Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Saturday November 18 2017, @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

 
This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @05:29AM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @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 2017, @06:36AM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18 2017, @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 2017, @07:27AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @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 2017, @02:38PM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 18 2017, @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 2017, @05:12PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @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 2017, @03:33AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 20 2017, @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 2017, @02:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 18 2017, @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.