DancingShade posted:

The plebiscite is utter bullshit which will be manipulated and gamed to all gently caress by the bigoted wankers in charge but of course you should vote for equal rights.

What loving moron thinks not doing that is a good thing.

You know, apart from the people who have already declared as such in a "me me me look at me" sort of fashion.

Starshark posted:

Michael Kirby!

Stoca Zola posted:

I'm mad that they've phrased it so narrowly, a transwoman should be able to gay marry a woman or a transman marry a man or intersex and chromosomally diverse people should be able to marry whoever they want without their private medical history coming under scrutiny. Calling it same-sex marriage instead of marriage equality means that even a binding "yes" vote wouldn't fix things for some people.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Hobo Erotica posted:

Engaging with the ACL facebook page is kind of fun, I haven't done this sort of stuff for a while. People on there are pretty intense.

Synthbuttrange posted:

NoNotTheMindProbe posted:

They should scrap the postal vote and have an online poll instead. Gay marriage might not get legalised but at least Queery McQueerface will become our new head of state.

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

Mia and boycott plebiscite need to be swapped imo.

DancingShade posted:

If you want to cast a vote either way you should have to run the gauntlet on one of those crazy Japanese game shows where you get water dunked, knocked over with fake boulders and otherwise tortured physically for half an hour.

bigis posted:

If I draw a dick on my form does it count as a yes?

Cleretic posted:

Marriage and trans or intersex people is a really loving confusing morass of contradictions and accidental invalidations, but same-sex marriage does solve most of those problems. There's still weird little fiddly bits and outliers, and of course sometimes the struggle in finding people willing to officiate or sign along for your specific peculiarities, but it gives the opportunity in most cases.

I agree with the usage of the term 'marriage equality' over 'same-sex marriage', although I find in my speech that I gravitate to the latter. That might be my internal bias towards the one I see more often (the Greens call it marriage equality, and I'm with them a lot, but nobody else really does), but I also think it's a little better aesthetically. It puts what it's about right in front and is very specific, while 'marriage equality' could mean a couple things. SSM is also a pretty uncommon acronym, while I know of a few MEs.

Cleretic posted:

Just finished up a bit of an effortpost on Facebook about the mistake of abstaining instead of voting 'yes'. If people want it, here you go:


I've made the post public, which might be a bad idea. If you feel like sharing it yourself you can find it yourself, I'm not inclined to post my Facebook account here.

Tokamak posted:

I would blow Dane Cook posted:

* Survey forms will include the question "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" and voters will tick a "yes" or "no" box. Other marks on the form (such as a "1" in one box, or an "x" in one box) will be counted, so long as the preference of the voter is clear.

Stoca Zola posted:

I'm mad that they've phrased it so narrowly, a transwoman should be able to gay marry a woman or a transman marry a man or intersex and chromosomally diverse people should be able to marry whoever they want without their private medical history coming under scrutiny. Calling it same-sex marriage instead of marriage equality means that even a binding "yes" vote wouldn't fix things for some people.

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

... So if the marriage act just gets rid of any reference to marriage being between a man and a woman exclusively it should essentially be marriage equality for everyone.

quote:

The Indian mining giant Adani's Abbot Point coal terminal in Northern Queensland has avoided a multi-million-dollar fine, but has been slugged $12,000 over an environmental breach.
Queensland's Environment Department has fined the operators of the facility just over $12,000 for releasing sediment storm water during Tropical Cyclone Debbie at a level many times higher than allowed.

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection said the company was granted a temporary emissions licence (TEL) during the rain event, but the company breached the conditions, releasing sediment amounts more than eight times the level it was licenced for.
"This stormwater was discharged to the surrounding marine waters," the department said in a statement.
"Temporary emissions licences and environmental authorities are not taken lightly by the department and there can be harsh penalties for companies that breach their approvals."

Environment Department director-general Jim Reeves has previously told the ABC fines for non-compliance could be in the millions.
"There are serious penalties for corporations whose non-compliance with their environmental authorities or temporary emissions licences causes environmental harm, including fines of up to $3.8 million if the non-compliance was wilful, or $2.7 million if the non-compliance was unintentional," Mr Reeves said.

quote:

The company has until August 17 to contest the fine in court.

Gorilla Salad posted:

What so many people forget is that marriage isn't just about affirming your love; it's also taxes, housing, government benefits, inheritance and countless other things.

Gorilla Salad posted:

What so many people forget is that marriage isn't just about affirming your love; it's also taxes, housing, government benefits, inheritance and countless other things.

Imagine a gay couple where one is the biological parent of the children they are raising together. Say that person dies. As it stands, their partner does not get custody automatically even if they are the only surviving family the children have ever known. They have to fight for it. And, given the bigotry present in many of the old, staid judiciary, they may well have to fight really damned hard.

And if the partner who died owned the house they lived in? More dramas there, too.

Or your partner is lying in a hospital bed, unconscious. You get no say in their treatment or visiting rights.

A thousand things straight couples take for granted as "how the world naturally works" just aren't there when you're LGBT.


Marriage was created by the state to give firm, set answers to all the questions of how society says relationships - from beginning to end - will be treated by the state, businesses, people and so on.

Without that certainty, you can get left with nothing.

Gorilla Salad posted:

What so many people forget is that marriage isn't just about affirming your love; it's also taxes, housing, government benefits, inheritance and countless other things.

Imagine a gay couple where one is the biological parent of the children they are raising together. Say that person dies. As it stands, their partner does not get custody automatically even if they are the only surviving family the children have ever known. They have to fight for it. And, given the bigotry present in many of the old, staid judiciary, they may well have to fight really damned hard.

And if the partner who died owned the house they lived in? More dramas there, too.

Or your partner is lying in a hospital bed, unconscious. You get no say in their treatment or visiting rights.

A thousand things straight couples take for granted as "how the world naturally works" just aren't there when you're LGBT.


Marriage was created by the state to give firm, set answers to all the questions of how society says relationships - from beginning to end - will be treated by the state, businesses, people and so on.

Without that certainty, you can get left with nothing.

BBJoey posted:

bob katter makes the intriguing claim that "arguably the only time the middle east knew peace was under the Crusaders".

Jintor posted:

you have to draw it in the right box

Gorilla Salad posted:

What so many people forget is that marriage isn't just about affirming your love; it's also taxes, housing, government benefits, inheritance and countless other things.

Imagine a gay couple where one is the biological parent of the children they are raising together. Say that person dies. As it stands, their partner does not get custody automatically even if they are the only surviving family the children have ever known. They have to fight for it. And, given the bigotry present in many of the old, staid judiciary, they may well have to fight really damned hard.

And if the partner who died owned the house they lived in? More dramas there, too.

Or your partner is lying in a hospital bed, unconscious. You get no say in their treatment or visiting rights.

A thousand things straight couples take for granted as "how the world naturally works" just aren't there when you're LGBT.


Marriage was created by the state to give firm, set answers to all the questions of how society says relationships - from beginning to end - will be treated by the state, businesses, people and so on.

Without that certainty, you can get left with nothing.

BBJoey posted:

bob katter makes the intriguing claim that "arguably the only time the middle east knew peace was under the Crusaders".

open24hours posted:

I don't doubt that this happens, but I thought same sex couples had all the same legal rights as defacto couples?

BBJoey posted:

bob katter makes the intriguing claim that "arguably the only time the middle east knew peace was under the Crusaders".

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Nope!

Anidav posted:

Bob Katter is right and should play Paradox games.