Prime Minister Admits Australians are being Asked to Sign a Blank Cheque on Gay Marriage
Posted by Coalition 4 Marriage on September 15, 2017
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull today admitted the Australian people will not know the detail of any final legislation to change the Marriage Act before casting their votes in the plebiscite.
The Australian reports the Prime Minister foreshadowed a lengthy parliamentary debate that would involve numerous as-yet-unseen amendments. In a stunning admission today Prime Minister Turnbull said the government had no control over the legislative process in the Senate.
The Prime Minister said:
“Private members will get a bill to protect religious freedoms and there could be an amendment here and an amendment there, a debate about this and a debate about that… No doubt it will be amended and debated and we don’t have a majority in the Senate and in any event, it is a free vote.”
Coalition for Marriage spokesman Lyle Shelton said this was an extraordinary admission from the Prime Minister.
“The Prime Minister has confirmed the Australian people are being asked to sign a blank cheque,”
“The Prime Minister has said he does not know the detail of the bill. He has said he does not control the legislative process. He has said that Australians will not know what protections the legislation will or will not contain.
“It’s regrettable that the dynamics in the Senate are such that members of the Government can’t even be relied on to produce a bill that protects parents’ rights, free speech and freedom of religion.
“Given the fact the Prime Minister couldn’t even convince the parliament to hold a plebiscite on marriage in the first place, how can the Australian people have confidence the parliament will ‘get it right’ on protections for parents, speech and faith?
“I say to all Australians – if you don’t know, vote ‘no’,” he concluded.
A Yes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage will give Politicians a Blank Cheque.
Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017, September 15. | Author: Coalition 4 Marriage | Article Title: PRIME MINISTER ADMITS AUSTRALIANS ARE BEING ASKED TO SIGN A BLANK CHEQUE ON GAY MARRIAGE Article Link: coalitionformarriage.com.au
PROFESSOR DAVID FLINT: A Yes Vote on Same-Sex Marriage Will Give Politicians a Blank Cheque
The Daily Telegraph
September 12, 2017 10:00pm
- Piers Akerman: Forget same-sex marriage, look at the power crisis
- Mark Latham: Marriage equality militants attack free speech
It’s not urgent. That’s what the proponents of same-sex marriage told the High Court. So why are we being rushed into trusting the politicians, giving them a blank cheque in what is no more than a pretend or fake referendum?
Voters might recall Alan Jones’s advice on the politicians’ republic: “If you don’t know, vote No.”
As to trusting politicians, it’s hard to think of even one of today’s problems which, if it weren’t created by them, they’ve not made significantly worse. From replacing the lowest energy costs in the world with the world’s highest, from declining educational standards to the way the criminal justice system better protects the criminal than the victim, today’s politicians have hardly earned our confidence.
Professor David Flint says politicians have hardly earned our confidence, so why are we now trusting them to change the constitution without telling us what exactly they plan to do?
Like Professor Flint, Alan Jones was a one of a small number of media commentators recommending a No vote on whether Australia should be a republic in 1999.
This is because too many of today’s politicians are out of touch, coming from a narrow class of staffers, union and party officials and chosen not on merit but because of their loyalty to some factional boss or lobbyist.
The founders of this country proposed and the people agreed that the new federal Parliament would be authorised to make laws with respect to a limited range of issues. These included marriage.
Although they’d never heard of same-sex marriage, the founders and the people were well aware of other forms of marriage, including polygamy. They certainly weren’t about to give the politicians any power to allow men to have four wives, some underage. The meaning of marriage in the Constitution was — and still is — crystal clear. It means marriage between one man and one woman, nothing more and nothing less.
Thousands of demonstrators took part in a same-sex marriage rally in Sydney last weekend. Picture: AFP
This meaning should prevail until the Constitution is properly changed.
In any democracy, words in a constitution must mean what a reasonable person at the time it was adopted thought they meant.
And having seen what can happen in other countries, the founders were very careful that the final decision on changing the Constitution should rest with the people. They certainly weren’t going to leave it to the politicians or indeed, to seven judges.
To make sure the people would be properly informed, it was agreed that the only way to change the Constitution would be by a Swiss-style referendum with the precise change and legislation approved both nationally and, to ensure there was widespread support, in a majority of states.
The founders were well aware of the dangers of using plebiscites to change the Constitution. Like opinion polls, plebiscites are just a question. This can too easily be loaded or misleading, as we saw in the 1995 Quebec secession referendum where exit polls revealed that many Yes voters actually believed they were voting to stay in Canada.
The point is that in a plebiscite all the details and especially the consequences of a Yes vote are not known in advance — they’re not on the table. The voters haven’t the foggiest idea what the politicians will get up to if you give them a Yes vote. Just as in the current postal survey or plebiscite.
The founders had seen how plebiscites — fake referendums — can be used to manipulate the voters. They were well aware that Napoleon Bonaparte and his nephew had used them to soften up the French until they agreed to turn them both into emperor-dictators.
Why won’t Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull reveal his hand concerning what happens if a Yes vote gets up? Picture: Kym Smith
Even where the plebiscite question seems clear, the voters can too easily be misled by being denied the necessary detail. How suspicious it is that the Turnbull government won’t reveal whatever legislation will be introduced if the people vote Yes. But even if the government were to reveal their hand now, it still wouldn’t be enough. Unlike a referendum, there’s no guarantee the legislation would be passed or even introduced.
The politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of traditional marriage.
Sydney Uni law courses push for Sharia law recognition
We have no idea what these could be. Some European politicians and clergymen have seriously proposed that sharia law be introduced to legitimise polygamous marriages, demeaning seriously women’s rights.
This could subsequently lead to the recognition of other practices, including underage and arranged marriages.
Even where the plebiscite question seems clear, the voters can too easily be misled by being denied the necessary detail. How suspicious it is that the Turnbull government won’t reveal whatever legislation will be introduced if the people vote Yes. But even if the government were to reveal their hand now, it still wouldn’t be enough. Unlike a referendum, there’s no guarantee the legislation would be passed or even introduced.
The politicians could subsequently approve new forms of marriage or measures to punish supporters of traditional marriage.
clip
If there is a Yes vote, we have no guarantee that our existing freedoms of speech and religion will be maintained. The bullying and fake news by some of the self-selected leaders of a community, one which seems to only exist in a never-ending series of initials, should put everyone on guard.
There is nothing to stop the introduction of same-sex marriage being used, as it has been in other countries, to step up filling our schools with campaigns to encourage so-called gender fluidity and enforce the access by both sexes to lavatories, showers and change rooms. There is nothing to stop some schools and other charitable institutions being forced to close down and teachers and people generally being gagged.
All of this would have been avoided if the details and consequences of the proposed change were on the table before the people vote, as the Constitution clearly requires.
There was no reason why a proper referendum could not have been called to coincide with the next federal election. Instead we are being asked to vote Yes and give a blank heque to, of all people, the politicians.
David Flint, an emeritus professor of law, campaigned for the No case in 1999
Original Source: Date-stamped: 2017 September 12. | Time-stamped: 10:00 pm | Author: The Daily Telegraph | Article Title: DAVID FLINT: A YES VOTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WILL GIVE POLITICIANS A BLANK CHEQUE | Article Link: dailytelegraph.com.au
?…..Worth thinking about surly?!