Craig Minns. Why not a plebiscite?

Craig Minns:

“Marriage is no less important than any other contract. I doubt very much that Mr Latham or any of those who argue for the trivialisation of marriage would be similarly cavalier in their attitudes to contracts for important things like money...”

Only people who are insecure would want a ‘contract’. Who would want to be in a relation with someone who is only there because of some legal constraint? The only reason to be in an intimate relationship with someone is because you love that person – anything else is a sham. Demanding that the government set up legislation just to protect you from your insecurities is extremely selfish because you are calling on the taxpayer’s money to do what is fundamentally your own responsibility – to deal with your own insecurities. This is not a function of government.

No one is arguing for the trivialisation of marriage. You can make it as ‘sacred’ as you like in your own head. What you make of marriage in your own head is up to you but do not expect the taxpayer to support the value that you put on marriage and ignore all the other values that people have about marriage including those who think it is trivial. Supporting one value over and above others would be discrimination.

“If the only purpose of marriage is to make it easy to administer child support collections when it ends, then by all means, get rid of it. Does anyone really think that's all there is to it, though?”

What else do you think there is to it Craig?

Why a plebiscite? That's just more money spent and more time wasted for politicians who should be doing things that require genuine and serious consideration and work.

This is a simple regulatory matter that should really be subject to the old "man on the Chatham omnibus" test and nothing more. Did we need a plebiscite to pass the various Discrimination Acts? Did we need a plebiscite to pass the various Fair Work Acts? did we need a plebiscite to pass Howard's (excellent) gun laws and buyback scheme?

If this can't be done by our Parliamentary representatives on the nod with no more fuss than asking the Office of Parliamentary Counsel to put some appropriate words together then what on Earth do we have a Parliament for?

I must repent. I really felt to replace Beasley with Mark Latham was gift to the Liberals. Latham however has shown himself to be miles ahead of Rudd, Gillard and Shorten in integrity and commonsene.

//Why not a plebiscite?//

Because they cost a truckload and we're trying to save money.

We have Parliament for a reason: if we're not going to trust them to govern in the best interests of the Australian people then we should dissolve the Parliament, embrace absolute democracy and make every policy decision subject to a plebiscite.

Or we can trust the politicians to do the job they're elected to do and govern for us. If we don't like the way they govern we can always pick a new mob in a few years time.

Sometimes I think absolute democracy would be a purer form of democracy than representative democracy. But I suspect that it's like socialism and looks better on paper than it works in real life.

//the old "man on the Chatham omnibus" test//

In my philosophy classes it was always the 'Clapham omnibus'. Google supports my view (when I googled 'Chatham omnibus' it automatically included results for 'Clapham omnibus').

//I must repent.//

If only... true repentance requires contrition. From the way you conduct yourself in your posts, I very much doubt if you have ever truly felt contrition for your sins.

Who cares what that has-been poor excuse for a politician Mark Latham says or thinks on these issues? Is he even still in politics?

It is only a matter of time before same-sex marriage is legal in Australia, and I still don't see any problems with that.