Liberal Party Debating Policy re same sex marriage

[EEEEEEP]

What does this even mean?

Tony Abbott is saying that "It is socially and politically acceptable to say that you like same sex marriage and it is not acceptable to disagree against it".

He is kind of right in saying that (... In this day and age some things are not allowed to be said  or you essentially get ostracized by society...) , but the political wind tides have changed.  The amount of arguments against SSM, can be fluffy at best.

[Joseph41]

It means that he's a manipulative scoundrel who's smarter than the media makes him out to be.

This entire charade is a mockery of our political process  . 

Yeah, definitely a clever ploy IMO.

[elysepopplewell]

I'm so disappointed

[vox nihili]

Point for discussion:

Boycott the postal plebiscite or not?


Some are advocating that it should be boycotted by supporters of SSM. What are your views?

[Aaron]

Tbh anyone who does not participate in the postal plebiscite cannot then complain if it goes one way or the other.

Given it is public opinion, I expect there to be a significant campaign from opponents of SSM (and hopefully campaigning from those in the pro-SSM camp).

I imagine the result of this will be used in every media outlet and used as evidence towards a particular argument... so it would be irresponsible to boycott it.

In a way, this will at least paint a decent picture as to the current views on the issue. Although I don't like how it's a voluntary postal vote (it is voluntary... right)..... don't think the data will be truly representative of the population. And the cost... don't get me started on that.

That's my view on the postal plebiscite issue, anyway.

My view on the whole SSM topic: should've just allowed a free vote in parliament and got on with it. The "we took it to the people" argument used by the Libs is getting old. They barely won government, they only hold a 1 seat majority.. so their victory is hardly convincing.

[K888]

Point for discussion:

Boycott the postal plebiscite or not?


Some are advocating that it should be boycotted by supporters of SSM. What are your views?

I don't think boycotting will achieve anything good - all it will do is make the non-SSM camp harp on about how Australia obviously doesn't want SSM.
I'll personally vote, because change starts with me. The fact is, I want SSM to be allowed, and participating is the only way I can currently have any impact on that (even if the result is non-binding).
Like Aaron said, I dislike the fact it is voluntary (I mean, I dislike the fact it's gonna happen in the first place, but yeah).

Seriously, they should just have a free vote and be done with it. The government is elected to represent the people and their views - so they should represent, and get a fucking move on with it.

Edit: I just realised, I don't even know where the nearest postbox is. Or how much stamps cost. Do I have to pay to send my opinion on equality? Or do I get the privilege of postage paid?

On a tangent - re: representing the people, my local federal member actually changed his stance on SSM to one of support (with subsequent backlash from his party), after listening to the views of his constituents. I really respect that, because that's what representing the people is all about.

[strawberries]

Point for discussion:

Boycott the postal plebiscite or not?


Some are advocating that it should be boycotted by supporters of SSM. What are your views?

I was actually considering this but I don't think it helps.
The thing is, I DON'T want a say though. It's not my choice - it's the job of the elected representatives.

Edit: I just realised, I don't even know where the nearest postbox is. Or how much stamps cost. Do I have to pay to send my opinion on equality? Or do I get the privilege of postage paid?

surely it'd have to be paid?
I don't think that anti-SSMers would be willing to pay to send their opinion though.

[vox nihili]

The ballot itself will be paid for you, K888.

The major concern with the postal ballot is that it's unlikely to provide an accurate view of support for SSM in Australia. There are a few reasons:

-younger people usually have more flexible living arrangements and are less likely to be enrolled at the right address
-younger people have been shown, time and again, to be much less likely to participate in non-compulsory ballots (the differential has been 70% in the past)
-young people are much more likely to support SSM

My concern about the postal ballot is that we could see a similar thing happen as happened in the UK with Brexit. There, the vast majority of people supported remain; however, because the turnout was only 50% (i.e. Only half the population voted) Brexit won, in spite of the fact it didn't have majority support. Had it been a compulsory ballot, remain would have almost certainly won.

The same concerns are valid in Australia. Personally, I would like to see a mass boycott. But it would need to be supported by the lobby and get popular support. Individual boycotts are silly.
My reason for this is two fold:

1. It's the least risky path because the yes vote may fail due to the circumstances of the ballot
2. It sends a clear message that this plebiscite is a farce


Irrespective of your views on SSM, it is absolutely unarguable that this plebiscite is in poor form. We already know that Australians support SSM because multiple polls over multiple years have consistently shown that. The chance that these do not represent Australian's views on this issue is astronomically small.

This plebiscite, on the other hand, is unrepresentative of our views (see above) and is thus a horrendously expensive way to get the wrong answer to a question we answered long ago.

I mean, 100 million + to settle a factional war within your party is absolutely shameful. That's 100 million dollars of money that everyone in this country worked to make that's going to be pissed up against the wall.

[brenden]

Point for discussion:

Boycott the postal plebiscite or not?


Some are advocating that it should be boycotted by supporters of SSM. What are your views?

I don't understand why prominent people would encourage a boycott. If you wanted to get on your philosophical high-horse:

1. The postal vote is wrong and should be condemned (true)
2. By involving ourselves in the postal vote, we are tacitly supporting it (maybe)
3. We should not tacitly support condemnable processes (true)
C. We should not involve ourselves in the postal vote.

And I can empathise with the righteousness... but realistically, boycotting the postal vote decreases the chances of SSM being legalised in 2017-2018. If you're an advocate for SSM, you just shouldn't act in a way that decreases its likelihood - greater commitments to democratic ideals be damned.

Certainly won't be boycotting, and I'd encourage everyone else legally able to cast their vote.

[EEEEEEP]

AYayayayay.

How long have we banging on about this for in Aus? For a long time.

Yes it's an important issue, but gosh we have so many other issues to deal with.

I cannot remember an issue that has taken this long to deal with recently.
.....
This may be semi relevant.. but I think it is highly hypocritical for Penny WOng to make that emotional speech when.. http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/wong-on-song-with-labors-gay-line-20100725-10q38.html
""The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."

Senator Wong said she respected Labor's view of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman."
Wouldn't you roll your eyes at that? The WHOLE labour party has done a backflip and so has Penny Wong..

[vox nihili]

I don't understand why prominent people would encourage a boycott. If you wanted to get on your philosophical high-horse:

1. The postal vote is wrong and should be condemned (true)
2. By involving ourselves in the postal vote, we are tacitly supporting it (maybe)
3. We should not tacitly support condemnable processes (true)
C. We should not involve ourselves in the postal vote.

And I can empathise with the righteousness... but realistically, boycotting the postal vote decreases the chances of SSM being legalised in 2017-2018. If you're an advocate for SSM, you just shouldn't act in a way that decreases its likelihood - greater commitments to democratic ideals be damned.

Certainly won't be boycotting, and I'd encourage everyone else legally able to cast their vote.

There are perfectly fair practical reasons for trying to encourage a mass boycott. Even without a boycott this postal vote could turn over a majority no vote. If turnout is so low because so many have boycotted, then that result won't count for much and marriage equality advocates can say that. However, if turnout is over 50% and it still turns over a no vote (completely possible), then SSM will be dead in the water for years to come.

Worst case scenario though is that there isn't agreement among SSM advocates to boycott. So some do, some don't. That way you still get reasonable turnout, but still see the no vote prevail because SSM advocates are selecting themselves out. If there's going to be a boycott, it has to be agreed among the major lobby group, and the major political parties (Labor and Greens on this side of the issue). If not it will be a disaster.




As I said, I think it's a conservative and sensible course of action for the lobby/parties to push. It's the most low-risk approach. If, however, they decide to campaign for a yes vote, then advocates for SSM who boycott are fools.

The addition that it also punishes the Liberal party for being so profligate and irresponsible in the way they spend their money shouldn't feature in the discussion about whether to boycott. It's just a nice addition

AYayayayay.

How long have we banging on about this for in Aus? For a long time.

Yes it's an important issue, but gosh we have so many other issues to deal with.

I cannot remember an issue that has taken this long to deal with recently.
.....
This may be semi relevant.. but I think it is highly hypocritical for Penny WOng to make that emotional speech when.. http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/wong-on-song-with-labors-gay-line-20100725-10q38.html
""The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."

Senator Wong said she respected Labor's view of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman."
Wouldn't you roll your eyes at that? The WHOLE labour party has done a backflip and so has Penny Wong..

Labor have a shameful history on this issue. Their opposition is rooted in the fact that one of the sub-factions of the Labor Right (the SDA) has maintained steadfast opposition to SSM. Indeed, that faction is known for being socially conservative and has pushed socially conservative policies at Labor conferences for years.

Given the way Labor operates, even the majority of those in the party who don't support the SDA's views have to support them (this is draconian and worthy of criticism). However, my understanding is that the SDA has a reasonable amount of weight, particularly in SA and in the Senate. Given that the socially conservative faction of the Labor party once split from the party (leading to 23 years in opposition), Labor has always been a bit timid on this issue.

Personally, I'm disappointed that they didn't legislate SSM in Rudd-Gillard years; however, I think that the Liberal party deserves criticism in this case for:

a. Legislating a fundamentally illiberal change to the Marriage Act during the Howard government
b. Breaking with decades of Liberal tradition by denying their members a free vote on what is a matter of conscience

[Calebark]

AYayayayay.

How long have we banging on about this for in Aus? For a long time.

Yes it's an important issue, but gosh we have so many other issues to deal with.

I cannot remember an issue that has taken this long to deal with recently.
.....
This may be semi relevant.. but I think it is highly hypocritical for Penny WOng to make that emotional speech when.. http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/wong-on-song-with-labors-gay-line-20100725-10q38.html
""The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."

Senator Wong said she respected Labor's view of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman."
Wouldn't you roll your eyes at that? The WHOLE labour party has done a backflip and so has Penny Wong..

It seems reasonable to me that a person's views can develop and mature so much within 7 years.

[elysepopplewell]

It seems reasonable to me that a person's views can develop and mature so much within 7 years.

Similarly for me. I HOPE that politicians change their stance on things over time. It's a trait of the politicians I like least to maintain the same views through their long political career, even when the world around them changes.

[EEEEEEP]

Labor have a shameful history on this issue. Their opposition is rooted in the fact that one of the sub-factions of the Labor Right (the SDA) has maintained steadfast opposition to SSM. Indeed, that faction is known for being socially conservative and has pushed socially conservative policies at Labor conferences for years.

Given the way Labor operates, even the majority of those in the party who don't support the SDA's views have to support them (this is draconian and worthy of criticism). However, my understanding is that the SDA has a reasonable amount of weight, particularly in SA and in the Senate. Given that the socially conservative faction of the Labor party once split from the party (leading to 23 years in opposition), Labor has always been a bit timid on this issue.

Personally, I'm disappointed that they didn't legislate SSM in Rudd-Gillard years; however, I think that the Liberal party deserves criticism in this case for:

You are totally right! I am very disappointed in not 1, but both parties. Both parties are indeed guilty.

I suspect that nothing will come out of this debacle in the coming months (In re: SSM progression).

There may be a leadership spill though. 

[Joseph41]

There may be a leadership spill though. 

Merely for the sake of my own academic research, I hope that this occurs hahaha. #morespills #moretheses