|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Jesus christ, that's the question? gently caress I hope they just remove the bit about marriage being between a man and a woman and don't make specific reference to same-sex marriage in the bill. "marriage means the union of a man and a woman, and also the union of two people of the same sex, voluntarily entered into for life." Separate, but equal 
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
Toys For rear end Bum posted:"marriage means the union of a man and a woman, and also the union of two people of the same sex, voluntarily entered into for life." Seems designed to gently caress over the non-binary in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Seems designed to gently caress over the non-binary in the long run. I feel like that ascribes too much acknowledgement of non-binary people to be something the Liberals could do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
This is honestly the best news I've heard in a long time. Thank god for the ABC. Cleretic posted:I feel like that ascribes too much acknowledgement of non-binary people to be something the Liberals could do. Even under that wording any gay trans people wouldn't be able to be married, so still possible. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Sep 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Even under that wording any gay trans people wouldn't be able to be married, so still possible. Does it? You're gonna have to lay out the math on that one for me. From what I know, marriage law only cares about the gender marker on the birth certificate, so no part of the law really has enough dynamism to recognize that enough to discriminate against it. The thing I would be worried about there is that exact same 'separate but equal' situation leading to a potentially dangerous legal crack with trans people. Say I as a trans woman am married to my hypothetical wife in a straight marriage due to my birth certificate saying I'm male, if I change that gender marker we become a gay marriage which is potentially a legally distinct thing. In that case I could easily see it being possible that there is just not a system to handle that, leading to an ugly bit of legal bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Does it? You're gonna have to lay out the math on that one for me. From what I know, marriage law only cares about the gender marker on the birth certificate, so no part of the law really has enough dynamism to recognize that enough to discriminate against it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
And by interesting, I mean I hope they all burn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Anyone got the skills to start a meme campaign around stories where people came out in a suicide note? Fight "Vote No to protect the children" with "Vote Yes if you want your children to live". My meme game is weak 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
I was wondering the same thing. It'd be grisly as gently caress but a tally of the number of LGBTI suicides since the survey was announced might hammer home how important this is
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
A quick reminder to please make sure you're respectful to trans people during this debate. A lot of the arguments from the 'no' campaign already involve attacks on trans identities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
The Before Times posted:A quick reminder to please make sure you're respectful to trans people during this debate. A lot of the arguments from the 'no' campaign already involve attacks on trans identities. Just be respectful to all people full stop, really. Except Queenslanders.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
You Am I posted:Just be respectful to all people full stop, really. yes all lives matter etc, but trans people have already been thrown under the bus during this debate and I haven't seen many 'yes' people defending them. just something to be aware of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
The Before Times posted:yes all lives matter etc, but trans people have already been thrown under the bus during this debate and I haven't seen many 'yes' people defending them. just something to be aware of. The barely hidden secret is that there isn't actually an LGBT community but gay communities and trans communities and some of us that intersect the two but that shitloads of gay people are happy to throw trans people under the bus at the first opportunity. Take this gay Doctor Who writer's gross screed as a recent example. Plenty of (mostly cis, white, male) gay people are very FYGM when it comes to trans people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
"between two consenting adults" is all it needs to say, but we're already in the position we're in because of bigoted gently caress heads so I have no hope of a proper solution.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
yeah, i understand why, on a tactical level, the yes campaign isn't trying to directly confront the transphobia from the no campaign "wearing dresses at schools!! genderfluidity!!!" but it's uncomfortable, even as someone who isn't queer. gently caress the tories.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
Freedoms for us, not for others. Literaly FYGM from the No movement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Does it? You're gonna have to lay out the math on that one for me. From what I know, marriage law only cares about the gender marker on the birth certificate, so no part of the law really has enough dynamism to recognize that enough to discriminate against it. Crazy explained it well, but to follow the math, if a male and female want to get married, but one is trans, so they are a man and a man wanting to get married; they are not same-sex and they are not a man and a woman. By that potential wording they'd fall through the cracks. And as Crazy pointed out, there's strong precedent for this interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
"things will be much worse", how could it be worse than pedophile priests. The sheer gall of it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
btw this was satire you clods
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:btw this was satire you clods  if anyone thought otherwise. Van Badham hates the greens, but otherwise has some good opinions. Labor is pro-immigration so she would be too (and hence be against ol' Dicky)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Freedom of employment? You mean how the Catholic Church will sack anyone who they find is homosexual?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
You Am I posted:Freedom of employment? You mean how the Catholic Church will sack anyone who they find is homosexual?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Can we just change the constitution from "freedom of religion" to "freedom from religion"? it seems like that solves literally all problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
I'll need to do some research on this, but something tells me that the 'free exercise of religion' clause in the Constitution is relatively narrow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Rival groups in marriage debate clash outside Brisbane church Woman arrested after supporters of yes and no camps in same-sex marriage survey clash outside a meeting of those opposing change
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
I'd prefer having violent protests over a vote that actually mattered
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 01:50
|
|
My first car was a stick
|
The Before Times posted:I'll need to do some research on this, but something tells me that the 'free exercise of religion' clause in the Constitution is relatively narrow. It is, doesn't even cover the states, only the feds. High court has extended the protection to atheism though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
one of the main movers and shakers in the yes movement, i can't remember her name but i saw her interviewed on tv so hopefully someone will know, is a cis lady married to a trans lady who was identifying as male when they married. her wife actually can't go ahead with her transition without annulling the marriage under the current laws. so either they divorce or she has to accept being legally viewed as a man until the laws change, they have no other options. it's hosed
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Thats Greens Senator Janet Rice! Because of stupid separate state/federal laws, I cant marry anyone without it being illegal, as my gender change was recognized at federal level, but rejected at state level when the Libs sabotaged a bill to modernize Victoria's gender laws. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:Thats Greens Senator Janet Rice! Don't give any detail that you're not comfortable with, but what's the situation with federal vs Victoria law?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:Thats Greens Senator Janet Rice! I think senator rice is actually legally married to her wife due to some progressive rules around changing birth certificates in the ACT. But there are plenty of other people born in other states, except SA I think, who can't change their birth certificates without getting divorced. (And as you have clearly experienced, other lovely gatekeeping rules)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Why does freedom of speech attract so many nasty people?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:Don't give any detail that you're not comfortable with, but what's the situation with federal vs Victoria law? Federal is as long as you get your doctor's statement saying you're undergoing treatment. Victorian laws as they now stand need your existing genitals destroyed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
The Before Times posted:I think senator rice is actually legally married to her wife due to some progressive rules around changing birth certificates in the ACT. Janet's spoken about this a few times, her wife's birth certificate still says she's male, so they can be married no problem, unless her wife were to change the gender marker on her birth certificate. Then they'd have to get a divorce.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:Federal is as long as you get your doctor's statement saying you're undergoing treatment. That poo poo sucks and im sorry you have to put up with this fuckery.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Cleretic posted:Janet's spoken about this a few times, her wife's birth certificate still says she's male, so they can be married no problem, unless her wife were to change the gender marker on her birth certificate. Then they'd have to get a divorce. Oh boo, I thought I had read somewhere that the ACT allows birth certificates to be changed without divorce  :
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:Federal is as long as you get your doctor's statement saying you're undergoing treatment. gently caress me, because it's a decision people clearly make frivolously all the time...
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 14:41 |
|
|
The Before Times posted:Oh boo, I thought I had read somewhere that the ACT allows birth certificates to be changed without divorce Maybe they do, but to my knowledge that's something handled by the state that issued the certificate. I believe Rice and her partner are both Victorian natives, so it doesn't help them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2017 03:08
|
|