Gay Marriage
I refer to the postal vote in Australia to vote on a members bill to legalise same sex marriage - https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/
The survey asks one question: should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?
I voted 'YES', not because the only other option was NO, but because there was a profound lack of options to exercise my expressions of dissent. Nor was there any option to ask why a government is now controlling a decision which was once largely the domain of a religious organisation who controlled a largely apathetic public in the fundamental conservative first place.
Could I vote anonymously and not be tracked by a unique barcode?
No, but apparently I did so … voluntarily.
Will they read the profanities I wrote all over the envelope and provide me feedback on the comments I made all over the survey form itself?
No - highly unlikely.
If for a moment you thought you were expressing your own civic disobedience by filtering your Facebook profile photo with a Vote YES campaign flag, you are now registered as a leaning left or swinging voter along with those who actually filled out the paperwork. If you lodged your own vote manually then you are more likely to have been added to their politically Liberal averse blockchain and resultant future moral charge sheet.
All this isn’t so surprising when we correlate this issue with that of our prior and current Prime Minister's who have all expressed and proliferated their own homophobic views and enforced corporate power by a continued apartheid and dispossession of Aboriginal nations and communities. There is little to believe in other than to the exercise dissent at a government serving its own purpose, who now are adding your sexuality to their list of human factors to control as fascist regimes do worldwide.
"... Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions."
14 Characteristics of Fascism ( 2003) available at https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
Nor have we anything to gain by affording anyone any semblance of peace in the legal fact that they are now bound to their other, forever and to the exclusion of all others, in a perpetual state of wedded matrimony, observed under a religious edict, bound by ring, till death do you part, gay, straight or anything else you wish to identify by.
So the whole notion of wedded bliss to me (three times over in my sorry case) is a state that only those who wish to engage in such a ceremony or pagan proffering can begin to understand. So many (over 60% of marriages fail whether the couples are 'together for the kids' or 'sexless and toxic') of those who do 'become one' do so for a perceived need of acceptance from society and not from their own sense of ethical responsibility.
I think this whole Australian ‘Vote YES’ for gay marriage campaign is a smokescreen.
It is the activity of a fascist regime who are serving their own purpose and I have no faith whatsoever in those who are currently deemed "illegal" as being given any more legal privileges through this farce of a postal survey (not a plebiscite at all) being conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. It is being called to support a private members bill in parliament that has buckley’s of being turned into anything more that a nice big party spend.
“… It would be my only hope that it raises and reinforces the humane support for a diverse community that respects the rights of others to make decisions for themselves.”
If a proportion of the privileged few can be 'for their own privacy' a silent elector how can we believe their vote even exists as it will never be submitted nor made public anyway? Seriously.. a postal vote when the majority of those it will affect long term are the very same people who cant even recognise nor name what the function is of a post office box (having never used one in their lifetime yet.)
Like, wait, what?
As for the the idea that this is an act of solidarity with members of our community increasingly more powerful and influential then my own hard left leanings then you are right, sorry ... left.
Those of you now left in the conversation who believe in the freedom to choose their own sexuality and related partnerships might like to read what I identify as in a public context.
"...I understand that my sexuality is my own private business but in the context of this publication I am not afraid to make it known to whomever wishes to know of this fact that I am omni or pansexual."
The expression ‘same sex’ is like saying ‘same-same-but-different’, which depending on the cultural context can mean whatever that person is trying to achieve. In this case why is it that a government is seeking control over this legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship?
