In years to come our children might ask, “What did you do in the Macklemore War, Dad?” My response will be, “Like a lot of people, I fought and died just a little bit inside.”
The noise around the same sex marriage voluntary postal survey has turned this country into a dismal, joyless place, where proponents and opponents quibble over meaningless symbolism like seagulls over a chip.
I confess I didn’t have the slightest idea who Macklemore was until earlier this week. I would be perfectly happy to bathe in that ignorance today. I might even have watched him perform in the NRL Grand Final pre-match, wondered out loud who he was before going to the fridge and grabbing another beer before the kick off.
By the time the match ended and the premiership trophy was held aloft by the victorious captain, Macklemore’s performance would have been a distant memory, rather like my knowledge of the 2004 coup d’etat in Equatorial Guinea in that it was a long time ago and didn’t really make a whole lot of difference to my life.
Full column here.
Jesus H Christ, Mr Insider, I checked Mr Macklemore’s “music” on You Tube and thought I had found a cover of Petula Clarks big hit “Downtown” he had done. How wrong I was! I pray this Macklemore chappy does not take up too much of our valuable time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGhoLcsr8GA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx06XNfDvk0
Macklemore’s song book contains all sorts of political and social commentary.
Same Love at the NRL, Mormon Brandon Flowers at the G.
Football leading the way in balance and diversity!
I haven’t heard of the bloke and wouldn’t bother looking him up as I don’t think there has been any music made since the mid 80’s. I’m wondering at all the fuss. He’ll do 3 or 4 songs, and be gone, and the game will start, and everyone will forget him.
The ssm issue could have been passed by Rudd or Gillard during their terms, but neither had the courage to confront the issue. Abbott was never going to confront the issue. Shorten could have passed the Bill for the plebiscite but didn’t for political reasons. He thought he’d make some mileage from it. Turnbull didn’t have the courage to take on his own Party Room.
The issue for me is not ssm. The issue for me is the gutless timeservers running the country.
On happier topics, Tigers and Cowboys for mine. Crows weakened by losing key forward Mitch McGovern.
Good news, Adams released from hospital and feeling fine he says. I thought he was dead when he hit the turf. Shoot, his mouthguard flew 10 feet when he was hit!
That is good news Dwight. His teammates didn’t hesitate. They called the stretcher immediately he hit the ground. I can’t recall a worse hit in the NFL. Vontaze Burfict, Bengals linebacker, was rubbed out for 5 weeks (reduced to 3 on appeal) for a similar hit on Anthony Sherman, Chiefs, during the pre-season. Trevathan should be out for 6 at least. Packers played a good game Dwight, and owned the line of scrimmage throughout the game. Bears last TD was a bit soft but it was all over bar the shouting by then. Even injuries on their offensive line didn’t slow them down. 3 and 1 and looking good.
No music since the 1980’s? Oh man that is sad. You have missed out on so much by closing the door.
Its brain death you know.
I an bet that…no music since the 60’s!!
Damn, you’re a hard critic Bass!
The 60’s certainly produced the best music in my opinion – by a country mile.
Bman these guys were alright.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoW3bqnr7tw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln6WQqRDrCo
Yes but a shame they are miming
Whatever hardships and deficiencies I have endured, it has been worth it, as I can say with pride, I have never heard a song by Justin Bieber.
Who is Justin Bieber?
Some young bloke from Canada who often forgets to put his togs on.
Jack, times have changed, when i was seventeen i expected my parents to disagree with me about a helluva lot of stuff, and i was certainly not let down. On the odd occasion when there were outbreaks of agreement some bizarre behaviour or other on my part soon restored disequilibrium.
i always though that was a pretty common experience, and a lot us seemed to delight in it, but maybe i am wrong.
Nearly everyone i have spoken to is voting YES, and in big letters as well, but i do know a few who say they probably will vote no, and i am absolutely certain that none of them would prefer that gays didn’t exist.
not saying such people don’t exist, i just haven’t had that sort of conversation with an Aussie for about twenty years.
Just as well it’s a vote for citizens only as i reckon a lot of the newly minted visa holders and permanent residents from this part of the world would be in the No pile. Much more so than Anglicans or Catholics.
Anyway i won’t be getting a letter, no vote for exiles like me.
Not splitting hairs but you’re referring to the odd bit of youthful exuberance while being gay is central to one’s own essence. There’s a big difference between “I’m not happy with you at the moment” and “I don’t like who you are and I wish you were someone else.”
Well JTI, not to put too fine a point on it, in my experience the difference between a youthful night on the piss and coming to the realisation you are attracted to members of the same sex is, at times, called suicide. Young country boys have used the 30-30 for years. The girls, their smarter, they just move.
Exactly. This survey is effectively asking the community as a whole to decide if some of its members should have the same rights as the rest of us. Imagine how that feels for them.
the question they had said No to is Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?
Not, should gays cease to exist, not do you dislike gays and wish they were something else.
now maybe the lads parents are rabid gay-haters, in which case this postal survey is just one more pothole in what will be a tough road for the kid.
but perhaps they watched Penny Wong explain her position about five or six years ago and thought, that sounds right, and she is a sensible person and she is gay so we agree with her, and they just haven’t gotten around to changing their mind yet.
i keep reading people having a pop at past governments for not doing anything about this when they had the chance.
My memory is a bit different.
Being gay has been around forever, but same sex marriage is so new you can still smell the Dulux on it.
just a few short years ago it could not attract majority support wth the public, and it certainly couldn’t in the Australian parliament.
Barack Obama, Julia Gillard, Penny Wong, Hillary Clinton all lined up and used much the same words to say they did not agree with it.
they may have been spinning, probably were, but if so they made a political judgement that they couldn’t get SSM through the process.
Public opinion and political opinion has shifted a lot since then, and shifted quite quickly, but not everyone changes their views at the same time or at the same speed.
Denigrating people who hold what were mainstream progressive opinions about six years ago is bad politics.
On a more serious note, if this survey/plebiscite hasn’t been THE worst bit of public policy in my lifetime, then I don’t know what is.
No surprises that the postal survey was proposed by the ever more odious Evil Mr. Potato Head either.
It’s a sad thing that Turnbull’s liberal instincts lead him to be so conciliatory to mean-spirited authoritarians like Dutton, Abbott, Hanson, and the rest of that Chain of Fools.
Rhys,
Absolutely the worst. Just never forget , though, Joe DeBruyn and the shoppies union stopped Julia from doing it. Just saying…..
All political game playing Rhys. Wissendorf’s comment above us P
pretty spot on.
Just appalling. Bunch of kids dragging this country down
The NBN? The Julia Gillard Memorial School Halls? Pink Batts? Dan Andrews’ $1 billion road to nowhere? Three states and the NT banning gas? We are spoiled for choice, Rhys. Outside of Venezuela we are becoming world leaders in bad policy.
What likelihood that Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Shorten, and the respective State Premiers turn up at the presentation ceremonies at the Grand Finals?
Very short price. Gladys and Andrews will be there and may well be on their respective daises although understandably might want to absent themselves when the booing starts.
Lest we forget.
Personally I think rap should be banned. And how long have white honkies been sayin it?
Jimmy and the Boys or the Sunnyboys for mine.
Yep, or Radio Birdman.
We could also ask Mother Goose to reform as MT’s tribute band.
Never heard of him, just checked out YouTube and I wish I had still never heard of him.
I’ve obviously reached old fogey status, couldn’t they have got the Foo Fighters?
I’m with Dragon actually Trace. May Mark Hunter rest in peace.
Great publicity for the NRL people Mr Insider as I suspect many will tune in just to see what the fuss is all about with Mr Macklemore, whom I confess I had not heard off until recently. I might add though that the NRL would have snagged a real warrior for same sex marriage in Elton John who only 20 odd hours ago did a concert in Tasmania. Poor old Tassie doesn’t normally get Superstars of that ilk, sorry Boadicea! “Balls to the Wind” tho Mr Insider be what it be we will all tune in to see Mr Macklemore strut his stuff adding a lot of colour to a game where burly men all go into a big cuddly scrum anyway!
HB. When a waning superstar plays at Wrestpoint or the Derwent Entertainment Centre you know they’re desperate! Bit like Tweed Heads Twin Towers!
Or maybe Elton wanted to see Tassie? Maybe at the invite of David Walsh.
I really can’t imagine why he would he there otherwise!!
I’m pretty sure Elton sings “Candle in the Wind”, Henry. At least in public.
Jack,
It is about the hijack of a word.
The ABC was misleading when talking about the absence of rights and showing a gay couple concerned about superannuation rights because they weren’t married: of course what is not mentioned is that it is a regrettably standard practice that the superannuation/life insurance includes a clause noting that despite the nominated beneficiary having been stipulated, the trustee retains a discretion as to distribution! That applies to practically all such documents – regardless of whether “married”or not.
Similarly the “legal expert” (whose qualifications were not provided) mentioned that there were lots of disadvantages to not being able to be married (without stipulating a single one).
Really, the whols SSM has been a distraction from incompetence of all governments to govern (you know, the economy, energy, education , health, defence – those things that might be said to matter)!
Redefining words to suit policy is not good policy.
I believe in recognition of relationships – including gay ones.
I understand the only Commonwealth power to do so is under the marriage power.
So the issue is why not call it what it is: gay marriage” or “same sex marriage” and thereby accord recognition without redefining the term “marriage “per se and needlessly offending others (not to mention semantic purists/pedants 🙂 )?
If, over time, the term “marriage”comes to include ssm/gay marriage – so be it.
This just seems like an unnecessary beatup – again.
cheers for the long weekend and any team/horse/vote in your race!
Voltaire I consider you the most erudite person who posts here but, in my humble opinion, you are wrong in this instance. These are people who need to feel like people. Not poofs, homo’s, lezo’s, dykes or whatever other disgusting term some in society want use. Allan Joyce saved the big kangaroo. He loves a man. He cannot marry that man. Barry Watts and Valmae Beck were allowed to be married if they chose. Where’s the justice in that? Let’s call it marriage.
Good stuff, Razor. And mate, you might be one who at least recalls the old squirrel squads.
I have no problem with people differing about these matters – and the world will not end whatever is decided and/or implemented.
I simply do not understand the need for legislative fiat to hijack a word – and consider ” same sex marriage” or “gay marriage” perfectly adequate for the moment.
The continual need to worry about group identity feelings annoys me (regardless of the group involved and noting that which ever group it is, there is always another seeking special treatment or berating the world for imagined grievances of gender, colour, religion, heredity – pick a box). Yes, I could put my hand up for a couple of these but would just prefer to be left alone and treat individuals on their merits….very old fashioned I suppose but then I actually remember a time when it was a compliment to be said to be capable of discrimination!
Voltaire -I think it was Katter who was none too pleased with the hijacking of, what he considers, the loveliest word in the English language, gay, and he wants to return it back to its historical meaning.
Anywho, back on the singer whom no one on here, myself included, had heard of before, I figure if he is singing rap, like most modern music, the words will be indecipherable – so why the big fuss.
Milton,
Language changes over time with usage (admittedly mostly for the worse) but taking note of common usage is not the same as legislative fiat (a very blunt instrument to be sure) to change the meaning!
It is a terrible precedent for government intervention to alter that which the government does not like (remember the Ministry of Truth).
All the worse when it could all have been done so simply as I suggested….but then we (and our politicians) might have to face our real problems head on.
Congratulations Tigers but another one-sided GF….
Voltaire, I would be interested, then, in your take on the Howard government’s “legislative fiat” of 2004. That was clearly aimed at cutting off the imminent possibility of SSM recognition through ordinary caselaw, something the government did not like. Surely that was also a “terrible precedent” exactly as you describe?
John,
I did not agree with the legislation then – but it did no more than echo the meaning as it stood.
Far worse is change by redefinition of words to mean something other than their current meaning (and if you need examples of poor manipulation consider certain legislation which uses the same terms with different meanings in different sections of the same legislation: let that be an exercise for the newly minted lawyer).
Alteration of meaning to produce change by force is wrong on so many counts – aside from dishonesty.
I keep saying the policy of recognition is not wrong – just the means as far a s I am concerned – but I don’t expect to convince anyone who has not studied philosophy (per-marxist), black letter lawyers or semantic pedants – and even those have to approach it untrammelled by most of the emotive baggage…
Yes, the postal vote /survey is less than ideal but the strict basis of the ruling by the HCA came as no surprise (nor should it given the facts of the matter).
The problem with ideologues – whether they are practising lawyers or not – is they see it all through that prism but real cases are decided on facts particular to that case. I t is one of the hardest messages to get through: the right vehicle for the principle you wish to advance may not be the particular set of facts involved.
Voltaire, IMO you’re begging the question: you say the word marriage has certain boundaries and anyone who differs is attempting to redefine it. In fact, if the polls are any guide, most Australians already think the current legal definition is too narrow.
As a comparison, when sufferage was extended beyond propertied white adult males to include all white adult males, then all white adults, then all adults, at no time was the meaning of the word “voting” changed, despite resistance at each step from those who felt their right was diminished by its extension to others.
Voltaire et al :
If the word “marriage” is the sticking point in all of this debate, why not use the word “union”? Across the board.
John, i agreed with it at the time, still do.
i think a change like this should be made through parliament, not pushed through by the priestly caste of lawyers.
Nice seeing you back. Voltaire
Long time, no see!
Thankyou but work is a curse of the drinking class.
Hehehe, true!
Voltaire
You are a smart guy, but that slight about the superannuation/life insurance industry is just stupid and wrong. The trustee discretion is in the legislation, as it has to be for superannuation to qualify as a “trust”. That means the trustee must retain discretion over payments, even though in only exceptional circumstances is the superannuant’s nomination not adhered to.
To infer there is some conspiracy or benefit flowing to the administrators of funds is ridiculous.
From recent experience Voltaire is 100% correct regarding superannuation. .
It was not a slight aimed at anyone except the commentators who ignored the fact that the contractual provision of the trust deed applies to all nominated persons regardless of whether they are married or not- contrary to the clear implication on 7.30 Report, and the more opaque absence of contradiction by the so-called legal expert.
Everyone should calm down and look at things through a logical lens rather than from intractable positions.
I am not being personal about this…