Darren Conlon asks:
The Australian definition of marriage is for Parliament to decide and a referendum is not required. The current thinking is that same-sex marriage is close to passing and becoming law if it were to be brought before Parliament.
However, the Australian press cannot seem to accept that the majority of Irish people who chose to record their opinion on same-sex marriage voted ‘Yes’. The latest argument is that because 40% of the population chose to not vote then claims of a resounding ‘Yes’ vote are invalid. Rather, 72% of the population did not vote ‘Yes’.
In keeping with this thinking, the inference is that same-sex marriage should be decided by a referendum in Australia because voting is mandatory and therefore a ‘Yes’ vote from a vocal minority would carry less weight. The risk of same-sex marriage resulting from politicians ´bending knee’ to a populist and vocal minority would be neutered.
Two problems with this thinking that I think remain unanswered:
1. This Utilitarian model is, as expected, flawed; because a portion of society will remain very unhappy if same-sex marriage does not pass. It clearly breaches 3 of the 4 the bioethical principles being justice, beneficence and non-maleficence. It also impinges on the 4th, autonomy.
2. The fact that voting is mandatory in Australia. In a true democracy members can choose to participate, or not participate. Forcing persons with no real opinion to make a choice by its very nature is undemocratic. Again a breach of autonomy.
Any thoughts?
Previously: How Low Can Australia Go?
(Image via Star Observer)
Aussies REALLY don’t like being left behind…
Aussies don’t really like being felt behind.
Aussies love thongs up their behinds.
Thongs or things?
Will someone please think of the inanimate objects !
Aussies don’t like felt or naugahyde.
The premise of Darren’s (whoever he may be) question is flawed. The turnout represents a much high proportion of eligible voters than the % suggests. For example, my husband and I are both on the register and received polling cards but we’re not eligible to vote because we’re not resident.
So start with the facts, then worry about the bio-ethics rubbish.
Your comment makes no sense. What is your actual point?
Yeah right, in my opinion, it clearly breaches 3 of the 4 the bioethical principles being justice, beneficence and non-maleficence. It also impinges on the 4th, autonomy.
Voting isn’t compulsory in Australia. Turning up and getting your name ticked off the list is compulsory but what you do then is totally up to you, if you were to draw a big cock on the ballot paper that would be perfectly fine.
Job done if Tony Abbot’s on the ballot.
Would that be a vote for or against Abbott?
True for you, Coxy.
I am a big fan of compulsory voting – it forces the political parties to try to keep everyone happy, not just those who are politically engaged. If you know that all of the people on the minimum wage will vote, you might treat them better than if you believe that most of them will be too busy working/surviving to vote.
Unfortunately, some political parties try to close the electoral register as early as possible after an election is called, so that the fewer young people get around to getting registered, as they believe more of them will vote for the other mob.
Whatever about your opinion on compulsory voting, how do you know that ‘some political parties try to close the electoral register as early as possible after an election is called’?
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/rights-and-freedoms/publications/right-vote-not-enjoyed-equally-all-australians
“4.Recent changes to the Electoral Laws in Australia
(a) Changes to the enrolment deadlines
The deadlines to enrol to vote and update voting details were changed prior to the November 2007 election.
It used to be the case that voters had a 7 day ‘grace period’ after the official election announcement (when the ‘election writ’ is issued) to make sure that they were validly enrolled.
There were more than 520,000 transactions during the 7 day period before the 2004 election.[7]
For the 2007 election, under changes to theElectoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006, new voters were required to enrol by 8pm on the same day as the election writ was issued. A person was only given three working days to update their address.”
Foreigners I talked to were astonished when i told them that many businesses had “Yes” displays, rainbows, etc in their windows in Ireland. I wonder if there’s the same strength of feeling in Australia.
In the week after the Irish referendum, the marriage equality campaign ran a full page ad in many newspapers, showing the logos of many businesses that support it:
http://www.australianmarriageequality.org/open-letter-of-support/
There isn’t an obvious, active campaign like the one in Ireland, as there is no referendum date, no scheduled vote in parliament. Aussies usually get excited about sports events and Eurovision :).
That’s a very wrong assumption to say that 40% of the electorate ‘chose’ not to vote. Many did not have the capacity to vote.
Is this poster an Australian national with complaints about their voting system? What exactly is the question here?
+1
Its not only that but the register is not 100% accurate, its at best 85%. People on the registered have died, they’ve moved house and are registered in two or more places, and people have emigrated. This is why a turn out of over 60% is huge.
For some reason people think the register is updated in real time
Yep, that’s right Jess – plus many were/are unable to get to the polling station. There is a bit of post-Ref YES arrogance going around and far too many ignorant assumptions bandied around. And since when did Australia become our 33rd county?
First they muscle in on the Eurovision, and now this. The cheek.
Actually no, wanting to join the Gayovision is a good sign.
Try reading the attached newspaper article that criticised the Irish referendum for your answer.
Ah, I get it. So the OP asks a question but to actually find the question he is asking, he asks you to read a linked newspaper article to find it. That right?
Yes.
Human rights should never be decided by plebiscite.
I tend to agree there. But SSM wouldn’t got through the Dáil, so plebiscite was best option to do what had to be done.
It was also the only option, according to legal opinion.
In hindsight, it was the best option because the issue actually became wider than just SSM. The referendum forced people to talk about homosexuality even if they felt uncomfortable doing so. Some people’s opinions actually changed for the better during this process and even the Church has now softened it’s stance.
Melbourne Community radio station, 3RRR, has an excellent show presented by medical professionals. They discussed the Irish referendum for about 15 minutes at the start of the show, after the Irish referendum. You can listen here:
http://rrrfm.libsyn.com/radiotherapy-24-may-2015
One of the points they make is that a referendum where 62% vote for more rights for homosexuals, creates a more positive environment for gay people. This is why the Irish result is more positive/significant than an act of parliament.
That is a flawed argument because the law is just as likely to fail human rights as the plebs. For example, suicide or attempted suicide used to be a crime (as was buggery) and I suspect that, in the future, current crimes will be treated differently in law. Polygamy could be legalised while paedophilia could be treated as a mental disorder rather than a crime.
The point is that the law is not necessarily ahead of the curve when it comes to human rights, especially when other legal impediments exist to slow it down.
Accept the point you’re making, but “paedophilia” is not a crime, and it is listed in the DSM as a mental disorder.
Ok, I’m delighted and proud about the referendum, and the yes vote, and the equality it brings, and the global changes it might bring etc etc. However, I don’t care anymore. We Irish are not now the moral high ground for marriage equality. Do what ye want in Aus. We voted in our democracy. Let them do that if they wish and lets not decide if they are approaching something correctly or not.
I lived down there for a bit, and of course there are plenty of lovely Ozzie ppl, but I did find it to be one of the most racist places Ive ever been, it does not surprise me that their establishment are behind the times on LGBT rights …
How many countries have you been to, two or two hundred?
How about “I dont give a monkey”.
Surely that applies to all elections? Not everyone is engaged at general election time and couldn’t give a toss who wins.
I wasn’t engaged at the time of voting, hell, I don’t even have a girl friend !
*runs away crying*
*runs back*
.
…So, I have lots of toss to give………..
.
*runs away crying again*
Ok that’s it.
Consider my new campaign ‘Get Clampers Clamped’ officially sea-borne.
Who’s onboard?
I’m going to sponsor him a jubilee clip
alas, i can only provide the metaphorical angle grinder should he wish to once again be free of his shackles.
*sniff* thanks for your support *sniff*
“However, the Australian press cannot seem to accept that the majority of Irish people who chose to record their opinion on same-sex marriage voted ‘Yes’. ”
– You are overstating the Aussie view, because of a single article.
You should read this response from Australia’s answer to Nate Silver:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2015/06/a-comment-on-paul-sheahan-and-irish-referendum-turnout.html
“The only people who ever make this point are people who don’t like a particular result. “
Oh, oh, oh…. that would be lazy inNate thinking….
I’ll get me feather boa
Not so quick, silver
Serious question. For the referendum, do you have to vote in the constituency where you are registered, or can you vote at any polling station?
The place where you are registered. As soon as you show either your polling card or your ID, they find you on a list of houses with a number and draw a line through your name to show you have been in. Then hand you the voting slip.
Cheers. In Oz, everyone can postal vote, and you can vote at any polling station in the country.
People always try to play the “but the turnout was so low it’s not really representative” card.
If the Irish vote had resulted in a No. You can be sure that the Yes side would have harped on about low-turnout too.
there should be a minimum turn out to validate a result though – 50% maybe.
Isn’t it easier to just consider the no-shows as the equivalent of ticking an “I don’t care either way” box?
easier, but not necessarily accurate. maybe introduce a third box marked ‘i don’t care either way’..
I don’t think so. People had the opportunity to go and vote either way. If they didn’t then they’ve just abstained and can’t be critical of the result.
If the proportion of no-shows is relevant to a result, then there are a hell of a lot of elections and referendums in trouble long before you get to the marriage one.
+1