Category Archives: Religion

MARRIAGE DEBATE DEBACLE October 2017

To be, or not to be – that is the question                                                  Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer                                                          The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune                                                  Or take up arms against a sea of troubles                                                      And by opposing them – to die. (Hamlet, Act 111)

As the arbiter of good taste and of Australian culture the ABC has constantantly referred to ‘partner’ rather than husband and wife despite some 60% of those eligible being married, not partnered. By logic the term partner or partnership has thus become acceptable and the term ‘partnership equality’ can become legally equivalent but not interchangeable with ‘marriage equality’ since there is no gender equivalence. The term ‘partnership equality’ for same sex couples should be supported, since the vocabulary used by the ABC is already in place. Biologically and legally a wife can only be a woman and a husband can only be a man and by universal convention their union is one of marriage.

HETEROSEXUALHOMOSEXUAL
To MarryTo Partner
HusbandPartner
WifePartner
MarriagePartnership

The heat and rhetoric created by the postal vote is rational since it impacts on a core value of global society, but for Australia it is irrational due to the numbers involved. Based on the 2011 Census, there were 33,700 homosexual couples in Australia, i.e. 67,400 citizens – about 0.3% in a population of 24 million. Same sex couples represent about 1% of all couples in Australia. (Australian Social Trends 4102.0, July 2013, ABS) The most recent census would show an increase.

For the ‘No’ vote, this is a Hamlet problem as younger generations arise and established verities are cast aside. It matters not that present day well-being and freedoms are the product of strife and discipline of yesteryear. In this brave new world it is natural to construct new words or new definitions: the danger for society is where will this stop, particularly in a less democratic order. At the national level, will a ‘Yes’ vote for ‘partnership equality’ improve or will there be an indefineable weakening of our culture? In view of the ABC’s persistent use of ‘partner’, it is reasonable to assume that, under law, partnership and marriage should be treated equally but are not the same and never will be.

 

Burlesque
BURLESQUE or DEBATE in the HOUSE (lionsroar.com)

The Australian Government has polarised the nation, fostered bad blood, divided families, abrogated its responsibility and wasted more than $100 million. The Government has created a burlesque of a serious Parliamentary Debate.

Current Affairs Flash Points
towardsthefinalhour.com
John Hill   lurgashall@westnet.com.au

AUSTRALIA – HYPOCRISY on MARRIAGE EQUALITY. August 2017

 

HIPOCRACY
HYPOCRISY – IS THERE A HIDDEN AGENDA? (equussantafe.com)

PERCEPTION IS ALL
Revealed is the hypocrisy, cant and calumny of the Coalition towards its bête noire, marriage equality. Over many months, our parliamentarians specious comment on “their undertaking, their promise, their reluctance to break faith, their wish for the people to decide” and similar cant has lost all ring of sincerity. If these sentiments were based on respect for the Australian people they might be taken seriously. Unfortunately this is not so. For members of the Coalition, incredibly, it is not the destination but the journey that is important. Behind this facade of verbal rectitude lies a trail of dishonoured pledges, broken promises and dissimulation by senior politicians and their acolytes. Why is this promise to the Australian people so important? To implement a plebiscite runs the risk of fueling sectarian discord among the Australian people.

THE UGLY TRUTH                                                                                                       The Australian government purports to be non-sectarian. It would be instructive to ascertain which decision-makers are prepared  to incur an expense  of $160 million rather than reveal a faith based prejudice on the floor of the House during debate and subsequent ‘Lock the Doors’. Verily, some parliamentarians, stunted by dogma, would fear the third cock crow. Parliamentarians are elected to govern, not hide behind the the dictates of their own faith.  Australia is non-sectarian!   In recent years, the dishonoured pledges and backdowns perpetrated by the Coalition government (and Labor) is astonishing; there are dozens of separate issues. (see references) Just three examples of broken promises and an exposure of dissimulation represent less than 5% of these records:

  • Paid parental leave, a signature policy, later abandoned.
  • Hospital funding cuts, changes were to be implemented in three years time, they were immediately applied.
  • Superannuation changes, adverse changes would not be made – this was not so.
  • An example of dissimulation – the much vaunted South Australian submarine project was touted as a benefit to the state. Currently there is no construction tender, only a design contract in France. A  decision on a construction contract may only eventuate around 2019.

In his article, Gottliebsen states “Trust in politicians is further eroded. The political class in Australia needs to take a good look at itself.”

THE LAST REFRAIN                                                                                                 With respect to Marriage Equality the media needs to lift its game; reporters and interviewers verge on the supine in their questions to politicians. There is no vigorous probing as to why a plebiscite is  essential and why there is the objection to a parliamentary debate. Since so many promises have been broken, what is the objection to breaking this one particularly as it will immediately benefit people and save $160 million. Is it possible some wish to save themselves the embarrassment of standing up for their principles or risk being accused  of apostasy? The public deserve answers since,perhaps, only half-a-dozen people are delaying a democratic process.                                           It is a matter for despair that our politicians are less by and more large purveyors of platitudes and soothing words. By hiding the bad news they tend to be wolves in sheep’s clothing. The true situation on any matter is either obtained from investigative journalists, experts or those au fait with current events.

The Wolf
WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING. REAL INFORMATION NOT THE PUBLIC STATEMENT (rapid.net.com)

The Honorable Michael Kirby, AC. CMG. has has added the firm voice of leadership to this sorry saga by stating he will not support a postal vote proposed by this Government that has clearly abrogated its responsibility to govern for the people of Australia.

REFERENCES:
Austin,  A. 18 May 2015. Budget backflips bring broken promises. Indepentent Australia.
Gottliebsen, R. 8 May 2016. Coalition and Labor’s broken promises have shattered voter trust. The Australian.

JOHN HUGH HILL, lurgashall@westnet.com.au                                                                          Current Affairs Flash Points, towardsthefinalhour.com