Dear Yuyutsu,

The questions that you have asked of me have nothing
to do with the same sex marriage postal vote.
All that is being asked is whether same-sex couples
should have the legal right to marry in this country.
(The same legal rights as the rest of us have).

1) Private business owners have always been free to choose whom
they wish to provide their services to. Be they arcitects,
lawyers, engineers, plumbers, and so on.

2) Parents have always had the choice to control what their
children study - in their choice of schools they allow their
children to attend.

3) Couples who wish to annul their marriages - have always
been free to pursue the legalities involved in pursuing
this step. Grounds for annulment may have to be proven -
especially within certain religions. Divorce may be a
more simpler option - or even widowhood? Your choice.

You're welcome.

//Are you still undecided//

No.

//or uninterested//

Yes.

It seems around 80% of all eligible voters have already voted? With the remaining 20% still decided or totally indifferent?

And if the 20% non vote were included as raw numbers? So the results could be extrapolated? And then, with those numbers included for the sake of accuracy? Showed those who bothered to actually vote and in favour of S.S.M turned out to be, around 67% of all eligible voters? [The experience in ultraconservative, Catholic Ireland?]

With most votes already cast? All this confected shutting the stable door after the horse has already bolted! Will change nought!

Except whip up ill feelings in the wider community?

Couldn't possibly the authors aim? Or could it? Who can say?

I mean, there seems to be a significant cohort, who still believe the word is flat!?

And we're asking that same cohort, or even less able minded, for an informed decision!? Go figure!
Alan B.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I forgot to add in answer to your third question to me -
Do you seriously believe that heterosexuals will try
to get their marriages annulled if same-sex marriages
are given the go ahead?

Really?

Why?

So they can marry a person of the same sex?

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for your answers.

My questions may not be directly related to the postal vote, but there is a reasonable possibility that they could be related to the SSM legislation that would follow.

1) I appreciate your answer and wish it was true.
Unfortunately, I suspect that it isn't the case and some anti-discrimination laws do currently apply to private business owners in Australia.
Perhaps other members could shed some more light over this question?

2) This is indeed generally the case (with a few exceptions that we do not need to enter into, for example that private schools are not allowed to teach terrorism).
This is well and good for wealthy parents who can afford private schools. What about the others?

3) At present, annulment is only available under extreme circumstances (http://www.gotocourt.com.au/family-law/annulment-of-marriage). The only current grounds for divorce is separation, for a minimum of one year before making the application for divorce. Forcing a loving family to separate for over a year, just so they are no longer considered legally married, is painful and certainly not a "simple" option.

Dear Foxy,

I just saw your last post:

Some married couples might not feel convenient to remain legally married under the new definition of "marriage".

If your ISP modified your connection-speed, or its privacy-policy and terms-of-service (to which you agreed) and you were unhappy with the change, then you can cancel your subscription, so why not here?