Abbot isn’t the leader now but he is a drag on the current leader (Turnbull) who IMHO is doing a pretty good job. The referendum result gives Turnbull cause to either make Abbott shut up or leave the parliament.
The bigger issue is our lack of true separation between church and state, which is part of the republican issue. This was last addressed in a failed referendum almost 20 years ago, It was promoted by Turnbull, and with conservative elements in the Liberal party out of the way it might be appropriate to give it another go.
They didn’t chicken out, but can’t legally divorce as a protest.
Yes, they want to dissolve their state sanctioned marriage and keep their vows in the eyes of their church, which should be perfectly reasonable and would indeed dissolve any legal benefits they currently have. What nobody here has pointed out so far is that Australia doesn’t allow “at will” divorces and one party would have to show “just grounds” for the divorce, which is a bit of a sticking point because the cause is from events outside the relationship. So they can’t legally divorce and stay together:-
“The Family Law Act 1975 established the principle of no-fault divorce in Australian Law. When granting a divorce the Court does not consider why the marriage ended and the only ground for divorce is that the marriage broke down and there is no reasonable likelihood that the parties will get back together.” From www.familycourt.gov.au
So they could get divorced, it would just be a pain and they’d either have to lie or make a court case out of it. I would be very surprised if they ever fail to take advantage of any legal benefit granted to them by marriage, too.
If they are true Christians, they shouldn’t have any trouble living apart. As Jesus himself said:
“If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life!" (Luke 14:26)
Can’t we help them along and automatically dissolve their marriages for them?
If their concept of marriage is so incredibly fragile that they can’t stand someone else they don’t like (or likely ever even interacted with) being married far above their own marriage, then there’s no great loss here.
True, but you left out the part where the only thing they consider for that is if you’ve been seperated for 12 months and one day. It’s the end of the same paragraph you quoted from here.
And further down the page, it also points out that it’s possible to do “Separation under one roof” (separated but still living together) as further detailed here.
They could quite easily lie their way into a divorce, with a bit of a waiting period.
I think I know what you mean. (Please correct me if I’m wrong!)
Been thinking about that and reluctantly deceided to give the designer the benefit of the doubt and hope that the illustration is meant to depict a torn dress, not a “provocative” one.
Doesn’t solve the problems of
a) the illustrations for slaves and concubines
b) the question why there should be different pictograms in the first place
though.
I get that in a chart you need to be able to tell different, let’s say properties, apart, but in this case there should be a less problematic way.
(What’s missing in the thread at this point is a military historian pointing out that the soldier’s suit of armor is wrong for the period.)
Ah, I see. That level of turmoil wasn’t so obvious from here (ie, my bubble). Sounds like Cameron’s Brexit gambit in that it was both an attempt to assuage a vocal and bigoted minority coupled with a cheap attempt to avoid culpability and responsibility. At least in this case the people made the right choice.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, we’re still primitive enough to require it sometimes.
I’m sorry to hear about the pain that was inflicted on the LGBTQ community. Hopefully some awareness was raised and the results are formalized into law without further anguish.
Yes, that’s exactly right. It very much was an attempt to satisfy a bigoted minority and, if the no side had won, be able to say ‘it’s not the Liberal Party’s fault, the Australian people have spoken and didn’t want same-sex marriage’.
I’m so glad the yes side won - although very sorry for the pain caused by having the vote at all - and quietly rejoicing that the laws went through on Thursday and the first same-sex marriages will happen on Jan 9 - my birthday. It’s going to be fabulous!
Just to clarify:
It wasn’t a referendum. That would mean this was a change to the constitution (it wasn’t) and that politicians would have to implement the result (they weren’t obliged to).
It was a public opinion poll that wasn’t run by the electoral commission and was binding on exactly no-one. In other words, the politicians did whatever they wanted, unencumbered by any legal requirement to follow the poll results. Our former village-idiot Prime Minister, Abbott, voted the exact opposite of the way his electorate wanted him to.
The marriage act had been changed by Howard in 2004 to “a man and a woman”, with no reference to, or poll of, the public. It could have been changed back just as easily.
Goddamnit! I could have used this infographic some years ago before I was stupid enough to marry someone without any slaves, or only marry one woman, or get some concubines. (as it turns out, the dear old ball and chain is not too fond of the idea of concubines or “sister wives”…). I guess my only chance now is to either be a rapist or go to war and kidnap some virgins!
On the serious side, you’d think that people would look at this shit and say “um… this really doesn’t apply anymore, so maybe we can’t use it as a reference for trying to regulate the lives of others.”.
