I had hoped for a higher % but at least there is no doubt now.(not that there ever should have been, but oh well).
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.
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.
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
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Ask the photographer if they'll do the shoot before telling them it's for a same-sex couple.
what a waste of money. bunch of 1st class political wankers they are... the whole lot of them.
Are you trying to strawman, or did the strawman just work on you?
Now days marriage for some has become a declaration of longer-term romantic love.