Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Australian Same-sex marriage postal survey results are in (abc.net.au)
47 points by ACow_Adonis 33 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 32 comments



I am extremely happy this passed. Although I was shocked when I came back to Aus a few weeks ago and saw some of the no adverts.

I had hoped for a higher % but at least there is no doubt now.(not that there ever should have been, but oh well).


That freedom of speech and religion will be destroyed? yeah its not like they referenced other countries where that happened. Oh wait they did.


Freedom of speech and religion destroyed by letting two men or women cement their bond to each other? Mate you need to take a few steps back, and a long look at that statement.


You do not have the freedom to dictate what other people should believe. You don't have the freedom to oppress.


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.


> 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.


> 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.


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.


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


> 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.)


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.


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?


> 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.


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.


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.


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.


It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


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?


Probably the same way if the photographer refused service to someone of colour. It could be racism or the photographer could just being busy.


> 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.


> 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.


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?


The text of the Dean Smith bill, which is the likely form of how it will be legislated:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4204045-Marriage-Ame...


Lets hope not, the guy has no idea.


Nah it's got pretty broad support. It does a good job at making appropriate carveouts.


shame it cost us 120 million effing bucks to do something they should have effing known was a forgone conclusion and the only human effing decision to make.

what a waste of money. bunch of 1st class political wankers they are... the whole lot of them.


Yes, pretty sure we could have got a half decent reusable citizen's voting app using the logistical costs of the survey. I'm assuming most of the cost was advertising and marketing.


And they tout themselves as the responsible economic party. And many people believe it. Sigh.


'Human decision' lol yes saying those who can't push forward their genetic line is acceptable is totally a human decision.


Do you think some sort of fertility test should be conducted before people are allowed to marry?


What has marriage to do with pushing forward genetic lines?

Are you trying to strawman, or did the strawman just work on you?


To answer your question: historically, the primary benefit to marriage was to ensure a stable household for the raising of children and for the economic wellbeing of the resulting family. It was often a pragmatic arrangement instead of a romantic one.

Now days marriage for some has become a declaration of longer-term romantic love.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: