The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A political win, but the devil is in the detail > Comments

A political win, but the devil is in the detail : Comments

By Lorraine Finlay, published 11/9/2017

Until we see the actual reasoning of the High Court, fiscal conservatives won't know whether the postal survey case represents a small backwards step or a more substantial shift away from parliamentary oversight.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
A good decision by the High Court and a well-deserved slap in the face for the Left, queer bullies. Good, also, to know that academics, including this one, had their predictions proved wrong again. They, and the Left media, need to trade in their crystal balls for something better.

However, the postal survey is a poor thing; no substitute for the promised plebiscite that Turnbull should have stuck with – but of course, Turnbull is a coward who is actively promoting homosexual 'marriage'. The creature seems to think repeating “Lucy and I will be voting yes” will see the rest of us following him. But, there is a huge gap between tolerance, which homosexuals have had for many years (along with family financial benefits) and actively endorsing homosexuality like so many of our elected representatives are now doing. Several of these totalitarians have pledged to keep pushing for SSM no matter what the result of any ballot.

What we all should be thinking about is the fact that we do not have a clue what legislation will be presented to parliament if there is a 'yes' vote. All the survey will ask is whether or not we approve of SSM – nothing else.

Unless provisions for freedom of speech and expression; rights for children and all the other consequences of a yes vote are revealed, a NO vote is the only way to go.

It should be noted that in Ireland, the rights that were to be available to objectors have been removed.
Posted by ttbn, Sunday, 10 September 2017 11:40:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An envelope carries .02amps at several volts with little resistance from Canberra to millions of ohms. The alternate flow back to power brokers even with grid lock will transform the fossils.
Posted by nicknamenick, Sunday, 10 September 2017 11:48:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a welcome note of caution in this article which was not present when the ABC interviewed 3 other constitutional scholars on Friday. Each of them treated the decision as some sort of threat to parliamentary control of the executive. Until we see the reasons for judgment, this is sheer speculation.

Otherwise, Lorraine's article suggests some support for the recent trend of High Court decisions beginning with Pape in 2009, and culminating in the egregious Williams v The Commonwealth in 2012. I have no sympathy for this approach and hope it will be reversed.

The Government can only spend money if authorised by Parliament to do so: Constitution s.83. That is done through Appropriation Acts. By definition, a bill only becomes an Act by being passed by both Houses. So it is completely false, as so many claimed, to say that the expenditure restrained in the Williams case, had not been authorised by Parliament. For the court to conclude otherwise required them to reinterpret the meaning of 'appropriation' and impose on it a meaning contrary to that accepted by all political players for the previous 112 years. [Those airheads who think a mere solicitor is not capable of making such judgments may read my more detailed explanation at http://www.advancingdemocracy.info/cmspage.php?pgid=142&pid=8; particularly points 62A.4 to 62A.15]

Somehow, we let the High Court get away with this. Judges make massive changes to our legal system and are not accountable. Why not? Recently the changes have simply made it harder to govern; which the Senate already makes extremely difficult.

I see no constitutional issue in the same sex marriage funding case. Money was appropriated. The question was whether as a matter of fact the appropriation did authorise the activities foreshadowed. This is simply a question of statutory interpretation. I am surprised it's been resolved in the Government's favour, but the 'solution' would simply be for Parliament to be more specific when it drafts the legislation. If it chooses not to be, it is not for unelected judges who have never run anything in their lives to tell them to do it differently.
Posted by Philip Howell, Sunday, 10 September 2017 11:49:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Compared to the one billion dollars of tax payers money about to be poured into Liddell power station , this is chicken feed.
Posted by diver dan, Monday, 11 September 2017 12:02:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cory Bernardi, Australian Conservatives, points to the 'blank cheque' being requested by the SSM activists.

He says: “"The same-sex marriage advocates are asking the Australian people to write them the equivalent of a blank cheque.” “Given their track record of bullying, intimidation and the shutting down of debate and religious tolerance, no one should consider that a wise thing to do."
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 11 September 2017 12:04:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm must be psychic? Because he knew weeks ago, which way the high court would jump on this one? This is a non compulsory postal survey, whose conclusions will not be binding on the government?

And a distraction on genuine fundamental issues, like affordable power and affordable housing? Both of which are areas, where the taxpayer/consumer has to pay, while the taxpayer/consumer has no say!

And only necessary, because for some folks, pedantic absolutism (pavlov dog conditioning) has replaced critical thinking, along with science based evidence, except where it agrees with their (brainwashed from birth) confirmation bias!?

I used to be in Tony's camp, but was forced by circumstance, to actually look at the evidence! And the Medical science evidence, that there's a gay gene, forced me to change my mind!

Back to real confronting issues, we see some commentators (Landlords) deciding for us that the dream of homeownership is over, and we must settle for being renters all of our days!

At least until retirement, when that option will likely no longer be available? Except perhaps as a result of our, winter discount tents?

In any event SSM, will still need to be decided, by a conscience vote in parliament and if necessary, after the next election?

Which for me will be yes and why not!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 11 September 2017 12:33:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The billions the regressive wasted in power makes this amount for the plebiscite look like chicken feed. The swamp do not want the average aussie to have a say. They will never accept democracy
Posted by runner, Monday, 11 September 2017 1:08:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Legitimising same sex marriage being the foot in the door to legitimising "Safe" Schools" homosexual play acting for kids in the classroom

has been effective NO vote advertising.
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 11 September 2017 1:30:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The survey and proposed legislation has little to do with homosexuality: after all, no same-sex "couple" would have to prove or even declare that they are homosexual in order to receive a marriage-certificate: suffice that they want to provoke and draw attention (and pay the fee, currently $291)!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 11 September 2017 5:49:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are honour killings if an offended lover is not given a marriage. Probably a priest would be compell-ed not to live in sin if an altar boy expects the priest to marry after raping.
Posted by nicknamenick, Monday, 11 September 2017 6:15:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can readily accept that the ABS are authorised to carry out a survey, that's why the government changed the terminology as the ABS could not carry out a plebiscite.

The question of the appropriation of the funding is more interesting as there was a 2016 budget provision of $170 million in the foreshadowed Plebiscite Bill which, of course, was rejected by the Senate. So how the High Court views urgent and unforeseen will be instructive.

On the surface, it seemed that the Executive were merely re-badging the plebiscite even though the parliament had rejected it on two occasions but evidently the HC see this as a legitimate means of securing funding that has otherwise been denied by the parliament.
Posted by wantok, Monday, 11 September 2017 7:54:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The matter really is one of proper financial practice by those we elect to manage our affairs.
We give our government clear rules about the allocation of funds for projects, and we expect them to abide by those rules, not to subvert that application by specious argument.
As our employees, they are bound to obey our wishes.
Posted by Ponder, Monday, 11 September 2017 8:13:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B "the Medical science evidence, that there's a gay gene" has nothing to do with social inventions like marriage.

People are genetically left-handed or dwarfed, but most things are designed for the right-handed and regular sized majorities.

This is too bad for the lefties and dwarves.
They can't expect everything to be modified to suit them, and neither can gays.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 11 September 2017 10:44:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NNN,

Fortunately the fossils are totally non conductive, and can see the truth of the matter through the envelope window, well before it reaches its potential million ohms!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 4:55:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's power to the people and AGL partners with Malcolm/Tony in bed with Bill calling STD NBN GST adopting the Irish position.
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 6:55:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//People are genetically left-handed or dwarfed, but most things are designed for the right-handed and regular sized majorities.//

But they're not restricted to the tall and dexterous. It may not always be advisable - a lefty using a right-handed screwdriver could do himself a serious mischief - but is rarely forbidden. Except for dwarves and roller-coasters, but that's a safety issue.

What we don't do is restrict important rights because them midgets and leftys ain't like us decent normal folk. Nobody says to lefties 'sorry, you can't drive a manual car because they're designed for righties'; nobody says to dwarves on election day 'sorry, buddy, if you can't reach the flimsy cardboard desk in the polling booth you don't get a vote', and nobody says 'sorry, dwarves and/or lefties, you can't get married because you're in a minority'. Nobody says things like that, even though as the majority in a democracy, we could certainly band together and prevent lefties driving or dwarves voting through the power of our majority. But we don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrjStSqu_w4

Frankly, restricting rights simply on the basis that some classes of people have lower statistical frequency than others is just plain mental. Everybody is in a minority of some sort. I like bagpipe music, which definitely puts me in a minority. What rights do you think I should be deprived of?
Posted by Toni Lavis, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 7:25:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
NNN

*...Malcolm/Tony in bed with Bill calling STD...*

Q:

Is that STD for sexually transmitted disease, applicable to Bill and Malcolm going gay together, and showing no inclination to lay straight in bed; or is it STD for standard, the appalling state of Australian democracy under a two party system?
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 7:50:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yes
Posted by nicknamenick, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 8:44:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*...Yes...*

Good. That's a sign to vote for a lizard at the next federal election!
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 10:56:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Legitimising same sex marriage being the foot in the door to legitimising "Safe" Schools" homosexual play acting for kids in the classroom

has been effective NO vote advertising.
Posted by plantagenet,
<<
I totally agree... what happened to all those poor countries that signed up is what I want to know.
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Tuesday, 12 September 2017 11:04:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Already Church nuts are saying their pastor/minister/priest told them in church to Vote No.

Show you don't take orders from Holier Than Thous - including priests who have no experience of marriage.
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 17 September 2017 11:14:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Plantagenet,

«Show you don't take orders from Holier Than Thous»

And you of course must be holy enough to order us...
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 17 September 2017 9:25:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yooyoo

Planta no order.

Planta only Pawn in Game of Life http://youtu.be/SKRma7PDW10

All SSs should be given the opportunity to buy outrageously expensive rings and mess up their marriages generally (like lil'ol moi :)
Posted by plantagenet, Sunday, 17 September 2017 11:33:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Plantagenet,

«All SSs should be given the opportunity to buy outrageously expensive rings»

If they are not tempted to pay $291 to the government for a piece of worthless paper (not even soft enough for toilet-use), then the jewellers can dig even deeper into their pockets!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 18 September 2017 12:06:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy