4 ms·

It's a shame it got so muddied. I suspect a lot of the "No" votes are more related to uncertainty about what specific policies will be involved, than to opposit

It's a shame it got so muddied. I suspect a lot of the "No" votes are more related to uncertainty about what specific policies will be involved, than to opposition of same sex marriage itself.

xupybd 9y ago
Yes, I understand some of the concern is around requiring religious officials to marry same sex couples. As I understand it under the proposed bill they would be forced to.
- synicalx 9y ago
  It's more a case of, they would already be forced to under existing laws and the new bill does nothing to change that situation. (if that makes sense?) What is a little unclear, is how the intention of a service provider (lets say, a photographer) is determined if a same-sex couple makes a complaint about them refusing service. If the photographer was just very busy, or didn't want to shoot their wedding for an unrelated reason, how would they prove that in court?
  - xupybd 9y ago
    That's interesting, does anyone know who the burden of proof would fall on? Can you just refuse to offer service without giving a reason?
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > they would already be forced to under existing laws Well, the reason there isn't an exception for that is that it has not applied this whole time in the first place. Under existing laws, they are not forced to, whether that's by default or not.
  - Renaud 9y ago
    Probably the same way if the photographer refused service to someone of colour. It could be racism or the photographer could just being busy.
  - cynix 9y ago
    > If the photographer was just very busy, or didn't want to shoot their wedding for an unrelated reason, how would they prove that in court? Ask the photographer if they'll do the shoot before telling them it's for a same-sex couple.
- caf 9y ago
  No, they would not. Those solemnising religious marriages can already refuse to do so - for example, divorcees can remarry in Australia however the Catholic Church will refuse to solemnise such marriages. The situation with same-sex marriage is exactly the same.
  - xupybd 9y ago
    It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
synicalx 9y ago
It does come across as a bit odd, I can sort of understand not wanting to vote on something when you can't really see the full picture of what you're voting on. Hell just because this came up as a 'YES', that doesn't mean whatever law gets put forward is actually going to be in the best interest of same-sex couples - they also don't know what they voted on. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of a same-sex couple if, hypothetically, the law is modified such that they can get married BUT they can be refused services related to that marriage on religious grounds. If they knew that was what would happen, would they vote yes?
- wyqydsyq 9y ago
  > if, hypothetically, the law is modified such that they can get married BUT they can be refused services related to that marriage on religious grounds. That is the most likely result of this poll > If they knew that was what would happen, would they vote yes? From the same-sex couples I've talked to, absolutely. Very few same-sex couples are interested in getting married by a religious celebrant, considering said religions typically vilify their sexuality.
  - flukus 9y ago
    Just to clarify, the most likely result is that religious organisations can refuse to marry people, but individuals will not be allowed to on religious grounds. A gay marriage won't be happening in a cathedral, but someone selling wedding cakes will not be able to discriminate.
will_hughes 9y ago
> It's a shame it got so muddied. The whole structure of the survey (not vote) was deliberately done to confuse the issue. - It's not legally binding on the parliament (it's a survey, not a vote) - It's not mandatory participation like voting (again, survey) - It was done by the ABS with responses tracable back to the person - supposedly those responses will be destroyed and not recorded elsewhere. - It was mailed out in recognisable letters, allowing sabotage of the survey (plenty of examples of letters being dumped on footpaths, some examples of someone responding on behalf of others) - Responses were sent back in recognisable envelopes through which you could see the response, again permitting anyone with access to the mail to tamper/destroy responses they disagreed with. - Those handling the responses were put under gag clauses which prevent them from talking about any issues they might have witnessed. - No independent witnesses to the counting process.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > survey (not vote) Yeah, I'm aware that genuine postal referenda are probably not lawful in Australia; which is good for the many reasons you add. ;- ) I meant "vote" in the more casual sense, since it's a multiple choice question gathering responses from a demographic, it is a poll in the strictest sense. An individual response to a poll is a vote, whether it's binding, non-binding, serious, humourous, legitimate, or illegitimate.
- Paraesthetic 9y ago
  Watched one of the girls at my apartment complex grab one out of the mailboxes and exclaim that person was now voting yes. Shame it wasn't voter fraud since its not a vote.
wyqydsyq 9y ago
There also seems to have been a large portion of the Australian radical-nationalist demographic (typically white supremacy groups akin to Reclaim Australia etc) campaigned for voting "no" under some bizarre narrative that legalisation of gay marriage would somehow enable Arabic Muslims (who these groups seem to have a comically irrational fear of) to have legally recognised polygamous marriages in Australia. The influence exerted by radical sensationalist groups like these on politics is disgusting really, it's made even worse that the vast majority of information shared by these groups is incorrect or intentionally misleading/manipulative like the case I just mentioned
- flukus 9y ago
  At least we found an issue the white nationalist christians, muslims and asian migrants can all come together and agree on. The areas with the lowest yes vote were the areas we're these groups are concentrated.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > some bizarre narrative that legalisation of gay marriage would somehow enable Arabic Muslims (who these groups seem to have a comically irrational fear of) to have legally recognised polygamous marriages in Australia. I want to read the garbage rag which made this argument, it sounds bizarre. (protip: share by archive link to avoid sending ad revenue to outrageous spam sites.)

It's a shame it got so muddied. I suspect a lot of the "No" votes are more related to uncertainty about what specific policies will be involved, than to opposition of same sex marriage itself.

xupybd 9y ago

Yes, I understand some of the concern is around requiring religious officials to marry same sex couples. As I understand it under the proposed bill they would be forced to.

synicalx 9y ago
It's more a case of, they would already be forced to under existing laws and the new bill does nothing to change that situation. (if that makes sense?) What is a little unclear, is how the intention of a service provider (lets say, a photographer) is determined if a same-sex couple makes a complaint about them refusing service. If the photographer was just very busy, or didn't want to shoot their wedding for an unrelated reason, how would they prove that in court?
- xupybd 9y ago
  That's interesting, does anyone know who the burden of proof would fall on? Can you just refuse to offer service without giving a reason?
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > they would already be forced to under existing laws Well, the reason there isn't an exception for that is that it has not applied this whole time in the first place. Under existing laws, they are not forced to, whether that's by default or not.
- Renaud 9y ago
  Probably the same way if the photographer refused service to someone of colour. It could be racism or the photographer could just being busy.
- cynix 9y ago
  > If the photographer was just very busy, or didn't want to shoot their wedding for an unrelated reason, how would they prove that in court? Ask the photographer if they'll do the shoot before telling them it's for a same-sex couple.
caf 9y ago
No, they would not. Those solemnising religious marriages can already refuse to do so - for example, divorcees can remarry in Australia however the Catholic Church will refuse to solemnise such marriages. The situation with same-sex marriage is exactly the same.
- xupybd 9y ago
  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

synicalx 9y ago

It does come across as a bit odd, I can sort of understand not wanting to vote on something when you can't really see the full picture of what you're voting on. Hell just because this came up as a 'YES', that doesn't mean whatever law gets put forward is actually going to be in the best interest of same-sex couples - they also don't know what they voted on. I'd be interested to hear the opinion of a same-sex couple if, hypothetically, the law is modified such that they can get married BUT they can be refused services related to that marriage on religious grounds. If they knew that was what would happen, would they vote yes?

wyqydsyq 9y ago
> if, hypothetically, the law is modified such that they can get married BUT they can be refused services related to that marriage on religious grounds. That is the most likely result of this poll > If they knew that was what would happen, would they vote yes? From the same-sex couples I've talked to, absolutely. Very few same-sex couples are interested in getting married by a religious celebrant, considering said religions typically vilify their sexuality.
- flukus 9y ago
  Just to clarify, the most likely result is that religious organisations can refuse to marry people, but individuals will not be allowed to on religious grounds. A gay marriage won't be happening in a cathedral, but someone selling wedding cakes will not be able to discriminate.

will_hughes 9y ago

> It's a shame it got so muddied. The whole structure of the survey (not vote) was deliberately done to confuse the issue. - It's not legally binding on the parliament (it's a survey, not a vote) - It's not mandatory participation like voting (again, survey) - It was done by the ABS with responses tracable back to the person - supposedly those responses will be destroyed and not recorded elsewhere. - It was mailed out in recognisable letters, allowing sabotage of the survey (plenty of examples of letters being dumped on footpaths, some examples of someone responding on behalf of others) - Responses were sent back in recognisable envelopes through which you could see the response, again permitting anyone with access to the mail to tamper/destroy responses they disagreed with. - Those handling the responses were put under gag clauses which prevent them from talking about any issues they might have witnessed. - No independent witnesses to the counting process.

microcolonel 9y ago
> survey (not vote) Yeah, I'm aware that genuine postal referenda are probably not lawful in Australia; which is good for the many reasons you add. ;- ) I meant "vote" in the more casual sense, since it's a multiple choice question gathering responses from a demographic, it is a poll in the strictest sense. An individual response to a poll is a vote, whether it's binding, non-binding, serious, humourous, legitimate, or illegitimate.
Paraesthetic 9y ago
Watched one of the girls at my apartment complex grab one out of the mailboxes and exclaim that person was now voting yes. Shame it wasn't voter fraud since its not a vote.

wyqydsyq 9y ago

There also seems to have been a large portion of the Australian radical-nationalist demographic (typically white supremacy groups akin to Reclaim Australia etc) campaigned for voting "no" under some bizarre narrative that legalisation of gay marriage would somehow enable Arabic Muslims (who these groups seem to have a comically irrational fear of) to have legally recognised polygamous marriages in Australia. The influence exerted by radical sensationalist groups like these on politics is disgusting really, it's made even worse that the vast majority of information shared by these groups is incorrect or intentionally misleading/manipulative like the case I just mentioned

flukus 9y ago
At least we found an issue the white nationalist christians, muslims and asian migrants can all come together and agree on. The areas with the lowest yes vote were the areas we're these groups are concentrated.
microcolonel 9y ago
> some bizarre narrative that legalisation of gay marriage would somehow enable Arabic Muslims (who these groups seem to have a comically irrational fear of) to have legally recognised polygamous marriages in Australia. I want to read the garbage rag which made this argument, it sounds bizarre. (protip: share by archive link to avoid sending ad revenue to outrageous spam sites.)