The Australian Senate committee on this Bill is seeking submissions from mere mug punters. Here's one that I came across.
The exemptions contained in the Bill in relation to ministers of religion, religious organisations and marriage celebrants are appropriate, but insufficient.
The free exercise of a religious view, or a moral or philosophical view held for other than religious reasons should be a part of normal civil society and should not be penalized in any way (except of course where the rights of others to freedom of speech, association, and freedom from malicious or negligent acts detrimental to their persons or affairs would be directly breached).
The Bill should also exempt from legal action any person who declines to trade with some one where that trade could reasonably be construed to suggest support for same sex marriage. This could include for example, a builder not wanting to build premises for people who were in a same sex marriage, or a real estate agent not taking instructions from persons in a same sex marriage, if that would offend the trader's views about marriage. This is pertinent given the long standing operation of marriage to be in respect of a couple of the opposite sex where marriage is in the normal course of events likely to result in procreation. Procreation is of course impossible for a same sex couple, they being sexually inert, making the social role of same sex marriage to be entirely different from that of marriage as it is historically known and practiced.
Moreover, section 116 of the Constitution of Australia precludes the Commonwealth of Australia (i.e., the federal parliament) from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.
The Bill, if passed in its present form would prohibit the free exercise of any religion by any adherent of that religion where their religious belief denied the possibility of same sex marriage. This law would be oppressive to vast numbers of Australians and permanently change the face of Australia introducing into our society a level of suspicion, resentment and distrust that would be damaging, if not disastrous.
The protections I support above would prevent opportunistic and vexatious use of the law by same sex marriage activists making 'targeted' approaches to businesses known to be operated by people opposed to same sex marriage for either religious or moral reasons. Such approaches are not to genuinely seek to trade, but are as retaliation against their reasonable views and to cruelly destroy their business, as has occurred in other jurisdictions.
20170113
20170110
Cyclists
We all have to be extra polite to cyclists now, keeping 1m from them. Fair enough.
Cyclists would assist their own safety if they
They often fail to realise that dark clothing makes them invisible in most cases, but particularly in shade and when drivers see them against the background of the road.
Knuckle-heads!
Cyclists would assist their own safety if they
- rode in single file, and
- dressed in conspicuous clothing.
They often fail to realise that dark clothing makes them invisible in most cases, but particularly in shade and when drivers see them against the background of the road.
Knuckle-heads!
Driving dozen
There are a few basic rules of the road that make driving pleasant and safe. From my limited experience these should be drummed into every driver, maybe every time registration and license are renewed:
1. Pedestrian crossings: slow down at them, stop for person crossing, don't pass a car stopped at a crossing.
2. Emergency vehicles: give way to them, pull to the left and stop.
3. STOP at amber traffic lights unless it is unsafe to do so and NEVER drive through a red traffic light.
4. ALWAYS stop and look both ways before you drive cross a pedestrian footpath.
5. Be patient with other drivers, its not the end of the world if you are delayed a few seconds.
6. NEVER use a mobile phone hands on while driving or in traffic.
7. Keep as much air as you can between the car in front of you and your car.
8. Keep left unless overtaking in multi-lane roads.
9. Don't park over footpaths, even if you think you are on a driveway.
10. Slow down in wet weather.
11. Don't drive on flooded roads
12. Keep checking in your rear vision mirrors (see 2 above).
1. Pedestrian crossings: slow down at them, stop for person crossing, don't pass a car stopped at a crossing.
2. Emergency vehicles: give way to them, pull to the left and stop.
3. STOP at amber traffic lights unless it is unsafe to do so and NEVER drive through a red traffic light.
4. ALWAYS stop and look both ways before you drive cross a pedestrian footpath.
5. Be patient with other drivers, its not the end of the world if you are delayed a few seconds.
6. NEVER use a mobile phone hands on while driving or in traffic.
7. Keep as much air as you can between the car in front of you and your car.
8. Keep left unless overtaking in multi-lane roads.
9. Don't park over footpaths, even if you think you are on a driveway.
10. Slow down in wet weather.
11. Don't drive on flooded roads
12. Keep checking in your rear vision mirrors (see 2 above).
20161228
Public servant talk
Some public servants recently attempted to communicate to relatives of mine. They failed, of course, because they write in a special language called 'kludge'. The example below is not too bad, and the conversion from 'kludge' to English is relatively simple. I've shown how. On the upside, I'm much relieved that they didn't start "I am writing to tell you..." which of course, as a start to a letter, is a statement of the bleedin' obvious.
20160909
20160903
Functionally, a dud!
I note Mr (MP)'s talking about 'genuine commitment to marriage equality'.
Of course, given the biological basis for marriage, I'm all for equality as well. What does puzzle me is how the current debate pretends that there is no functional issue here, but one of mere 'being in love'.
Marriage has in view procreation. Eons of evolution have shaped this, no law, no culture, such that reproduction requires a zygote and no pair of the same sex can make one.
Thus the current debate is about marriage debasement, commoditisation of children and the intrusion of the law into the fairytale world of happily ever after romance.
20160821
The Plebiscite: letting the plebs have a say!
I almost wrote "Plibersek"; she thinks she speaks for the people.
But no.
Its on its way: the same sex marriage farce plebiscite. I'll not be surprised either way, and parliament will do what it wants. I don't care.
But what amazes me is that we even contemplating doing homage to the emptiness of same-sex-non-sex; unreproductive effort, with the term 'marriage'.
Where on earth is the public policy interest in something biologically and socially inert and of no moment in the continuation of the species?
Its represents a genetic dead end; does nothing to add to society (numerically, of course), and if it does involve children, its in the same terms that Nyland used in the SA Royal Commission into Child Protection Systems of adoption: its for the entertainment of adults, or in some cases, for them to give vent to their perversion.
Same sex marriage, in the final analysis, serves no beneficial evolutionary purpose. Its no business of government and probably damaging to children in the aggregate.
But no.
Its on its way: the same sex marriage farce plebiscite. I'll not be surprised either way, and parliament will do what it wants. I don't care.
But what amazes me is that we even contemplating doing homage to the emptiness of same-sex-non-sex; unreproductive effort, with the term 'marriage'.
Where on earth is the public policy interest in something biologically and socially inert and of no moment in the continuation of the species?
Its represents a genetic dead end; does nothing to add to society (numerically, of course), and if it does involve children, its in the same terms that Nyland used in the SA Royal Commission into Child Protection Systems of adoption: its for the entertainment of adults, or in some cases, for them to give vent to their perversion.
Same sex marriage, in the final analysis, serves no beneficial evolutionary purpose. Its no business of government and probably damaging to children in the aggregate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)