstrably untrue.
    They do not feel any burden of inferiority because of this.
    Neither should homo couples who hold such a union.
    If they (a homo couple) wish to say they are married after a civil union, I don’t mind.
    I do object to the likely outcome of forcing the interpretation of the word “married” to mean something other than what most people expect it to mean, and I strenuously object to the also likely outcome that churches etc will be forced to “marry” SS couples, potentially facing a penalty for refusing service to such people and so on. This is wrong – wrong, wrong, wrong!

  102. Bob of Brisbane

    Nobody mentions that this SSM issue is just a part of the Plan of the Frankfurt School of Critical Thinking to destabilise Western civilisations. The objective is to make people so sick of their governments that they will accept a centralised control by a Marxist government. Here is the list of their eleven policy objectives. You will see that they are well on the way to being imposed on us.
    1. The creation of racism offences.

    2. Continual change to create confusion,
    3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children,
    4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority,
    5. Huge immigration to destroy identity,
    6. The promotion of excessive drinking,
    7. Emptying of churches,
    8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime’,
    9. Dependency on the state or state benefits,
    10. Control and dumbing down of media,
    11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
    https://thecross-roads.org/index.php/the-frankfurt-school-conspiracy-to-corrupt
    What to do about it?
    Tell anyone who will listen how we are being manipulated.

  103. AlanR

    What a collection of scared freightened people. Aching for ‘the good old days, how it used to be’. The world is going to implode and human existence will disappear. Well sorry folks, science tells us that planet earth will be here for several million years to come and history shows us that nothing remains the same, nothing is ‘forever’. Nothing you can do will prevent this. And that includes screaming foul when a survey you instigated doesn’t turn up the result you had hoped-for.

  104. Roger

    Sky commentator: “A profound social change” quoting Wong .

    Cultural revolution, comrades.

  105. Chris

    What a collection of scared freightened people.

    Our little tantrum will be over tomorrow. Ar you still knitting pussy hats and bashing Trump voters with baseball bats?

  106. iampeter

    Also I think the post from André M is just great. That’s someone who gets it and what I’d expect a lot more of at a “right wing” blog, alas.

    Would same sex marry.

  107. iampeter

    I see a whole bunch of you are intent on marrying your underage relatives etc. I didn’t realise that sexual deviancy is so common. I can think of no reason why the government should prevent you from doing so – yet I hope your other relatives would take a poor view of your intentions.

    More seriously – not being able to tell the difference between society and the government is part of the problem we now face.

    I think the problem is that people don’t really have a clear position on what the function of a government is supposed to be. Marrying someone who is “underage” is a rights violation because children can’t consent to marriage and it quite rightly should be illegal in a rights protecting country (i.e. free country).
    On the other hand, two consenting adults marrying each other is not a rights violation and so should not be illegal in a free country.

  108. Stimpson J. Cat

    I see a whole bunch of you are intent on marrying your underage relatives etc. I didn’t realise that sexual deviancy is so common.

    I refuse to be lectured on sexual deviancy by a man wearing a Mankini.

  109. Harald

    No matter the outcome of tomorrow’s same sex marriage postal vote, conservatives should not accept the outcome.

    I voted No, but denying reality after a lost vote is not a good look.

    The postal survey process has left many Australians to cast (whether for or against) a largely ill‑considered opinion.

    Insulting the electorate… even worse.

    This integrated process, according to former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov*, is referred to as ‘ideological subversion’ and was used extensively by the Soviets for nefarious geo-political strategic reasons and now appears to be a predominant technique in the western world.

    We had a debate. This sort of paranoid stuff probably did not help much.
    Then we had a vote and we lost – pretty big.

    To now throw a tantrum and “not accept the outcome”, call voters’ opinions “ill-considered” and shriek about “ideological subversion” is beyond wasting time and effort. It is an argument against democracy itself. It is an argument in favour of government by a minority of people with well-considered opinions – whatever that is at the time.

    In a democracy a society has the right to (re)define itself and its rules. That’s what happened – for better or for worse.

    Now let’s get on with it. The poisoned chalice is not yet empty; we’ll have to drink the whole thing.

    The discussion is now how to deal with this. The law is such a poor, inappropriate instrument in situations where you have a 60-40 division in society. But that’s where we are now. Somehow we need to do justice to the yes-outcome while taking into account the religious and individual liberties of those 38.4% who voted against the change.

    We cannot legislate stuff such that we have deliquency rates of 20 or even 30%. We don’t have prisons that big.

    Canberra Swamp… your move.

  110. A Lurker

    Social conservatives may well lose tomorrow and lose big. Lose with dignity.

    You mean like the dignity the Left and the Republicans showed when they lost the Republic referendum vote in 1999?

    Riiiiiiiiiight. Got it!

  111. I think the problem is that people don’t really have a clear position on what the function of a government is supposed to be. Marrying someone who is “underage” is a rights violation because children can’t consent to marriage and it quite rightly should be illegal in a rights protecting country (i.e. free country).
    On the other hand, two consenting adults marrying each other is not a rights violation and so should not be illegal in a free country.

    Two people of the same sex living together was not illegal in this country. All that the present law does is not recognize such a relationship as marriage. It’s amusing that libertarians appear not to be able to tell the difference.

    On the first purported difference above, you have simply empowered the government to make whatever judgments it likes in respect of marriage and its requirements. There really is no reason for you to say that two children ought not be allowed to marry. If it’s perfectly legal for two children of a similar age to have sex, and that is the only reason you would prevent/ rationalise a child from marrying an adult, then what other possible reason would you provide to justify the claim that marriage between children constitutes a rights violation? How could it be within their rights at 18 but not within their rights at 14? It can’t be ‘consent’ because you believe that children having sexual relations as teenagers can consent to these acts. So what possible reason/s could you have?

  112. Rebel with cause

    Accept the result and move on. It’s an important reminder that communities of faith should not look to government for moral guidance or protection.

  113. I think we’ve accepted the result but if the suggestion is to do nothing in future to reverse this decision, why?Leftists never move on, they continue until they win.

  114. cynical1

    I see it hasn’t taken long for the Queens to show their respect.

    Two Freddie Mercury lookalikes running around white in wedding dresses while groping each other
    as the featured pic at Yahoo.au.

    Tonight will make the Mardi Gras look like a non event.

    Lakemba seems pretty good at the moment.

    And bleach. Lots of bleach.

  115. Rebel with cause

    I suppose a good place to start may be to revisit the rights and responsibilities that marriage entails.

    Now that gays are also able to marry, is there any good reason why marriage should not be able to entail additional rights and responsibilities beyond those that a defacto relationship would confer?

    For example, why shouldn’t those of us who would prefer the protection of fault based divorce be able to elect to have a marriage with constrained circumstances of divorce?

  116. iampeter

    All that the present law does is not recognize such a relationship as marriage. It’s amusing that libertarians appear not to be able to tell the difference.

    It’s not about that, its about equality under the law. It’s not even a big deal as most same sex couples will readily tell you themselves, it’s just the principle of it.

    How could it be within their rights at 18 but not within their rights at 14? It can’t be ‘consent’ because you believe that children having sexual relations as teenagers can consent to these acts. So what possible reason/s could you have?

    If it’s after the age of consent and voluntary there is no reason for it to be illegal because no rights are violated.

  117. Now that gays are also able to marry, is there any good reason why marriage should not be able to entail additional rights and responsibilities beyond those that a defacto relationship would confer?

    For example, why shouldn’t those of us who would prefer the protection of fault based divorce be able to elect to have a marriage with constrained circumstances of divorce?

    On what grounds are you going to argue for those additional rights and responsibilities given that so much of the present debate was made on grounds of equality and fairness?

  118. It’s not about that, its about equality under the law. It’s not even a big deal as most same sex couples will readily tell you themselves, it’s just the principle of it.

    It’s amusing that you should say that it’s irrelevant that nothing prevented two people of the same-sex from living together, etc. What mattered, you say, is that the law did not recognize such a relationship as marriage whereas it recognized a certain sort of relationship between two persons of the opposite sex as marriage. How equality under the law is violated here is not clear since nothing prevented a homosexual from marrying anyone of the opposite sex. Just as it does not violate equality under the law to have to satisfy certain conditions for entry into this or that activity so long as those conditions are relevant to the activity itself, say, achieving a certain academic standard to attain a scholarship.

    If it’s after the age of consent and voluntary there is no reason for it to be illegal because no rights are violated.

    Well, children of the age of 14 can consent to sexual relations so long as their partner is no more than 2 years older than them. Given this, according to your own lights, children of 14 years old should be able to marry anyone no more than 2 years older than them because no rights are violated by such an arrangement.

  119. classical_hero

    We should get rid of defacto laws since they are now not needed.

  120. Rebel with cause

    You can also now make the argument that the state should actively discourage children being born out of wedlock. After all, we have been told that marriage is necessary to ensure gay couples with children have equal rights so what kind of monster would condemn children to be raised by an inferior coupling?

  121. Agree with Sinc.

    Then you are both wrong.

  122. We should get rid of defacto laws since they are now not needed.

    How does that follow? We had de facto recognition for heterosexual couples when marriage was already available to them.

    You can also now make the argument that the state should actively discourage children being born out of wedlock. After all, we have been told that marriage is necessary to ensure gay couples with children have equal rights so what kind of monster would condemn children to be raised by an inferior coupling?

    How is that going to fly when ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ means that children, whether or not their parents are married, should have the same access to government benefits. And lets not forget that Yes supporters claimed that from one side of their mouth that marriage had nothing to do with children while on the other side saying that gay ‘marriage’ would be good for children.

Leave a Reply

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