In his letter, Premier Andrews writes;
…a national plebiscite on marriage equality – a harmful vote on whether or not a group of Australians should be considered equal under the law.
Andrews goes on to say why he believes it is harmful, but three things first; democracy cannot be considered harmful just because a significant portion of community voted against the successful outcome. Secondly, same sex (SS) relationships are currently considered equal under the law in almost every aspect. The one difference may be adoption. Interesting this; the single most significant difference between SS and heterosexual couples is the natural capability to procreate. Relationships are simply not equal and therefore should not be afforded exact same status under law.
…you are proposing to spend $160 million of taxpayers’ money on what amounts to the nation’s most expensive opinion poll.
This is rich. Andrews burns over $1Bn of federal (taxpayers) funds by scrapping the East-West Link and complains about $160m being spent on democracy. To say this is the nation’s most expensive opinion poll is simply smart arsery. Seeing as we only have a plebiscite every 20 years or so, due to inflation, every plebiscite becomes the nation’s most expensive opinion poll. That could be another name for a plebiscite but does not negate the good reason to have the occasional one when the matter is of nation changing importance.
The plebiscite will hurt people. It will legitimise a hateful debate which will subject LGBTI Australians to publicly funded slurs and denigration, further alienating a proud community who have fought so hard against prejudice for so long.
The LGBTI community are hurt already and need healing. This is probably the primary reason they feel SS attraction. Because of their pre-existing hurts, they are easily hurt and offended. If people feel hurt by fair, reasonable and rational debate on important topics then this shows need of healing and not need for stifling debate.
A plebiscite is not a publicly funded opportunity to slur and denigrate. Any public funds will not be used for this purpose, however public funds need to be provide to put both sides of the argument. I don’t have much faith in Turnbull to even this ledger, so the pro SS marriage camp will be over-subscribed by public funds, I am sure.
Unfortunately, some people may say such things, however they will be private and not publicly funded. As for the LGBTI community and Green Left, they are more than capable of slurs and denigration themselves. That is not a one-sided affair.
As for alienating the LGBTI community, I think it will bring them out. It may polarize camps, however that is the nature of democracy that should not be shied away from. Further regarding the proud community, if this community was not so proud, maybe they could recognize that they are hurt and need some healing of their hearts. This would be the most healthy outcome for the LGBTI community.
You and I have both had the privilege of standing in front of our loved ones and committing ourselves for life to another person, and both of us were afforded full legal recognition when we did so.
Interesting argument Andrews is putting here. Two things; yes they did stand in front of loved ones and commit to their wives. This supports the argument that marriage is a public institution and not a private institution. People erroneously argue that marriage is a private, behind the bedroom doors relationship and others should butt out. This is not so. They are conflating personal intimacy with marriage. Intimacy is personal (and therefor shouldn’t be flagrantly paraded in public mardi gras.) Marriage however is a public institution by way of group attendance at the marriage ceremony and reception, presided over by a registered person, witnessed by two witnesses and recorded in the public record of Births, Deaths and Marriages in the capital city of every state and country in every Western developed nation on earth.
Marriage is a public institution with public benefits. The most significant benefit of this union is the ability to raise children. The spiritual (heart) and mental health of children largely hinges on the strength and presence of both natural parents. To this end, marriage as a union between a man and woman should be preserved and promoted for our children’s sake and the health of the nation.
I’m witnessing so many people forced to fight just to be allowed to do what I did – marry the person they love.
To marry the person they love is not a good argument. What if a mother loves a son or a father loves a daughter? What if an adult loves a child? None of these relationships are acceptable in any Western democracy for good reason that need not be argued here. People who are in those relationships, or want to be allowed to be, will use the very same argument. It is simply insufficient for them and it is therefor also insufficient for the LGBTI community to use it here to justify SS marriage.
In Victoria, equality is not negotiable. On behalf of my state, I urge you to accept there is no need for a costly and divisive plebiscite and agree to produce a Bill to amend the Marriage Act within the next 100 days.
Equality is not negotiable? How about procreation? The ability to procreate is not negotiable nor equal. What a most significant difference. A heterosexual relationship is naturally superior to a SS relationship by this significant and important difference. If anyone is offended by that then they are too easily offended. To be offended by natural facts is simply an offence too easily taken.
What about all the Victorians who are against SS marriage and for the existing definition of between one man and one woman? That is offensive right there that their views are ignored and subjugated to Andrews totalitarian words and behaviour. There is need to spend this money on this plebiscite as it is such an important and fundamental social institution. Andrews argues it is so important that it is not important enough to spend money on! That is a hypocritical argument. Fact is, it is a very important issue and $160m is not too much to resolve.
As for the divisive bit, I think the LGBTI community is divisive in their arguments and presentation. This very letter is and will be divisive. Every member of the public, every journalist and politician who is in favour of SS marriage will use this letter to divide the nation. Let’s face it, more young (& rude) Green Left use social media such as Twitter and we know that arguments with anonymous twitter handles can be very nasty. This is their vehicle of choice to be rude, divisive, bigoted, hateful, mean and nasty. Further, the mainstream media leans to the Left and so they will use this letter as a battering ram from here to democracy. And as for the likes of de Natale, Shorten, Wong and Plibersek, they will use it mercilessly and divisively for selfish ends. Make no mistake; this letter is divisive yet Andrews wants to say that a democratic construct will be divisive? This is deceitful.
By granting government members a free vote, you can finally stand up to those in your party room who do not represent a fair and modern country.
What a cunning and deceitful argument. Andrews knows, as does all the Left, that conservative Liberals are in favour of the present definition of marriage and that Malcolm is for SS Marriage. We also know that there is some backroom argy bargy in the Liberal party from the fallout of both supplanting Abbott and losing so much support at the recent federal election. Andrews is deliberately playing on this power struggle within Liberal ranks. Andrews is being divisive. All may be fair in love and war but let it be known who is being divisive here; Andrews.
He then presents a reason for creating division within the Liberal party by using the fair argument, the favourite argument of the Left. Democracy is fair and therefor a plebiscite is the fairest way to decide an issue so important to our social fabric. And then we have the modern argument which suggests conservativism is anachronistic. No; progressivism (modernity) is faulty here. Progressivism wants to move away from the traditional and universally embraced and understood definition of marriage that has undergirded the single most basic institution of all civilisations over all of time. That is a big call and a simplistic argument of being ‘modern’ and by default suggesting Liberal conservatives are outdated is steeped in subjective opinion and not objective and obvious truths.
Marriage equality means so much to so many people. On the cusp of its realization, it is wrong for you to impose one last hurdle – one final insult.
Marriage in its current form means so much to so many people. On the cusp of losing this most important social institution, it is wrong to suggest that we should not exercise democracy. That is insulting to all sensibilities. If LGBTI people are insulted by what fair and rational people believe about marriage, then that is simply and merely unfortunate for them. Again, that is their choice to be offended and shows that they are too easily offended. Again, this ease of offense taking probably stems from being hurt, usually at a young age and more often that not, by a father or father figure. This needs healing, not selfish pandering.
After a botched referendum in 1999, you accused a conservative Prime Minister of breaking the nation’s heart. If you fumble at this crucial moment, history will only remember you for the same thing.
Wow! What an emotionally strong argument. Not good or right, but emotional. Firstly the referendum in 1999 was not botched. The right outcome was achieved by mere fact of history. This term only shows personal opinion and bigotry – holding fast to your opinion in the face of evidence that is against you.
Malcolm probably deserves this ‘breaking the nation’s heart’ line to be thrown back at him as there was never any basis for it then. It was simply a childish sore loser’s insult hurled at the victors. Neither is it a good argument now. If the nation votes to keep the current definition of marriage, it will not break the nation’s heart by definition. The nation’s heart will be discovered, exposed and strengthened. Moreover, it will be the Left and in particular, the LGBTI community whose heart will be broken. However it already is, and so it is sore and vulnerable already. This is why they want to play on this emotion. Problem is their great ‘pride’ is standing in their way of receiving the healing that they need and subconsciously crave.
Every one of Premier Andrews arguments have been fairly and decisively rebutted here. His arguments are poor and insufficient to persuade any reasonable person of the merit of his demands on the Prime Minister.
Senator Brandis says plebiscite results should be reported electorate by electorate as requested by Coalition MPs who want to vote against the measure should their constituents express that view.
Mark Dreyfus, Opposition legal affairs spokesperson says their is absolutely no reason for a national plebiscite to be counted electorate by electorate. This seems to fly in the face of the very reasons previously stated by Coalition MPs which seems the most obvious and democratic way to inform any and every MP on how to vote. Mark Dreyfus always seems to have his own agenda and argues against common sense and logic. I mean, really, what a stupid statement. What he is really saying is that in his opinion, we should allow SS marriage and he will say anything, absolutely anything, that feathers his nest rather than being logical, reasonable and fair. I guess Mark Dreyfus is simply illogical, unreasonable and unfair. Wait… no, that would be right. To borrow a quote from Gerard Henderson, “This is an authoritarian position that equates disagreement with error.” (Not in same context but a brilliant summation of argument.)
Mr Turnbull also clarified that both the “yes” and “no” campaigns will get equal funding. I stand corrected. Sorry Malcolm.
ABC election analyst Antony Green says plebiscites are always reported by polling booth and electorate and sees that there is no reason for this SS plebiscite to be any different. Take that Mark Dreyfus. And you were the Attorney General under Gillard and are the Opposition legal affairs spokesperson? Your biased, incorrect and wrong view disqualifies you from the position you hold as you have demonstrated yourself unwilling to be logical, reasonable and fair.