SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
![Geoff McLean, of Launceston, says it is a waste of $122 million when the government could end the debate, and discrimination, by passing a basic legislative amendment. Geoff McLean, of Launceston, says it is a waste of $122 million when the government could end the debate, and discrimination, by passing a basic legislative amendment.](/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/BYyjtE9yFZf8Mk6dS4p4eM/cb2989cf-b1e7-4ca6-bcd5-c7e878f2fea0.jpg/r0_0_3543_2582_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)
Postal vote
IT WOULD be enlightening if those who support a postal vote in regards to same-sex marriage could provide why there is a need for such a process. Certainly, the issue is divisive for some but that is hardly a convincing argument for the government to ‘ask the people’ their views. All that is required is simple legislative change to give people in same-sex relationships the opportunity to have their marriages recognized under law. As it stands it is not illegal for same-sex couples to be together and form families. They simply want to have the same rights and legal protections as heterosexual couples who marry. Granting those rights and protections does not have any adverse affect on society; indeed there would be positive outcomes as a form of discrimination would be removed. It is an abrogation of governmental responsibility to ‘ask the people’ and a waste of $122 million when they could end the debate, and discrimination, by passing a basic legislative amendment.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Geoff McLean, Launceston.
Marriage change
THE current discussion on the proposed change to the Marriage Act, giving LGBTI people a licence to marry and to then be considered equal with heterosexual marriage rages on. It is obvious that Fairfax Media support this change, as outlined by Glen Humphries (The Examiner, August 15) with his comments regarding “the mess Malcolm Turnbull has made of the same-sex marriage issue”. Mr Turnbull, is a strong, capable and honourable Prime Minister, who promised the people of Australia that he would hold a plebiscite on the matter, if he was elected to the parliament. The people of Australia returned Mr Turnbull to the parliament. He is to be commended for his courage, in the face of the negative and divisive comments of the LGBTI and their very wealthy and powerful supporters. There is no mess, only the constant and often abusive language of the pro faction.
Mary T. Bates, Exeter.
Costly survey
IT APPEARS that the federal Liberal government is planning to spend $122 million on a non-compulsory postal survey concerning gay marriage. The Liberal party say that they want to know what people think. But, as reported by Fairfax Media, a scientifically sampled poll could be done at a fraction of the price with a lower margin of uncertainty and error. In the past, Parliament has altered laws governing marriage without the need of extensive polling or a plebiscite. The Family Law Act of 1975, led by Gough Whitlam, introduced no-fault divorce. John Howard altered the Marriage Act in 2004, inserting a clause aimed at preventing gay marriage. At the time, the Liberal party felt no need to ask the Australian people. It is a lot of money to spend on a survey.
Owen Powell, Springfield.
Man the booths
I AM SO tired of the way opponents of marriage equality have focused on the children of those relationships in order to disguise their homophobia. Growing up with heterosexual parents is not a guarantee of becoming a happy, well-adjusted adult. Having a non-binding postal vote is offensive and a waste of money. Politicians have been breaking election promises for years, so that shouldn’t be a problem. Preventing people from enjoying the same rights as others is a problem. If we have to have a vote, why couldn’t it be done in the same manner as an election? There would be plenty of people, including me, who would willingly man the booths. The voter’s name could be entered into a computer, then the voter could simply hit ‘Y’ or ‘N’ and ‘enter’. I’m sure someone could devise a program which ensured that no-one voted more than once. With no paperwork needed, and using only volunteers, the cost would be a lot less and the results could be quickly retrieved.