Equality for all! Not just the married!

So, it looks like this ill-conceived, expensive, non-binding, divisive, responsibility-dodging survey is going ahead.
When it was announced, rilestar made his feelings known:

So @TurnbullMalcolm & @LiberalAus you gutless wonders - I assume we'll get a plebiscite every time you want to raise taxes or cut services? https://t.co/ZZRT0fKZp7

— Riley J (@rilestar) August 8, 2017

Prognosis? Unlikely.
But ignoring the ridiculous waste and the fact these politicians can't just do their jobs and represent the people and vote in Parliament rather than making us do it for them and despite how terrible this decision is generally for the fabric of Australian society (*takes a breath*), it's good to see some surprising people coming out (no pun intended) in favour of the sensible, non-terrible option (that's Voting 'Yes', in case it wasn't clear).
Case in point, Amanda Vanstone of all people (and the whole article's good - you should read it!):

"Heterosexuals have been rushing out of marriage for decades. If gay people want to rush in I'm delighted. Let's not listen any more to that rubbish about marriage being between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life. Our own laws support the "for life" rule going down the gurgler. Now it just means until such time as you think you might be happier in another marriage. "To the exclusion of all others" is less and less a likely outcome. The only one left is "between a man and a woman"."

And, even better, she succinctly states that this vote is about "whether we believe that we have the right to dictate how others live their lives." Clearly, we shouldn't.
"It's not about what you want for yourself. It's about letting other people have proper recognition of their relationships."

That's right - unless you're a gay person who wants to get married...this doesn't affect you. It's not about you. This will not force you to get gay-married. Just let them be happy! 

Of course, the churches - especially Catholics* - are doing their usual bit of ignoring the logs in their own eyes while staring uncomfortably long at people in their bedrooms (and making it like THEY are the real victims here). This guy in particular is probably just annoyed that priests can't marry their altar boys and says "It is true..." and "There is no doubt..." a lot, but, as we all know, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes"**. 

 

Also, here's a truth: There is no doubt you are a hateful monster, and the opposite of what Jesus preached.
Incidentally, the winning response to him was this, by good ol' Bazza:

Bazza Aug 18 2017 at 10:29am Yes we should listen to Catholics in this debate. They are the ones who believe that eating magic bread transforms into the flesh of a 2,000 year old dead guy so they can be forgiven for a sin they were born with because a magic rib woman was talked into eating forbidden fruit by a talking snake. They can take the moral high ground.

Plus this idiot, who says she's not against gay people, but she'll go to the effort of voluntarily voting 'No', just ... because?: "As a 30-year-old woman, everyone expects me to vote 'yes'. But I won't be"
Annie's response was perfect:

AnnieAug 23 2017 at 4:31pm
As an elderly, Catholic, long-married, rural woman, everyone expects me to vote "No" but I'll be voting "Yes". Why? It's not about me. It's about giving the same rights I enjoy to others. Yes, I believe marriage is the bedrock of our society and I believe we will be so much richer when it is open to those who have waited so long. Good, loving, committed marriages can only be beneficial to our country. Yes!

Annie reminds us that some Catholics are actually practising what they preach, and actually doing what Jesus (and the current Pope) would do. In fact, both St Ignatius' College in Sydney and Xavier College in Melbourne have "cautiously endorsed same-sex marriage in messages to parents, staff and students, directly rebuking recent statements from church leaders".
Of course, they're Jesuits, who are notoriously reasonable. Reason has no place here!
Anyhoo, just do the right thing in the upcoming 'plebiscite', and vote 'Yes'. It's easy, and everything's going to be fine. Oh yeah, and people are dying, including kids. Be a hero and help save their lives.
Encourage everyone you know to do so, too.

Show the world that Australia really is the land of the Fair Go. Be relaxed and laid-back. Or are you un-Australian? Maybe we should have another $122 million survey, sort that out...
* Disclaimer: I'm married and a Catholic. Well, I was raised a Catholic, now I'm a Pastafarian Jedi. But I am 100% convinced that (a) my marriage can cope with other people getting married, and (b) Christians will still keep doing whatever they want to do, just as they have since the time of Nero...
** Ironically, Obi-Wan, that is an absolute. Try "Only Sith ... and maybe some other dudes ... deal in absolutes, probably, bruh!"

Allow me to discrimonstrate

I wrote a little while ago that the Brumby Government had started to stink up the place quite a bit, and so it was not much of a surprise that they got booted out.
I also wrote that I didn't exactly have high hopes for Baillieu.
Well, he's only been in power for a few months, but things are already looking very dicey with this Victorian Government.
Exhibit B (this was Exhibit A): Rachel Ball, director of policy and campaigns at the Human Rights Law Resource Centre, recently wrote in "Baillieu promised a fairer Victoria, but it looks like the opposite" that the State Government has stated it will scrap measures in Victoria's Equal Opportunity Act that are designed to actively promote equality, including stripping powers from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, and also "expand the ''permanent exceptions'' that give religious groups and entities - including those that provide public services using public money - a free licence to discriminate against de facto couples, gays, lesbians and single mums, among others."
Why do they even need to go there? Aren't there more pressing concerns than allowing men in dresses to discriminate against single mothers on the basis of "a book of stories inscribed by an itinerant Middle Eastern shepherd many millennia ago" (with thanks to The Onion for that quote*).
I think the philosophy of this commenter ("Embe") had a simple eloquence: "I say, take away all tax payer funding from these organisations and then they can discriminate to their intolerant hearts content. If they take our secular money they should follow our secular inclusive rules."
Hear, hear, Mr Embe.
And boo, hiss, Mr Baillieu. My kickboot is getting itchy. I think it wants to connect with your behind region...
* Perhaps I'm being facetious, since the Bible "deals with all kinds of germane topics, from what meats one should not eat due to mankind's lack of refrigeration technology to the pre-Iron Age accounts of territorial disputes affecting a certain area of the Fertile Crescent."

All the way with Turn-BJ!!!

Could there be any better way of highlighting the clear differences between current Liberal leader and secret super villain "ClownMan" (TM) (otherwise known as the mild/ill-mannered Tony Abbott), and the man he deposed by a single vote (Malcolm Turnbull: "Turn-BJ" - USE IT!) than by reading the following two relatively recent articles:

• "Judges' election on cards: Abbott" (wherein ClownMan unthinkingly blurts that it is "almost inevitable" that Australia will adopt the American system of electing judges if courts do not listen to the community and deliver tougher sentencing); and
  
• "Political risk in making a martyr of Assange" (wherein Malcolm Turnbull sagely and considerately states "Assange is an Australian citizen. No matter how much the government disapproves of his actions, it should make it clear that he is entitled to return to Australia if he wishes and to receive consular assistance if the charges of sexual assault proceed in Sweden" and "Julia Gillard's claim that Assange had broken Australian laws, when it is clear he has not, demonstrates how out of her depth she is.")
  

Of course, I always preferred gutless wonder Costello to lying scumbag Howard, so what do I know...

Wild, wild (hairy chest in the) west

I'm travelling around the country still, so I haven't been able to rant as much as I'd like (at least on this series of tubes).

But I'm currently in Perth, where the State Government recently and dramatically changed. In fact, it was all a bit crazy here, as the Nationals were tossing up which of the major parties they would like to govern with. Although they ended up surprising no-one by choosing the Libs, this situation did finally help them grow a pair, and realise they had the right to demand a little more from their 'colleagues'. Good to see their researchers finally read my letter, even if was two years late...and referring to a different Government...:

The Nats should flex their (love*) muscle
It is often overlooked that the Nationals hold the balance of power, not only in the Senate, which is important, but also in the House of Representatives, which is even more so.
Although being in coalition with the Liberal Party allows the Nationals to govern jointly with that party, the Liberals also seem to forget that without this coalition, the Liberal Party would not be in government. I cannot help thinking that they do not give the
Nationals the respect they deserve for this situation, and simply regard it as a
fait accompli.
To my mind, the Nationals should be able to demand more ministerial places in the Government than they have at present, and a host of other benefits besides, for giving the Liberal Party the privilege of voting alongside them — much as Brian Harradine was able to secure many advantages for his constituents when he held the balance of power in the Senate a few years ago.

Nonetheless, as I recently predicted, it looks like Labor's vaunted stranglehold on Australian Governments coast-to-coast was merely a temporary aberation...

And the worm continues with its turning.

* This word did not find its way into the printed version...