Fast Buck$, Coorabell.
Is the same-sex marriage plebiscite a form of corruption?
I recall that in 1994 or thereabouts NSW premier Nick Greiner was having trouble with one of his elected ministers. He solved the problem by offering that minister a public service job. ICAC subsequently found that this was ‘corrupt’ because Mr Greiner had used public funds (ie public service wages) to solve what was essentially a private Liberal Party problem. (Later that was overturned 2–1 by the Court of Appeal in a judgment I never got round to read – but that was too late to help Nick Greiner, who’d already had to resign by then.)
So don’t we have a similar situation in relation to the plebiscite? Malcolm Turnbull would vote for same-sex marriage right now if he had a free hand, but as part of his leadership deal with the conservatives in the Liberal Party he has agreed to this delaying tactic.
In other words he wants to sacrifice $150 million plus of public funds to solve what is essentially a private internal Liberal Party problem. Sounds pretty corrupt to me. To be consistent about his concern for ‘everyone having their democratic say’ he’d in fact have to have a plebiscite before about any parliamentary vote, wouldn’t he?
Despite Malcolm’s bleating on and on about ‘innovation’ he himself remains a highly typical politician – nothing innovative about his approach; same old bullshit.
On the other hand those who oppose a plebiscite because it would give haters a platform and upset same-sex couples seem insane to me. What, you can’t have a free debate because some people might get upset?
Not so Fast,
Why ask a question of the public at the beginning when you know the answer of the question.
“In this same-sex marriage plebiscite question there seems to a corruption of the God-given institution of the Referendum that has been married to us for so many years. Why have we had a divorce from the Referendum when the Referendum has been the child-bride for solving society’s dilemmas.
It is just not right to try and bed down another agenda in a slick word when the plebiscite in gender is in such a sight and seems to be the same but not the same that she is not binding to the parliament as the Referendum.”
Being able to spend your life with your chosen partner is a basic human right. Marriage is a man made construct that should apply to all humans, so it is a human right as well. Religion is an evil man made construct as well that seeks to take advantage of the uneducated’s lack of scientific knowledge and uses this to control and extract money from same, and don’t get me started on how they treat children. The fact that the Government wants to give them money to continue their nasty little campaign is outrageous. Just re amend the marriage act that Howard stupidly changed and let’s get on with it. And while we are at it, get rid of tax breaks for Religious institutions. It is subsidising child abuse
The only corruption is why Labor etc while in power supported a plebiscite but now dont. Both cannot be truth so which one now is the ball faced lie?.
I think we should encourage same sex marriage for one good reason. Birth control. The world is fast running out of the means to feed our exploding population and if same sex unions explode worldwide we might just have the answer. Old Mother Nature. We shouldn’t ignore her machinations!
Hadn,t thought of that Joe, your,re right. Expect a midnight visit from the vaticans “Office of the Congregation of the Faith” any night now. Been a good few years since we,ve had some burnings!!!
The bottom line of this debate is not about equality, it is about religious politics that has consumed an already corrupt parliament. I find it completely absurd that mysticism and supernaturalism gets supported by privileged tax breaks just to demonise and degrade people as a religious freedom.