//I don’t march in the streets, wave placards or anything like that.//

No, neither do I. Far too much effort. Marching is for the North Koreans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZcRCpou3gs

And waving placards is for tall people.

//I’m quite capable of working through the issues and arriving at my own conclusion.//

Aye, and that's grand and all, but you still stand in solidarity whether you like it or not. For when the call was made, your banners flew for House No - right alongside the banner of the Hanged Poofter.

//With respect, foreign names are usually anglicised before contraction. So in your case ->Anthony -> Tony.//

Well that is interesting. I didn't know that before today, so thankyou for teaching me a shiny new thing.

Sadly, it is too late to change it now. For better or worse, I am Toni Lavis.

But a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, so I might as well be Antonio Lavis, Anthony Lavis, Leif of the Curly-Hair, Alice, Bob, or 42 of 42.

//For myself, I don't particularly like the shortening of names. If the original is awkward or unappreciated, change it by deed poll.//

Nah, I don't mind it. 'Tis the Australian way to shorten names, and Antonio seems unnecessarily formal. I don't mind being called Toni. I'm only Antonio on paperwork, so changing my first name by deed poll seems unnecessary.

//I'm in no way inclined to support a change from the old deal 'change for the sake of change' without reading ALL of the fine print.
There might be something in there that I don't like.//

We'd all like to see the fine print, Armchair. It's what we're used to in the Westminster system. But we won't get to until we've done our survey. I know... it does my head in too.

//Why would I not want to check and read all the fine print before I sign and support something.
It doesn't make sense.//

No, it doesn't. But this is what the Liberals, in their infinite wisdom, have decided what is best for us: survey first, bill second. In other words, we have to make up our minds before we are privy to all the details. Which rather seems like putting the cart before the horse.

It's a policy shambles. Malcolm was wedged by the right faction of the party he's supposed to be leading, and I don't think anybody is pleased with the result. But you have to play the hand you're dealt.

Armchair Critic,

After reading Toni Lavis’s post, I’m no longer sure that my interpretation of “fine print” was as literal as it should have been. Because my more metaphorical interpretation was that you simply meant ‘risks and benefits’ (which we can already somewhat weight up, given the immense benefits of equality).

If my understanding of what you meant by “fine print” was not literal enough, then I would simply fall back to my point that it is a secondary issue, and that you should save your energy for that if and when marriage equality happens. Because denying and entire demographic equal treatment, based on what might happen, is unfair. That’s not how rights work. Rights are granted until it can be demonstrated why they should be taken away, they are not withheld until it is proven that they will not be a problem.

So there’s one reason to vote ‘Yes’ right there.

As for your point about Safe Schools, it’s self-defeating (like the feigned concern for children which we so often hear). Because marriage equality, if anything, would promote the acceptance of diversity, which, in turn, would help to eliminate the need for (or “excuse for”, as I’m sure you’d put it) anti-bullying programs designed to promote the acceptance of diversity.

(So, I guess to that extent, Safe Schools is not a “completely separate” issue after all.)

And there’s another reason to vote ‘Yes’.

You can dream up whatever 'how things should be' scenarios that you want in some deluded effort to think you're making a difference.
But unless your deaf, I've told you my terms already and it's your sides failure to meet these terms, then my choice is already made.

No more safe schools bs, No teaching children about shoving and / or having things shoved up their asses, etc... and no victimising people just because there is something insanely wrong with your brain. And I wanna see ALL the 'fine print'.

Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect SSM.
It's my vote and if you don't like it, tough luck, I don't care.

Damn, Armchair Critic, it appears our posts crossed over, because I just presented you with two reasons as to why you should vote ‘Yes’. Including one involving Safe Schools, and the fact that it is a self-defeating argument.

But I don’t think you’re really open to changing your mind. I think your mind is made up. After all, you’re a conservative and, well, that’s just your politics. I don't think reason comes into it; any rationalisation you come up with is slapped together after the fact.

I think this issue, for many conservatives, this is like climate change: the idea, that we may need to do what the Lefties want, so pains them that they'll make any excuse not to do it.

//No teaching children about shoving and / or having things shoved up their asses//

Gosh, I should hope not. Cruelty to animals is unforgivable.

//and no victimising people just because there is something insanely wrong with your brain//

We live in hope, Armchair.

//And I wanna see ALL the 'fine print'.//

Too bad, you voted Liberal. Suck it up.

//It's my vote and if you don't like it, tough luck, I don't care.//

Take heart, Armchair. If the no vote wins but Labor win the next election, they'll introduce a bill so that you will get to see all the fine print. And still get to have a whinge because their amendments to the Marriage Act make no mention of education policy. So that'll be nice for you.