SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:37AM (34 children)
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 2017, @01:51AM (9 children)
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 2017, @04:27AM (8 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @01:20PM (7 children)
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 2017, @02:18PM (6 children)
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 2017, @02:41PM
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 2017, @02:43PM (1 child)
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 2017, @07:25PM
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 2017, @06:42PM
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 2017, @07:32PM
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 2017, @12:38AM
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 2017, @01:57AM (23 children)
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)
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:15AM (22 children)
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 2017, @02:32AM (12 children)
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.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @02:47AM (10 children)
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 2017, @03:08AM (9 children)
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 2017, @03:39AM (8 children)
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 2017, @04:33AM (7 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @05:29AM (6 children)
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 2017, @06:36AM (4 children)
"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 2017, @07:27AM (3 children)
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 2017, @02:38PM (2 children)
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 2017, @05:12PM (1 child)
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 2017, @03:33AM
Ok... so you've just delegated legislative law to judges.
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 2017, @02:51PM
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 2017, @05:15PM
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 2017, @02:55AM (5 children)
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 2017, @03:19AM (2 children)
See subject, then try again.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @03:29AM (1 child)
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 2017, @03:42AM
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 2017, @07:25AM
See subject, then try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @05:17PM
See subject, then try again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @04:10AM (2 children)
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 2017, @05:32AM (1 child)
See here. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @08:09AM
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.