The long read: Same Sex Marriage

To plebiscite or not to plebiscite?

This election has been spruiked as a once in a lifetime election because of one issue: Same Sex Marriage (hereafter SSM). This is one issue that, if carried by parliament, will irreparably change Australian society forever more. Of the four major parties, there is a spectrum of opinions. The Liberal Party have a mixed opinion, with the member for Bennelong, John Alexander, remaining undeclared, and a mixture of supporters and dissenters among the Liberal Senate candidates. The official position of the Liberal party is that there would be a national plebiscite by the end of 2016, whereafter parliamentarians would be free to vote according to their conscience, which would mean either what they think, what their electorate thinks, or what the nation as a whole thinks. The National party, while in coalition with the Liberals, is mostly opposed to both the plebiscite as well as the idea of SSM, so would most likely vote against it in any instance. The Labor party currently have a conscience vote, although at their national conference last year, support of SSM from 2017  became a principle of membership. The member for Parramatta is listed as a supporter of SSM, and her party has pledged to bring about a parliamentary vote (with no plebiscite) within the first 100 days in office. Currently the Labor senators are mixed, but as mentioned above that will change from next year. The fourth largest party, the Greens, are not in favour of a plebiscite, but are in favour of SSM. It is worth mentioning in passing the Christian Democrats, who are unlikely to gain any members in the House of Representatives but may gain (or retain) a senator and thus be part of the cross-bench in the Senate who may be able to vote against changes in the marriage act.

Party	Plebiscite	Likely Vote
Liberal	Yes	Mixed
Nationals	No	Mostly No
Labor	No	Mostly Yes
Greens	No	Yes
CDP	Yes	No

What is still unclear is what the plebiscite would ask, what action would come from it, and what rights to a conscience vote members would have in light of the outcome. This is not a constitutional matter, so the plebiscite is simply a way of indicating our preference, as there is no legal compulsion upon parliamentarians to respond in any particular way. There is, for example, nothing to stop a theoretically defeated ALP or any private member entering legislation before the plebiscite and having it passed through into law. All of this raises the question of why the plebiscite was originally agreed upon. It seems it was former PM Abbott's attempt to kick the ball out of play for a little while without having to do anything. Part of the problem is you can't vote to not vote - you can't pass legislation to say you're not allowed to revisit the marriage act down the track. There have been numerous failed attempts to introduce SSM legislation, but the momentum in the media and inside parliament has been building to the point where one of the two major parties needs to do something about it. So perhaps a plebiscite was Abbott's hope of enabling a conversation about the societal outcomes of normalising SSM. Unfortunately such hopes cannot have been based on reality, as where such debates have happened, dissent has been put down, such as in the Irish referendum where people were reported choosing to don a 'Yes' badge despite intending to vote 'No' as anyone questioning SSM is inevitably labelled a bigot and homophobe. We have been discussing SSM for years now in Australia - I don't see the debate being at all clarified. All we have is extremes from both ends with the sane middle not getting a word in.

When I talk about the sane middle (and of course I include myself in this group!) I mean those who truly see the merits of the other side. For those pro SSM, it means understanding the novelty and untestedness of this change and the strong history of traditional marriage. It also means acknowledging this isn't really a push for 'marriage equality'; I hear no one advocating polygamy/polyandry, I hear no one advocating normalising and recognising incestuous relationships nor pederasty. This is not marriage equality, this is SSM. Using the term 'equality' is simply a political decision which implies dissenters desire inequality and are thus to be equated with those who endorsed slave trading and disallowed inter-racial marriage. Being in the sane middle from the SSM side means acknowledging as much. Being in the sane middle from the traditional marriage side means having genuine sympathy for the historic and ongoing hurts of people in same-sex relationships, or indeed anyone who does not fit neatly in the heterosexual box. There is genuine discrimination, there is all too real abuse, there are higher rates of suicide and self-harm among these people. To affirm traditional marriage at the expense of SSM without recognising the genuine felt needs of people to have relationships validated when so much of their life has been attacked from all sides is a great insult and continues hurt. I think this means there will be some who disagree with SSM who will nonetheless decide to vote Yes for the sake of their suffering neighbour; so too will there be those who vote No even though they themselves have suffered. People unable to recognise this will be forced to continue the yelling match from the poles, but hopefully there will be a more rational and generous debate in the centre.

The question is, will a plebiscite enable such debate between the sane middle, or will it be drowned out by the shouting from the sidelines?

One issue or several?

As I began, the push from several Christian groups has been to maximise this issue without reference to the other issues. This issue is a once in a lifetime vote, or votes, as it will mean voting first for the LNP and then voting No in a plebiscite. The thing that troubles me is the issues which generally determine my vote are not reflected at all by the LNP. I am in favour of supporting Medicare (the Liberals have said they will freeze indexation of rebates). I am in favour of treating refugees humanely (neither LNP nor ALP are willing to depart from the boat turnback, indefinite detention, offshore detention policy in place since Abbott). I am in favour of real action on climate change (LNP and ALP continue to support coal mining and penalising protesters). I believe in generous foreign aid (the LNP has both cut this aid and spitefully reappropriated funds into our punitive detention centres for refugees). I think electoral funding needs reform (silence from the two major parties). As I look through the advertising in our letterbox, as I scroll through policies, I can see maybe a tenth of the LNP policies I support, two fifths of ALP, one tenth of CDP, but four fifths of the Greens. What do I do with this? Of course, not all issues are equal. Is the possibility of a marriage plebiscite (the very plebiscite, let alone the result, being dependent on passing both houses of parliament!) enough to force me to vote against my love of neighbour and pursuit of justice with mercy on the other nine tenths? Or does the vehemence with which I disagree with the one fifth of Greens policies mean I should not vote for the four fifths of things I do agree with them on, where they brazenly stand apart from the LNP and ALP?

I could weight all the issues and work them out mathematically I suppose. I could also think about the numbers of people affected: if  say 3% of the population is same-sex attracted, of that work out how many are in long-term stable relationships and then how many both approve of the institution at all (hello, Marxists!) and also desire to be married? We are left with quite a small number, but then again, this will normalise adoption rights and there will be children without access to a traditional family - although, unless a surrogate baby - they would be without any parents as is. And then I balance that with the number of people being subjected to physical, sexual, medical and psychological abuse at our hands in offshore detention centres, those who are preferring self-immolation to further hopeless waiting. To that I could add the short-term thinking of fossil fuel extraction for surprisingly small gains and devastatingly long-term consequences. I think for me these two are of at least equal value with the marriage plebiscite. 

Of course I could complicate things with the NBN and foreign aid and safe schools and electoral funding etc etc etc. But those are my three: refugees, climate and marriage, and I think they are all worthy of consideration in my vote. For you, you need to do your own maths. Work out what are your biggest issues and how important they are and who best represents your concern. And then vote. But don't just vote, advocate. Tell your local member who you voted for why you did and/or why you didn't. Try to find out their views and speak sympathetically to that where you differ. If they agree with you encourage  them, and if they disagree explain why you do with respect. 

Because even if SSM does become legalised in Australia, what follows will in part depend on how we uphold ourselves now. If vitriol and hyperbole and apocalyptic language becomes our norm, then who could blame anyone for wanting to even the scores when they're in the ascendancy. We can remain part of the conversation or be fringe outsiders. Now, that day may of course come, but while we have the possibility of speaking truth with grace and love I think we should continue to do so.

Single-Issue Voting

The biggest difference between Christians when it comes to elections is not necessarily what issues are important, it's what to do with that. I see regular pushes from pro-marriage groups and coalitions and individuals to vote LNP or CDP because they and only they will stand up for marriage.

Now that's fine. And good. And I too want to support traditional marriage. But when I started putting together a table of other issues that I think are important, the groups I should support perform very poorly.

Issue\Party	LNP	ALP	Grn	CDP
Marriage	?	X	X	✓
Environment	X	✓?	✓	X
Tax	X	✓	✓	X
Treaty	X	?	✓	X
Welfare	X	✓	✓	X
Value early & late life	✓	X	X	✓
Anti-Corruption	X	X	✓	?
NBN	X	✓	✓	?
Refugees	X	X	✓	X

You might note I've tried to be positive here - I've said pro-marriage rather than anti-SSM, and I've said value early and late life rather than anti-abortion and euthanasia. 

Several things stand out to me:

• The major parties are in bed with the big end of town. Big coal employ many ex LNP and ALP politicians and staffers. And as ex-PM Tony Abbott admitted what everyone already knew last week, there is give and take. As for the smaller Christian parties, they aren't in the same position, but they haven't made a stand against corruption by opposing votes which clearly benefit big coal.
• Aboriginal issues have not been well thought through. Recognition is the only one that gets a mention, which LNP and ALP have jumped on, although this is not what many Aboriginals want. A retrospective treaty with the first inhabitants has been shown to be the one thing that would give rise to a new relationship and give hope in a way that the Recognise campaign never could. The way in which the 'intervention' was carried out is one example to show that a new way of relating is required. *since initially publishing, Bill Shorten mentioned he would be in favour of looking at a treaty. 
• As a follower of Jesus I believe caring for the most vulnerable is our duty. Doubly so when we are a wealthy nation. So a generous welfare policy and a thoughtful approach to tax are evidence of this. 
• Lib and Lab are virtually indistinguishable on Refugee policy. There are subtle nuances, and from talking to my local MP I understand the complexity is far greater than a simplistic answer. I am slightly more sympathetic to ALP on the possibility of a humane policy, but I'm yet to hear from either of the duopoly a commitment to treat refugees as human beings. 
• Lastly, the profligate approach to the environment since the infamous Rudd back-down and the reckless prejudicing of big coal's interests by the LNP are a massive indictment on our governments.
• As a late addition--NBN anyone?

Are there any others I should include on the list?

Any idea on how to weight and tally the results?


LNP = Liberal and National Party coalition
ALP = Australian Labor Party
Grn = The Greens
CDP = Christian Democratic Party

Power as a tax

As I've been trying to sift through the debates around energy, I keep coming back to this: the government needs to keep us using energy - their livelihood depends on it.

What do I mean? Well, despite repeated encouragements to buy energy-efficient appliances, turn off appliances that aren't being used, and, until recently, to invest in household solar, things have now reached a tipping point.

Energy use has decreased at over 10% for the last three years, whereas investment in the grid is $50bn, in what they fear are now 'stranded assets'. For every person that installs solar with no government feed-in tariff, that turns off lights, that upgrades to more efficient appliances, there are less kilowatt hours to spread the massive costs of the gold-plated poles and wires on to. And as the costs increase, so too do consumers do all they can to decrease their dependency.

But there are government guarantees (that energy companies can charge what they need to recover costs), there are taxes on privatised energy companies, there are always the jobs (gotta save the jobs!), and there are agreements, back-room or otherwise, relating to coal mines and power generation that need to be honoured.

But if it is a tax, and if decentralised, personal or community-based power generation and storage is the future, then why not just tax us, get involved, and do everything possible to move away from the whole damned coal/gas/petrol/nuclear industry to things which have a future.

what do you get when you give football fans AK47s?

according to Peter Hitchens: the Arab Spring.

i wish it weren't true, but the enthusiasm for 'regime change' seems to forget this truism:

Just because existing regimes are bad, it does not follow that their replacements will be any better.

i sincerely hope and pray that this will not be so - that what replaces the regimes of Mubarak, Gadafi et al will be ones who govern for the good of their people and not for themselves.

my friend steve has written a great post on politics, reflecting on Daniel, which i would love to see him apply to the current goings-on. Daniel is written to believers, who will by all accounts remain on the outer with the regime changes, if not further so. the good news for them is the apocalyptic vision of the ancient of days, who remains in control despite appearances - for their power is limited and contingent.

girl power

so we have:
a female monarch (QEII)
a female governor general (quentin bryce)
a female premier (christina keneally)
a female lord mayor (clover moore)
and now*, a female prime minister (julia gillard)

perhaps, for those still not sold on the 'noughty generation' (as the one which comes after gen-y), we label all those born now as gen-w, or maybe even gen-XX"

* i realise there is a handover period but it's as good as now

scandalous politicians

no, this pop-stars band Scandal'US haven't reformed as a political party (although, who could forget their #1 song, me, myself and i).

NSW politics continue to implode, however, with scandal after scandal.
it seemed to start after the iguanas incident (a gosford nightclub, not any reptilian mis-demeanour), and has culminated today with the news of the newly appointed police minister being done for entertaining his co-workers by dancing in his grundies.

what are we to say of it all?

on the one hand, we can hold a hard line, calling for anyone to be served the most severe penalty the moment they cross a moral line.

on the other hand (typified with Bill Clinton), we know that all politicians are human, that we too fall, and they're just doing a job the best they can.

what are we to do about it?

following the second option above, we can vote for them based on their policies, on their platform, along party lines - whatever does it for you

or, we can keep sacking those who fail morally, regardless of their political accomplishments, we can be the ultimate swinging voter, voting only for those who 1/ keep their promises, and 2/ uphold certain moral principles, thus ensuring politicians will get the message we will accept nothing less than what we expect when we vote for them.

not wanting to be completely non-committal, but i'm just gonna throw it out there. i don't know what the answer is.

we're either going to end up with a parliament full of inexperienced people, all fresh to the job because everyone senior to them has fallen on their sword,

or, we'll have a parliament full of hypocrites, happy to make promises they don't intend to keep.
at the moment, it seems we have a good mix of both. although good may not be the best adjective.

catpoles

seeing as one of my fave blogs, locusts and honey, has been kind of quiet of late, i thought i should keep up his continuing instruction in the ways of ceiling cat:



in other news, obama is through.
oh wait - those funny citizenship laws mean i can vote neither for nor against him... just with all the news coverage and all i thought that maybe...

no it's not hugo chavez...

from a couple of weeks ago, Paraguay has a new president, a Bishop become Socialist President.

he's already banging out great quotes, like "from now on the whole country will be my Cathedral."

as a lefty-pinko-commie-socialist christian, i find it quite exciting to see a Christian in the last 50years from the left side of politics going alright. (i guess we've got one in our own Kevin07, although suggesting the australian labor party is even remotely leftist feels a faux-pax these days!)

furthermore, it's fascinating to see someone getting one up on big brother (ie the US), although this article suggests why this may be the case, with this quote:

some say Iraq saved Latin America, that with the Bush administration’s focus on Iraq, that the Latin American governments have much more reflected the base, the people in their countries, rather than pressure from the United States.

hopefully this will be the beginnings of a good step in the future of latin/south america

religion and politics (with a back-at-ya twist!)

the ruddite's switch over the election campaign, from christian socialist to economic conservative, seems to say a lot about the state of conservative politics and its relationship to religious belief.

it is therefore with interest that i notice one of the republican front-runners in the US presidential race is a devout mormon.

but the headline for the linked news story says, Mormons won't run my White House, that is, he will leave his religion at the door.

i remember what i considered an outrageous comment from Amanda Vanstone, calling on all politicians to essentially do the same. (see this article, for example)


so how should we feel about one the world's self-appointed sheriff potentially being led by a devout adherent to what has in many places been rightfully given "cult" status?

about as uneasy as with their current president and his self-declared God-given right to wage war as he wills?

perhaps controversially, i would like those in politics to not necessarily wear their religion on their sleeve, but still to be genuine about what they believe, and the way it impacts their decisions.
where their religion causes them to care for the disadvantaged, reach out to the needy, i wouldn't mind knowing about it.

it's far better than finding out that it really only matters when the election looms nearer.

h/t to my dad!

only 1 more sleep

going to vote CDP? (or, as i call it, the lazy-Christian-vote)

please read this helpful article from Sydney Anglicans.

fear-tactics, it seems, can come from all sides


i might add, if you really are lazy, you can fill in a quick survey put together by GetUp! which will even send you an SMS tomorrow morning with how you chould vote depending on your responses (mine was eerily accurate).
the survey is here

fun voting!

fed forum feedback

well, a fun night indeed.
questions were not really answered in plenty, due to the large number of candidates (8), and the moderator seeking responses from all candidates on subjects the 1-issue tickets obviously had no substantive comment on, yet, aspiring pollies they were, felt compelled to waffle on about.

standout performers were Pat Sheil ("Sheil be right" - of SMH column 8 fame) and Pierce Field (an eloquent 18year old) from the Democrats.
thumbs down went to Jon Kelu (Liberty & Democracy Party), primarily because he started off with "you pay too much tax," a statement i totally disagree with (for the record, i love paying tax.)
also a recipient of scorn was George Newhouse, for his non-appearance (nor was a delegate sent in his place). this meant the possibility to see the contrast between the two main parties' candidates, the Liberals (not liberal) and Labor (i can't believe they're not right), was not possible.

it was good to hear Susan Jarnason from the Greens mention Carers of her own volition (the others, when prompted, all waffled on a little). i pray this gave some hope to the Carers Alliance, who are desperate to Send a Carer to Canberra. a worthy cause (among many).

Malcolm Turnbull (the sitting member, having ousted the previous sitting member in the normal corporate way) was his usual suave self, and i appreciate the fact he turned up, despite his only real opposition's absence.

my unanswered question was along the lines of the brain-drain of Australian solar-cell engineers, and the 11 year long sustained reduction in funding to renewables, forcing those trained here to work overseas in more favourable environs (more favourable government environs, not solar, as the amazing possibilities of this country with regards to cleared, sunny land is patently obvious to anyone who put environmental sustainability in their top 100 things to do when in power).

not sure why it didn't get answered...

yay! federal elections!

excited as i am about educating the electors of our nation's parliament, for a change someone else is taking up the mantle: a church fairly-well central to my local seat of Wentworth is hosting an election forum.

invited are:

Hon Malcolm Turnbull, MP, Member for Wentworth, Lib

Mr George Newhouse, ALP

Susan Jarnason, NSW Greens

Pierce Field, Australian Democrats

Andrew Markwell, Family First

Danielle Ecuyer, Independent


hopefully there will be an opportunity to have real questions answered honestly, but owing to the meeting being held in a church, one would also pray that the leaders will be reminded of their standing under God, that their authority is possible only under God's sovereign hand.

anyway, i can't wait to get to fill in all the boxes in the substantial Senate form; it's great being able to encourage the smaller parties by giving them my primary vote, but also knowing where my vote should eventually end up.

and of course, choosing who to put motherless last is always fun too!

the philosophy of politics

i found this fascinating interview from Jon Stewart's Newshour, linked here by way of Swords to Plowshares, which i found via Faith and Theology which i usually look at via Nothing New Under the Sun!

it's a really insightful look at what it means to live life out, if all of life was politics!
for example, do you say what is right, or what will win? the answer, for one who lives life as if it were all politics, is obviously the latter.
it's how to win friends and influence people taken to the extreme.

i guess it might win you friends - but what kind of friends?

greenies or goodies

with the australian federal election ever closer (despite howard refusing to officially call it - maybe he will, maybe he won't - what fun he must be having), i just thought i'd re-open the ole can-o-worms, Christians and the Greens.

i picked up a handy little "policy snapshots" brochure (from June 2007), and out of the 131 different policy agendas, there were only TWO that i thought were outright wrong. morally, i would have to disagree with those two points.

but, my friends, that leaves 129 points, where i am at a level of agreement, between 6-10 out of 10.

why am i saying this?
am i spruiking for the greens now? No.
am i going to vote for them in both houses? Couldn't say.

then why?
because i am sick and tired of uninformed self-appointed representatives of some imaginary "Christian community" writing off every single policy, again, 129/131 of which i think are quite reasonable, because of fear.

thankfully, that is not the way democracy works - the mainstream policies, especially for a minority party such as the greens, are the ones where they may gain any ground.

AND the policies i object to are not the ones they push. they are not the ones in the one page summary.
the things in the summary are crazy things such as,

no nuclear power in australia (they want to invest in green energy, the very thing the federal government has removed funding to in quantities that just aren't funny any more),

no new coal mines,

cutting carbon emissions by a substantial (not tokenistic) amount,

conservation of old-growth forests,

public dental care,

bridging the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous australians.


the list goes on. with more of the same outrageous statements.

perhaps were it not for the climate of fear, australia would not be in the state it is today.

keep praying for our politicians. and one another.

seriously, john

i found this pic at crikey.com.au and was a little underwhelmed.

for, while the sentiments are true, honour, where honour is due, should always be the call of the day.
so, attending the anti-APEC rally on saturday, my friend dave's sign expressed our sentiments exactly:

"Howard, you're pathetic."

a roman emperor, let alone great senator of the republic, howard is not.
nor will he be remembered as such.

for those interested, i just wore my usual THE GOV'T LIES. t-shirt (which i've worn at my uni graduation, as well as once, completely by accident, whilst praying particularly for the government at church!).