Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Saturday November 18, @01:15AM   Printer-friendly
from the changing-tide dept.

Australians have voted 61.6% to approve of same-sex marriage, and the Turnbull-led government has said it would aim to pass legislation by Christmas:

Australians decisively support same-sex marriage

Australians have overwhelmingly voted in favour of legalising same-sex marriage in a historic poll. The non-binding postal vote showed 61.6% of people favour allowing same-sex couples to wed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said. Jubilant supporters have been celebrating in public spaces, waving rainbow flags and singing and dancing.

A bill to change the law was introduced into the Senate late on Wednesday. It will now be debated for amendments. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said his government would aim to pass legislation in parliament by Christmas. "[Australians] have spoken in their millions and they have voted overwhelmingly yes for marriage equality," Mr Turnbull said after the result was announced. "They voted yes for fairness, yes for commitment, yes for love."

The issue only went to a voluntary postal vote after a long and bitter debate about amending Australia's Marriage Act. The result on Wednesday brings an end to what was at times a heated campaign. The vote itself had been criticised by same-sex marriage supporters, many of whom said it was unnecessary when parliament could debate the issue directly.

Related: (U.S.) Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage
One in Three People Globally Think Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
Taiwanese Court Invalidates Ban on Same-Sex Marriage


Original Submission

Related Stories

Breaking News: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage 255 comments

In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that states can not prevent same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their marriages from other states. In the majority opinion by Justice Kennedy it is stated:

The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.

...and:

It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed. It is so ordered.


Original Submission

Taiwanese Court Invalidates Ban on Same-Sex Marriage 32 comments

Taiwan's Council of Grand Justices (大法官) ruled that the current civil law banning same sex marriage is unconstitutional and that the legislature has two years to either amend the law or create a new law.

Taiwan News

Legislation enforcing the court's ruling is already working its way through the legislature, where both the ruling and major opposition parties support legalisation as do a majority of Taiwanese people and President Tsai Ing-wen.

news.com.au (News Corp)

A large percentage of the public in Taiwan has accepted the idea of same-sex marriage because leaders have elevated liberal social causes to show the island's democratic credentials in the face of China, a political rival that restricts free speech and association.

Los Angeles Times

But the debate has prompted a backlash, with mass protests by conservatives in recent months.

BBC News

Additional coverage:


Original Submission

Same-Sex Marriage Legalized in Austr(al)ia 45 comments

Same-sex marriage officially signed into law in Australia

Same-sex marriage has been officially signed into law in Australia, a day after MPs overwhelmingly approved a historic bill. Australia's Governor-General Peter Cosgrove signed off on the law on Friday - a formality required to enact the legislation. The vote on Thursday set off rarely matched celebrations in parliament, including cheers, hugs and a song. Supporters celebrated across Australia, many donning rainbow colours.

"So it is all done. It is part of the law of the land," Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said after a brief ceremony on Friday.
He said the law would take effect immediately after midnight.

The first marriage ceremonies will happen from 9 January, given couples must give a month's notice of their intention to wed.

MP Tim Wilson proposed to his gay partner from the floor of Parliament during the debate.

Meanwhile: Austria to allow same-sex marriage with couples able to legally marry from 2019 at latest

Austria's top court has ruled that same-sex couples can marry from 2019 at the latest, bringing the often conservative Alpine country into line with more than a dozen other European nations. Gay marriage is now recognised in more than 20 countries, of which 16 are in Europe. "The Constitutional Court nullified with a decision on December 4, 2017 the legal regulation that until now prevented such couples from marrying," a statement released on Tuesday said. It said however that the current rules would remain in place until December 31, 2018 unless Austria's parliament changes the law before then.

Previously: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage
Taiwanese Court Invalidates Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
Australians Approve of Same-Sex Marriage in Non-Binding Vote


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Shire on Saturday November 18, @01:23AM (23 children)

    by The Shire (5824) on Saturday November 18, @01:23AM (#598488)

    I don't think the term "overwhelmingly" means what they think it means. 61% is not overwhelming, it's 11% over a deadlock.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:40AM (10 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:40AM (#598494)

      Why should one group be able to dictate to another group, especially on something as personal as marriage?

      This is just one more example that reveals Democracy to be a silly way to organize society.

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:47AM (#598496)

        And how else do you propose to work it out? Dictatorships of various sorts rely on smaller group sizes, sometimes even allowing one insane / evil person to commit genocide. I'll take the slow and steady path towards cultural evolution over the fast and often painful one. The chance of getting a benevolent and enlightened dictator are slim to none.

        I'm guessing you go for the libertarian stance of let people do whatever they want, but we still have limitations that must be agreed upon somehow. As usual these questions / issues will not be answered except by some "series of contracts" or whatever.

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:39AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:39AM (#598547)

        It ain't "marriage", stupid. You can do whatever the hell you want to do, just don't expect normies to recognize you as normal. Marriage always has been, and always will be, about offspring, inheritance, and continuity. It ain't about silly feel good bullshit. Civil union, OK. Partnership, OK. Cohabitation license, OK. What gays have is not marriage. Gay pride, right? WTF do gays even want to appear "normal" when it comes to their relationships? They aren't "normal", they take pride in not being "normal", then they demand to be defined as "normal". Talk about psychotic . . .

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday November 18, @04:14AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @04:14AM (#598567) Journal

          Marriage always has been, and always will be, about offspring, inheritance, and continuity.

          Except when it's not about that. You're speaking of some historical reasons for marriage, not what it is or is about today. But even if we accept your reasons at face value, we still have inheritance which applies (or more accurately, should apply) to same sex marriages just as it does to heterosexual marriages.

          WTF do gays even want to appear "normal" when it comes to their relationships?

          Most people in the world want to appear normal. Why should we expect most gay couples to be different?

        • (Score: 3, Touché) by isostatic on Saturday November 18, @10:42AM (1 child)

          by isostatic (365) on Saturday November 18, @10:42AM (#598619) Journal

          Marriage always has been, and always will be, about offspring, inheritance, and continuity

          Our happily married gay friends have two children, so that seems to match your requirement.

          Othe other hand our happily married straight friends don't want children. I guess they should divorce?

          • (Score: 1) by evilcam on Monday November 20, @04:23AM

            by evilcam (3239) on Monday November 20, @04:23AM (#599142)

            Marriage always has been, and always will be, about offspring, inheritance, and continuity

            Our happily married gay friends have two children, so that seems to match your requirement.
            On the other hand our happily married straight friends don't want children. I guess they should divorce?

            I fall into this second bucket; I'll let the OP you explain to my wife that we have to have a divorce or children... And deal with the repercussions...

        • (Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Saturday November 18, @04:17PM

          by purple_cobra (1435) on Saturday November 18, @04:17PM (#598687)

          If gay people want the same level of mother-in-law as straight folks, who am I to stand in their way?

          Silliness aside, is it that important to you that they can't marry? I'm of the opinion that there's far too much prurient interest in what consenting adults get up to inside their own homes and while there are exceptions - the politician waxing lyrical about his faith and family while philandering with all and sundry, for example - I have to say that in general, I neither know nor care about the sexuality of others.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:22PM (#598729)

          And this is why the biggest threat to my hetero but childless marriage is all the people claiming to be defending the sanctity of marriage.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by stretch611 on Saturday November 18, @04:47AM

        by stretch611 (6199) on Saturday November 18, @04:47AM (#598571)

        When referring to the rights extended to people, it should never be a democracy. As long as no one is harmed, minority groups should be afforded every reasonable protection.

        This should allow people to choose their own sexual preferences, their own religion, etc. As repugnant as their ideas are, this should even apply to groups like the white supremacists. (of course non-violent actions only.)

        By not doing this we stifle freedom. While the US is predominately christian when it comes to religion, that would not be allowed in the rest of the world where Christianity is a minority. (And Christianity would have never been allowed to exist if democracy said no, back when it was created.) Blacks would never have been allowed to vote if no one cared of the rights of the minority. People who desire a same sex marriage should have the same right as everyone else. And no one would be legalizing marijuana. While some of these ideas are acceptable to most people now, that has not always been the case for any of the items I mentioned.

        We do not have freedom at all if the majority gets to pick and choose what we are allowed to believe in.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:12PM (#598644)

        Why should one group be able to dictate to another group, especially on something as personal as marriage?

        When gays marry it's not your personal marriage is it? Are you one of those closet gays? From what I see the closet gays are often the ones objecting the most to gays.

        So using your logic when gays want to marry it's their personal thing so why should a bunch of strangers be allowed to dictate to them whether or not they should be allowed to marry?

        Logically if you really want fewer gays in the world you'd actually encourage more gays to marry gays- that means less of them reproduce. A few would still reproduce, but far fewer than if they were closet gays in "traditional marriages".

        While there might be some merit in having creating a similar legal arrangement for gays that's called something else other than marriage, letting marriage include gay marriage is about the simplest way to achieve most stuff. e.g. instead of changing many lines of legal code, you change fewer lines.

        As a straight guy I don't see what the big fuss is about, why not just let them marry? I'm more concerned about Australia trying to reintroduce the TPP. That's when a bunch of strangers dictate what you can or cannot do.

      • (Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday November 19, @12:05AM

        by Bot (3902) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 19, @12:05AM (#598791)

        In future history books
        1. Gay rights movements were about technocratic control over human reproduction.
        2. Bureaucratic obstacles to civil unions were needed as an objective problem for gays to overcome
        3. Redefinition of the term marriage was instrumental to the development of newspeak more than a needed step for gay rights laws
        4. People in that time were particularly stupid, also they were still carbon based like animals. Ew.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:10AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:10AM (#598507)

      You could just about say that white people or non-immigrants supported it overwhelmingly. Other people were quite opposed.

      Immigration from non-white places, and the descendants that result, could someday overturn this decision.

      • (Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:07AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:07AM (#598528)

        Wtf? This is Australia - race had nothing to do with it.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:10AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:10AM (#598532)

          Welcome to internet trolls, or possibly someone really that unhinged. Can't fucking tell these days.

        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:43AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:43AM (#598552)

          Hello stupid. Apparently you believe that Australia is one vast pool of homogeneity. Did you not understand that there were black people on that continent before any white man ever arrived? And, did you not understand that hordes of immigrants are trying to get into Australia today - primarily Asians?

          Obviously, you're out of touch with both history, and current events. That is common amongst basement dwelling geeks. Try to get out more. Maybe even meet a person of the opposite sex. There are a few who won't run gibbering in fear when they meet a basement dweller.

          • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:38AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:38AM (#598581)

            There are a few who won't run gibbering in fear when they meet a basement dweller.

            Best of your chances go with paraplegics and/or intellectually retarded.

        • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday November 18, @03:57AM

          by MostCynical (2589) on Saturday November 18, @03:57AM (#598563)

          http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/samesex-marriage-survey-the-yes-and-no-city-20171117-gznh5t.html [smh.com.au]

          issues: Chinese immigrants. Muslim immigrants. Lower income areas. Lower education areas.

          --
          (Score: tau, Irrational)
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @06:24AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @06:24AM (#598586)

      61% mans there were nearly 2 votes in favor for every one against. Over 60% is referred to as a super-majority for a reason, it's often incredibly hard to get that many votes on something.

      So, yes, 61% is an overwhelming majority.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 18, @02:36PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @02:36PM (#598665) Journal

        Actually, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority [wikipedia.org] It all depends on where you are from what you mean by "supermajority". In the US, a supermajority requires 66% in favor. A majority of 65.5% won't pass an amendment. The EU gets kinda complicated - it requires 15 of the 18 members states, AND 260 of the total 352 voting weights, AND at least 313.6 million people represented by the states that vote in favour. The Rome Statute may only be amended by a seven-eighths majority of participating states. I don't know where you are from, but I don't recognize 60% as a "supermajority". That would merely be a strong majority - and no, I wouldn't call that a "landslide" either.

        --
        #Hillarygropedme
    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday November 18, @10:40AM

      by isostatic (365) on Saturday November 18, @10:40AM (#598618) Journal

      Yet the UK is throwing away its economy on a 52-48 vote.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Fluffeh on Monday November 20, @12:20AM

      by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20, @12:20AM (#599072) Journal

      If you look at this article, showing each district set out and explained, it pretty much does support the "overwhelmingly" statement.

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-13/same-sex-marriage-support-map-vote-compass/8788978 [abc.net.au]

      It might be 60ish % overall, but there are very few districts where the "No" vote was the majority (No meaning that gay couples should not be allowed to marry).

    • (Score: 1) by evilcam on Monday November 20, @04:33AM

      by evilcam (3239) on Monday November 20, @04:33AM (#599148)

      It was 61.6% (7.82 million responses) in favour, 38.4% (4.87 million responses) against; so 1.6 times more people in favour than opposed. More than this though, only 17 electorates out of 151 returned a No vote and every state returned a yes yote overall.

      Given that we elected our government on a 50.36/49.64% split (two-party preferred) I'd can't rationalise how that could not be considered "overwhelming" support.

    • (Score: 1) by mmarujo on Tuesday November 21, @02:58PM

      by mmarujo (347) on Tuesday November 21, @02:58PM (#599665)

      Sort of, percentage measures are funny that way.

      On one hand 61% is only 11% more than 50%, it doesn't seem a lot.

      On the other hand if you compare 61% vs 39% than that does seem "overwhelmingly"

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:28AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:28AM (#598489)

    Until marriage includes any union between a man and a woman, a man and a man, a woman and a woman, a man and a collie, or a woman, a polish sausage, and a long weekend.

    • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by fustakrakich on Saturday November 18, @02:39AM (2 children)

      by fustakrakich (6150) on Saturday November 18, @02:39AM (#598515) Journal

      a bridge too far [dailymail.co.uk]

      Say no more, say no more...

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @08:14PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @08:14PM (#598745)

        "Offoptic" Christ! What a bunch of sourpusses! Quit trying to make the damn place so gray and sterile!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19, @01:10AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19, @01:10AM (#598804)

          The wisdom behind the old adage that "you have two ears and one mouth" still applies when you use ten fingers.

    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Snotnose on Saturday November 18, @03:42AM

      by Snotnose (1623) on Saturday November 18, @03:42AM (#598551)

      That polish sausage was tomorrows lunch, I'm not happy she made off with it.

      / unless I'm invited
      // and it's not my wife who made off with it
      /// unless her hot friend was in on it, then I'll bring the sauerkraut

    • (Score: 0, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:45AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:45AM (#598554)

      And another halfwit spouts off. What exactly is it that YOU want to "marry"? Come on, you're anonymous here - spill it. Maybe you like those cute little phallic cactuses?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:02PM (#598724)

        It's a movie quote, idiot. Sorry that particular joke isn't in your Designated-Funny Quote-Bank.

        Here, have some more:

        There are all the rumors out that my movies are financed with Nazi gold. And what should I say? It's true. But somebody must do something with the money.

        I get a little horny here onstage sometimes, if I see a crowd and all the children.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:37AM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:37AM (#598492)

    Why should the government be involved in marriage, anyway?

    The right solution isn't for the government to expand its role in people's personal lives, but rather to remove the government from the business of marriage all together.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:50AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:50AM (#598498)

      Why do we bother having a Constitution then? What purpose does that server?

      Sweet mary mother of god what will it take to get some common sense into these creatures?

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:13AM (#598534)

        The whole point of a Constitution is to explicitly list which authorities The People have delegated to the government, and which authorities The People may never delegate to the government.

        For instance, the American Constitution states that the American People have delegated to the United States Government the authority to control immigration; however, the Constitution also states that the United States Government may never even accept from the American People the authority over keeping and bearing arms. The authorities that are not explicitly mentioned are known as "Unenumerated rights", and they are left to the States to discuss between the Governments of those States and the People of those States, as restricted similarly by the Constitutions of those States.

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:51AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:51AM (#598558)

        "will it take to get some common sense into these creatures"

        Unpossible. You can't hammer empathy into a rock, you can't beat compassion into a stick, and you can't screw common sense into these "creatures" as you call them.

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday November 18, @09:30PM

        by aristarchus (2645) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @09:30PM (#598757) Journal

        Why do we bother having a Constitution then?

        Australia? What need is there for a piece of paper, when you got drop-bears? (And Billabongs and bandicoots, for real.)

        What purpose does that server?

        Your purpose has been severed? Or was it a severe purpose? Several potential severances of this sentence are served.

        Sweet mary mother of god what will it take to get some common sense into these creatures?

        Mary, eh? Catholic, then. Marianist, probably. So we want to keep the gays out of marriage, so we can convince them to be celibate priests? Abstinence makes the Church grow Fondlers! Who needs separation of Church and Australia, when you got Funnel Webs, and Taipans.

        --
        #freearistarchus!!!
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:00AM (5 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:00AM (#598503)

      Marriage is about property, not love. It's also entirely optional.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:52AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:52AM (#598521)

        As someone who is taxed like he is single but supports his fiance and two children, no its not quite optional.

        I've run the numbers, if I had been taxed like we were married for the past two years I would be 14,723 dollars richer right now.
        That includes the taxes and health insurance. That's not optional its punitive against those who are raising a family but not married.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:52AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:52AM (#598559)

          So - you're a fuckup who can only do the numbers AFTER you've been raped.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @09:12AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @09:12AM (#598607)

          I've run the numbers, if I had been taxed like we were married for the past two years I would be 14,723 dollars richer right now.

          And how much of that 14,723 would you have spent on a wedding? How much of it is due to immediately adding two child dependents?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:14PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:14PM (#598656)

            And how much of that 14,723 would you have spent on a wedding?

            A tiny fraction of it, if you're not retarded. You can just get a cheap marriage in front of a judge, you know.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19, @12:53AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 19, @12:53AM (#598801)

            Colorado, Marriages cost 30 dollars, you self certify, sign the papers and turn them in with in 30 days. Or we could just start referring to ourselves as married. Common law is a thing here.

            So almost none champ, and yes a good bit is for the kids. Doesn't change the fact that I am paying for their food, clothing, school supplies, haircuts, field trips, birthdays, christmas, and sports fees. If I wasn't paying they would be on public assistance. They are not mine biologically. So I take on the extra responsibility, relieve the taxpayers of a burden, and then I get fucked when its time to pay taxes. To top it all off, my taxes will be going up under the proposed house tax "relief" act.

            So I get a choice. Pay out the ass in taxes, or get married and in today's world wonder if it will last, or will wipe me out as I'm preparing for my golden years. Thats not option, its fucking extortion.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday November 18, @03:04AM (4 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @03:04AM (#598526)

      Why should the government be involved in marriage, anyway?

      So, you don't mind if the govt stops giving concession based on family grounds, right?
      Everyone for himself, kids be dam'ed - actually, you know what? Let's start taxing kids as well (grin)

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:21AM (#598537)

        Let's start taxing kids as well

        Taxation is going too far. A better alternative would be for them to participate in unpaid compulsory labor.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 18, @04:22AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @04:22AM (#598568) Journal

        Let's start taxing kids as well

        You do realize that kids are taxed almost everywhere? They just don't have taxable income or assets for the most part.

        • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:31AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:31AM (#598579)

          You do realize that kids are taxed almost everywhere?

          No, I don't.

          They just don't have taxable income or assets for the most part.

          Shame! Freeloaders. Scum of the Earth. Stealing TMB's money, how dare them?
          Put them to work and tax the hell out of them

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by isostatic on Saturday November 18, @10:28AM

          by isostatic (365) on Saturday November 18, @10:28AM (#598614) Journal

          They just don't have taxable income or assets for the most part.

          But those that do (child actors can earn millions) presumably get taxed. And they don't get a vote.

          My 3 year old bought some lego with his pocket money (which he gets from doing chores) a couple of weeks ago. Obviously he had to pay the sales tax on that.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:37AM (34 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:37AM (#598493)

    The question shouldn't be should government allow homosexual people to marry.

    The question SHOULD be why people are bothering to ask the government at all for permission to marry.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:51AM (9 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:51AM (#598499)

      Because most countries have a host of legal benefits for a legally recognized marriage, such as certain inheritance rights, next of kin status, and tax breaks. Some types of business, like insurance, sometimes extend benefits to the legal spouse of the primary contractor. Naturally the government, being in charge of the laws, gets to define what a legal marriage is. If you don't want to bother the government about it, then just don't get legally married. It's not like a legal marriage is required for anything except for all those government based benefits.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 18, @04:27AM (8 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @04:27AM (#598569) Journal
        Another big one is legal guardianship (in case of becoming mentally incompetent) which is closely related to next of kin status.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:20PM (7 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @01:20PM (#598647)
          Also: access to spouse in hospital and similar. You're normally not a close relative of the person you marry <insert humorous exceptions here>.

          For example if your spouse is unconscious and you're not legally married the close relatives who disapprove of you might succeed in denying you access.
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:18PM (6 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:18PM (#598659)

            That's ridiculous. All of these benefits should be available without marriage, like by simply being able to specify who can visit you in a hospital. What an archaic, backwards society.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:41PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:41PM (#598669)

              THAT is the sort of things queers should have been fighting for - not this silly concept of "marriage". Cocksuckers really fucked it up - they could have fought for real freedom, instead they just fought for a different set of chains and bonds.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:43PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:43PM (#598670)

              And how do you prove that someone is who they claim? All manner of fraud and safety concerns come to mind.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:25PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:25PM (#598733)

                Your concerns are identical in the status quo of begging government permission to marry. Identification issues are an entirely separate matter from whether or not to beg government for permission to marry.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @06:42PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @06:42PM (#598714)

              That's assuming you set up such a list with the hospital beforehand, or are still conscious and capable of giving consent after admittance. Neither of which is guaranteed, hence the default of letting close relatives and spouses in.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:32PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:32PM (#598736)

              But those benefits should only be available to the person I choose. Since so many people want to grant these benefits to another of their choosing, we should make it a standard practice. We can have a standard contract that both parties can get without having to commission lawyers, worry about forgetting one or two of the list of benefits, etc. We'll have to also come up with a name for this practice. I propose we call it marriage.

            • (Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Monday November 20, @12:38AM

              by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20, @12:38AM (#599075) Journal

              That's ridiculous. All of these benefits should be available without marriage, like by simply being able to specify who can visit you in a hospital. What an archaic, backwards society.

              Well, it's not always easy to get someone to make a list when they have just had a serious accident. You know, they might be all bleeding and the like, and no-one wants to have blood all over the paperwork. There was this one time, some guy managed to have his arm ripped off. I mean like totally ripped off his body. He couldn't even sign the form. Just amazing how many people don't learn to sign a matching signature with both hands. That's not even starting on all the patients that get brought into hospital that aren't even conscious - I mean that's just downright rude isn't it...

              *sips coffee*

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by MostCynical on Saturday November 18, @01:57AM (23 children)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Saturday November 18, @01:57AM (#598502)

      enforceability of the 'marriage contract' requires said contract to be undertaken within a jurisdiction, and within the rules of that jurisdiction.

      as with every argument about 'no' or 'very small' government or anarchist-socialist utopiae, enforceability requires either a private army, or support of a government (police, judges, bureaucracy, etc etc)

      so, in absence of warring city-state armies/police forces/whatever, we utilise frameworks run by governments ..

      and governments define the terms, which, in this case, includes the words "between a man and a woman", which the religious right don't want to change (apparently for one reason, it will lead to marrying goats, or something)

      changing the terms is up to the government. This plebiscite was really just a delaying tactic, which succeeded in getting 78.97% of eligible Australians to reply, but doesn't actually compel the government to DO anything (although they would look silly if they didn't)

      --
      (Score: tau, Irrational)
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:15AM (22 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:15AM (#598509)
        • I believe that in the United States, the governments got involved with marriage licensing because the Democrats (yes, the Democrats) wanted to prevent miscegenation (intermarriage of the races); before that, marriage was chiefly a matter for Church communities.

        • Firstly, when you enter into a contract to buy a pound of flour once a month, you don't have to seek the government as a third party to that deal; the people signing the agreement (e.g., not the government) are the ones who define terms. Indeed, if the government plays a role it at all, it's only as the arbitrator of last resort during a civil dispute that has been brought to court; most such disputes are resolved voluntarily by good-faith parties to the contract, or by "private" arbitration that never makes it to any kind of governmental court.

          And, when it comes to enforcement of an arbitration ruling, there's nothing special about the government either. There's nothing inherently good about there being a monopoly on contract enforcement—in fact, it's probably a very bad idea, just like a monopoly is a bad idea in any other service industry.

          Your mind seems to be stuck in this antiquated notion of jurisdiction as a rigid geographical area. Well, guess what? Jurisdiction could be defined by the contract in question; the parties to the contract could just simply specify who the arbitrators are supposed to be, and thereby create a market for contract enforcement service providers. This is already kind of the case: As you point out, people do choose jurisdictions, and incorporate in various countries, etc. They even specify that "private" arbitration must be used.

          Now, just give up your magical thinking with regard to geographical boundaries on a map, and your magical thinking with regard to words written down by a group of people who call themselves "legislators"; there's nothing magical about those things. They may work (in a limited way, or for a limited time), but they're not essential to the concept of contract negotiation and enforcement.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by MostCynical on Saturday November 18, @02:32AM (12 children)

          by MostCynical (2589) on Saturday November 18, @02:32AM (#598511)

          idealism is lovely.
          You need ensure that anyone with whom you enter into a contract abides by the contractually-agree arbitration, *without* using a court in any existing jurisdiction,

          You are welcome to your ideal society; it may be very lonely there, as people are very bad at keeping their word, which is one of the reasons courts, and even governments exist in the first place.

          --
          (Score: tau, Irrational)
          • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:47AM (10 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:47AM (#598519)

            The last I checked, governments are not only staffed by humans (rather than angels), but they're also founded explicitly on "do-as-you-are-told" coercion (rather than "do-as-we-agreed" obligation).

            Whence comes the magical benefits of your monopoly power? I would suggest that history shows that governments are not at all magical, and actually do a pretty poor job of providing the kind of services that you think they provide. Well, what else would you expect from a monopoly that came to being through coercion, anyway?

            Think about this: There has never existed One World Government; national governments exist in a kind of anarchy—and thank goodness they do, because it is exactly that separation of competing powers which protects us all from overwhelming Tyranny.

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:08AM (9 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:08AM (#598530)

              but they're also founded explicitly on "do-as-you-are-told" coercion (rather than "do-as-we-agreed" obligation).

              Except that the laws are created and supported by a democratic republic, and the power is delegated to elected officials here in the US. For aspects of society that don't fall under the law we do indeed have the system of contracts you so desire. I think you're just thick, or at the very least ideologically blind.

              I guess you just don't comprehend democracy. Its a tricky concept I grant you, there are books that might help you out, you could probably even take a course at a local community college. If you need help with tuition I'd be happy to help out.

              • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:39AM (8 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:39AM (#598548)

                You yourself have delineated society's organization under 2 kinds of law:

                • Law by legislation.

                • Law by contracts.

                The question, then, is how much of society should be under each one of these?

                • Authoritarians will tell you that all of society should exist under law by legislation.

                • Libertarians will tell you that all of society should exist under law by contracts.

                I submit government (that is, legislators) are not magical; their purpose in society could be completely subsumed by contractual law, and that such a subsumption is made ever more possible by society's improving logistical technology (in the same way that representative democracy became possible after improvements in logistical technology). Furthermore, I submit that organizing society around contractual law will establish some pretty nice societal characteristics; society will be:

                • Voluntary. It will be much easier for people to reason about their rights and obligations; there will be much less frustration about why things are the way they are.

                • Evolutionary. The form of society won't stagnate under the obsolescent decree of a would-be Intelligent Designer; instead, society's form would be more directly coupled to this Universe's most creative process, evolution by variation and selection (that is, evolution by supplier competition and consumer choice), and thereby society's form could be found continuously in a way that is always workable with respect to the environment at hand.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 18, @04:33AM (7 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @04:33AM (#598570) Journal
                  Who enforces non-contract impositions? If I impose a cost or harm to you without your consent, such as pollution or theft, how will I be punished?
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:29AM (6 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:29AM (#598578)

                    If your interaction is not well defined, then neither are the repercussions; engage in undefined behavior at your own peril. Indeed, one must be careful about retaliating, too, because a retaliation might also invoke undefined behavior.

                    So, there is profit in agreement, and there is profit in order, and thus there is an incentive to come to agreement about repercussions even for poorly defined situations. It may be that such an agreement is among members of the community in question—people tend not to like to live around retributive killers; communities (as organizations) might have agreements between each other, and thereby establish a widespread system for adjudicating poorly defined situations.

                    This is essentially the idea behind case law; the difference is that the adjudicating organizations would arise from free enterprise rather from the coercive decree of a monopoly on which governmental courts are founded.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 18, @06:36AM (4 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @06:36AM (#598589) Journal

                      If your interaction is not well defined, then neither are the repercussions; engage in undefined behavior at your own peril. Indeed, one must be careful about retaliating, too, because a retaliation might also invoke undefined behavior.

                      "Undefined" behavior? Sounds like something your system needs to fix since it's real common in the real world.

                      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:27AM (3 children)

                        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:27AM (#598597)

                        If undefined behavior is "real common in the real world", then I guess it's not much of a problem after all... so... I guess that settles the "debate".

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 18, @02:38PM (2 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @02:38PM (#598666) Journal

                          If undefined behavior is "real common in the real world", then I guess it's not much of a problem after all..

                          Behavior undefined by your system. It's quite well-defined in the real world as crime, negative externalities, etc.

                          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:12PM (1 child)

                            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:12PM (#598695)

                            The whole reason people go to court is because there is a dispute over what has happened, and a need to choose whether or not certain behavior can be cast in light of something well defined, or whether the behavior needs a new kind of law (e.g., case law).

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 20, @03:33AM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20, @03:33AM (#599127) Journal

                              The whole reason people go to court is because there is a dispute over what has happened, and a need to choose whether or not certain behavior can be cast in light of something well defined, or whether the behavior needs a new kind of law (e.g., case law).

                              Ok... so you've just delegated legislative law to judges.

                              Behavior undefined by your system. It's quite well-defined in the real world as crime, negative externalities, etc.

                              I dispute that claim.

                              Sure. But maybe you ought to start writing something different, if you're serious about the attempt.

                    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:51PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:51PM (#598673)

                      Again you don't solve any problems, just more hot air about "contracts". Heh, you even say some communities will develop a widespread system for adjudicating poorly defined situations. So, like state law? Lolol, every time you try and get into the details you just start reinventing government.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:15PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:15PM (#598696)

            The last I checked, governments are not only staffed by humans (rather than angels), but they're also founded explicitly on "do-as-you-are-told" coercion (rather than "do-as-we-agreed" obligation).

            Whence comes the magical benefits of your monopoly power? I would suggest that history shows that governments are not at all magical, and actually do a pretty poor job of providing the kind of services that you think they provide. Well, what else would you expect from a monopoly that came to being through coercion, anyway?

            Think about this: There has never existed One World Government; national governments exist in a kind of anarchy—and thank goodness they do, because it is exactly that separation of competing powers which protects us all from overwhelming Tyranny.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:55AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:55AM (#598523)

          1. You're nuts Timeline [wikipedia.org]

          2. Government is the fundamental building block on which your contract enforcers can operate. It is untenable to have individual contracts for every possible human interaction, thus we agree to a basic set of rules we call Law. Your mind seems to be stuck in an idealistically naive state where you sweep every problem under the rug with "market forces and free choice".

          3. Address the problems or shut the fuck up already, your bullshit is tired. Spamming idealistic nonsense and ignoring even the constructive criticism shows that you're just an immature person to be ignored.

          • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:19AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:19AM (#598535)

            See subject, then try again.

            • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:29AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:29AM (#598541)

              That isn't a problem it is a feature. Basically you are complaining about the one aspect in our society that DOES match your desired reality.

              You an idiot brah.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:42AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @03:42AM (#598550)

                Here, let me complain about your argument in another way: Your argument is a straw man.

          • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:25AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @07:25AM (#598596)

            See subject, then try again.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:17PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:17PM (#598697)

            See subject, then try again.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @04:10AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @04:10AM (#598566)

          Now, just give up your magical thinking with regard to geographical boundaries on a map, and your magical thinking with regard to words written down by a group of people who call themselves "legislators"; there's nothing magical about those things. They may work (in a limited way, or for a limited time), but they're not essential to the concept of contract negotiation and enforcement.

          They're not magical, but they do save a lot of time. What the people around me do will generally have a more immediate effect on me than what someone 3 thousand miles away does. And delegating the task of creating laws to legislators provides uniformity of law over an area and frees people from having to run around negotiating and signing hundreds of thousands (or more) of contracts. And what exactly would you do with someone, or more likely some corporation, that simply refuses to sign any contract with you and proceeds to, for example, dump toxins next to your house?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:32AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @05:32AM (#598580)

            See here. [soylentnews.org]

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @08:09AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @08:09AM (#598599)

              communities (as organizations) might have agreements between each other

              Hmm, so either everyone in the community ratifies such agreements, anyone who disagrees joins a different community, or you're back to enforced laws again. The first seems like a direct democracy government, the second seems like your utopia of individualistic contracts, and the third sounds like standard enforced laws again, just on a smaller scale. None of which seem practical at a large scale, except for the last one which you're against. And it still doesn't answer what to do with say a large multinational chemical corporation with more resources (money and mercenaries, mainly) than your organization that refuses to sign any contracts and dumps toxins next to you.

  • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday November 18, @03:09AM (5 children)

    by realDonaldTrump (6614) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @03:09AM (#598531) Homepage Journal

    You look at Elton John, who married his long-time partner David Furnish in 2005. On the first day that civil partnerships between gay couples became legal in England under the new Civil Partnership Act. Elton credits David with helping him kick drug and alcohol addictions that nearly killed him. The pair has been together for 15 years. Next month it'll be 15. I know both of them and they get along wonderfully. It's a marriage that works.

    But when transgender individuals try to get into our military, it's a big problem. A big, big problem. We cannot afford the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. With a few exceptions. pic.twitter.com/4WQGnPDlhd [t.co]

    --
    Text TRUMP to 88022 for mobile alerts! Message&data rates apply. Text STOP to opt-out. T&C/Privacy: sms-terms.com/88022
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by stretch611 on Saturday November 18, @05:02AM (2 children)

      by stretch611 (6199) on Saturday November 18, @05:02AM (#598573)

      Quite an accomplishment... 15 years... Something Donald has yet to achieve.
      Ivana... 14 years
      Marla... 6 years
      Melania... 12 years

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday November 18, @05:05AM (1 child)

        by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Saturday November 18, @05:05AM (#598574) Journal

        Melania is trapped in that marriage until at least the end of Trump's first term. So he will make it to 15.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by stretch611 on Saturday November 18, @06:48AM

          by stretch611 (6199) on Saturday November 18, @06:48AM (#598592)

          True, but more than likely, Elton will be married for 18 years when that happens.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by c0lo on Saturday November 18, @06:46AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18, @06:46AM (#598591)

      But when transgender individuals try to get into our military, it's a big problem

      Group Captain Cate McGregor [wikipedia.org]

      Group Captain Catherine "Cate" McGregor AM is a transgender woman, who served as a member of the Australian Defence Force (ADF).
      ...
      In 2012, McGregor was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia in the Military Division for "exceptional service to the Australian Army as the Director of the Land Warfare Studies Centre".[9]

      Following a period between 2010 and 2013 when numerous ADF personnel were involved in misogynistic behaviour (including the non-consensual filming of sexual encounters with women),[10] Chief of Army, Lieutenant General David Morrison AO responded in a video speech which was written by McGregor.[11] In the speech he described the actions as a "direct contravention" of the Army's values, and said "those who think that it is okay to behave in a way that demeans or exploits their colleagues have no place in this army." [10]

      In 2013, David Morrison "refused to accept her resignation when she went public" as transgender.[12] In November 2013 McGregor was the highest ranking transgender person in the Army, and the speechwriter and strategic adviser for David Morrison.[13]

      In 2013 there were a number of social media exchanges involving McGregor[14] for which the Department of Defence made a payment in compensation.[15]

      McGregor transferred to the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) on 20 June 2014 to work on projects for the Chief of Air Force.[16]

      In 2015 McGregor, in considering having gender reassignment surgery said, "it’s about being congruent in your identity. I would like to feel whole,"[1] and that any sex change, "will be funded independently with no taxpayer assistance".[17]

    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18, @02:49PM (#598672)

      No one likes a fucking name dropper. Big fucking deal - you know a pair of cocksuckers from the UK. Hey, man, I don't personally know ANY of you cocksuckers in Washington, and I'm happier for it. But, name dropping. It's a sure sign of a weak, immature, insecure personality. There you are, sitting in the White House, arguably the seat of more concentrated power than anywhere on earth - and you're DROPPING NAMES?!?!?!?! What a little bitch.

(1)