contd..
"European Court of Human Rights

Although Australia is not subject to its decisions, similar conclusions have been reached by the other principal arbiter of international human rights jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights.

In decisions handed down in 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016, the court has also concluded that the European Convention on Human Rights does not impose an obligation to grant same-sex couples access to marriage.

Consequently, the court has consistently held that the prohibition on discrimination (the right to equality) under Article 14 of the convention was not breached by states that continue to recognise that marriage is between a man and a woman."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-01/what-does-human-rights-law-say-about-marriage-and-equality/8856552

But leoj is not according to you the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the European Court of Human Rights a couple of pinko, commie, lefty, progressive, feminists, Fabian, Julia Gillard/grennie run front orgs out to destroy the free world and the American way! why should we listen to them, its as bad as tuning into the ABC.

"They treat their members like mushrooms. They keep them in the dark and they feed them on bull*bleep*." Greens Senator

'Inside the Greens', ABC

leoj,

The Marriage Act was amended in 2004 by John Howard to read
that marriage in this country was to be only - "between
a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others."
Prior to that time marriage was not defined.

Marriage in this country is a legal contract presided
over by the government.

And as such it should not be defined in the manner in which
it was by Mr Howard as it excludes non-familial
consenting adults who want to get married. It prevents
them from doing so.

Now the postal survey asks one simple question.
Should same-sex couples have the right to marry
Yes or No.

At present they can't under the Amendments that Mr Howard
made.

If you don't think this is being discriminatory - then
vote No.

There's nothing more to be said.

Bringing in the United Nations et cetera is simply a diversion
on your part -
and irrelevant to what is being asked of us in this country
concerning same-sex marriage.

Have your say in the opportunity that is being given to you.
Leave the rest of us to make up our own minds on the
subject - we don't need you to try to do it for us.
Thanks.

Foxy,

The public are being sold a pig in a poke. You are high-handed, telling people that their only involvement is to place their mark on a piece of paper.

SSM is the creature of the political elite and to date it has been discussed in that realm, almost exclusively.

Very, very few members of the public participate in political forums. Their only exposure is at election time, where the comments by the PM are reduced to just sound bites, and some of that is voiced over, even while the PM is speaking.

The overwhelming body of the public are not on boards like OLO or hanging onto Tony Jones' every word (make that his ear microphone's words) for hours, days and even months of their lives as some here might be. They are too busy getting skills, earning their keep, raising their families and paying taxes. As well, they have other interests.

"FORMER prime minister John Howard has called on Malcolm Turnbull to explain what steps will be taken to protect parental rights, freedom of speech and religious freedom in the event of same-sex marriage becoming law.

Mr Howard says the protections need to be spelled out before the end of the postal survey, which started this week.

“The case for these protections is compelling, given the experience of other countries such as the UK, US and Canada, in the wake of those countries changing their marriage laws,” he said in a statement today.

“On the evidence to date, it would seem that the only protections in that bill will not go much beyond stipulations that no minister, priest, rabbi or imam will be compelled to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony,” Mr Howard said.
It was “completely disingenuous” to say the marriage law change would not have other consequences...

“It is precisely because parliament should reflect the will of the people that the people are entitled to know what, if anything, the government will do on protections before they vote,” he added.
“Otherwise, people will not be fully informed when they vote.”

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-pm-john-howard-claims-turnbulls-government-isnt-taking-responsibility-for-ssm-debate/news-story/aeb32ef6e994bbe2b1d531ad7bc17b0d

Dear Foxy,

«Marriage in this country is a legal contract presided over by the government.»

That's what politicians and their laws say, but it doesn't change the facts!

«Now the postal survey asks one simple question. Should same-sex couples have the right to marry»

No, the survey asks: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?" - which is not only a different question, but also a very strange one since no current law forbids it!

«At present they can't under the Amendments that Mr Howard made.»

Of course they can!

The government would not recognise such marriages - but so what?
Under existing Australian law, neither a same-sex couple who marries nor the person(s) who marry them commit any offence.

«If you don't think this is being discriminatory - then vote No.»

It is discriminatory IN FAVOUR of same-sex couples: they are not conned to pay the state $291 for a worthless piece of paper. In order to remove that discrimination, NOBODY should be conned that way!