Australia: Catholic Archbishop Encourages "No Vote" on Gay Marriage

[mdgspencer]

see perthnow.com.au/news/catholic-archbishop-encourages-no-vote/news-story/4a19d2840b24231769e9d92340b98d64

The Archbishop of Perth, Australia, asks his people to vote in the upcoming postal survey on gay marriage, arguing in his pastoral letter to be distributed at mass that marriage between a man and a woman is in the best interest of society and of children.

Gay marriage is a huge issue in Australia. In September, Australians will be asked by mail to vote on whether or not they believe same-sex couples should be allowed to marry.

The postal survey will only ask a single question and that question can only be answered with a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’. The question that will be posed in the survey is:

Do you support a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to marry? (Lifehacker site)

While this survey is not a legal referendum, it is seen in Australia as having a great deal of importance.

 

[Catholic13]

Cue the pro-gay apologists.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Unfortunately political point scoring gets in the way,
The Government wanted a Referendum, but the Senate voted against it ,
Not because they were against the Question , but rather they believe it should be voted on by Parliament, while the Government believe the entire voting population should vote on such a Moral Question, couldn’t get more democratic than that,

 

[josh987654321]

I think that was very well said by Archbishop Tim Costelloe of Perth.

Thank you for sharing that.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[PluniaZ]

It’s good to see the Catholic Church standing up for Biblical values against the secular monsters taking over modern society.

 

[victrolatim]

At least the people get a say. When same sex “marriage” was passed here in NY it was basically steamrolled through the state assembly.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

At least the people get a say. When same sex “marriage” was passed here in NY it was basically steamrolled through the state assembly.

That’s what We’re trying to avoid

 

[7_Sorrows]

Claims “it is unfair to suggest that they are trying to force their views on others”
Immediately proceeds to encourage people to force their views on others

 

[Rau]

Unfortunately political point scoring gets in the way,
The Government wanted a Referendum, but the Senate voted against it ,
Not because they were against the Question , but rather they believe it should be voted on by Parliament, while the Government believe the entire voting population should vote on such a Moral Question, couldn’t get more democratic than that,

A bit more detail:

For some time, the numbers suggest that a “free vote” in parliament would readily favour extension of marriage to cover same sex couples.

The government proposed a non-binding “plebiscite” - meaning a formal taking of the public position on the matter, to be followed by a vote in parliament where the MPs would be allowed to vote according to conscience, and not bound by either “party lines” or the views expressed in the plebiscite (be that the country wide result, or the result in their own electorates).

The significant opposition to a plebiscite in the parliament (and amongst those favouring SSM in the community) was argued largely on the grounds that the conduct of a plebiscite would lead to “hurtful/hateful” debate, causing pain and suffering to gay people, and potentially suicides. The impact on the children of gay parents was particularly stressed. Secondary factors included: The significant cost of a plebiscite and the observation that marriage is defined in legislation, thus can be changed via legislation - which the parliament is able to do without further authority from the people.

Given the plebiscite was blocked, the government - arguing it wants to do its best to deliver the closest thing it can to a plebiscite - now proposes to use the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct a “survey” by postal means. Opposition parties are challenging this move in the High Court on the grounds that the government requires an authority from the parliament to expend funds for this purpose.

Assuming the postal vote goes ahead, there will be pro and anti cases made by various private organisations. A famous (gay) Australian swimming champion has been signed as the “poster boy” for the Yes case. The Australian Christian Lobby tends to be the principal proponent of the No case.

 

[Rau]

Claims “it is unfair to suggest that they are trying to force their views on others”
Immediately proceeds to encourage people to force their views on others

If arguing - one way or the other - as to whether marriage is applicable to same sex couples is a “forcing of views on others”, then so is pretty much every decision of the majority. It tends to be how democratic decisions are made.

 

[WJeffrey]

Claims “it is unfair to suggest that they are trying to force their views on others”
Immediately proceeds to encourage people to force their views on others

That is not very charitable.

 

[edwest2]

In the United States, I was surprised to see a yes or no question about whether to allow same-sex marriage on the ballot some years ago. Most people in my state voted no. A little while later, a letter appeared in a major daily daily newspaper calling us “The Great Hate State.” A bit unfair.

So, the matter went before the US Supreme Court and it, not the people, said yes.

Ed

 

[Rau]

In the United States, I was surprised to see a yes or no question about whether to allow same-sex marriage on the ballot some years ago. Most people in my state voted no. A little while later, a letter appeared in a major daily daily newspaper calling us “The Great Hate State.” A bit unfair.

So, the matter went before the US Supreme Court and it, not the people, said yes.

I assume the court addressed the question according to the Constitution. Constitutions do trump votes of the people, unless it’s a vote to change the constitution.