Just one of Howard's many "sin's" against Australia. I think there's a fair bit more in the article to think about than just that one- a shame if you didn't get past that issue and dismissed the rest. Clearly, Howard was closing off the possibility and attempting to future proof it. He could see where society was going and he didn't like it.noplanb wrote: ↑23 Dec 2017, 19:32The journo lost me with his credibility right there. It is absolutely shallow to say that. So if true, then anyone could have married someone of the opposite sex prior? For over 5,000 years that has been absolutely untrue as a feature of any civilisation, so it is (was) so much so that it was literally not thought of when *any* countries laws were drafted, let alone any constitution.he intended to prohibit same-sex marriage and the passage of legislation to that end through the house
It is true to say that adding the specific wording did head-off any test-case against the marriage act (and possibly the constitution). Otherwise, we could have had something akin to the US event of their (close fought) Supreme Court ruling that SSM was valid under their law.
Which brings another point - is something that was hitherto not conceived of, automatically valid under law? It is, but it isn't(?) Take low-flying drones for example - lets say there was very little or no law against it for privacy etc, so it must've been legal? No, and I understand that there are also now laws prohibiting drone activity. And we don't see journos righteously indignant that some rights for drones were unjustly removed. If one is going to argue a point, it should at least be on the right footing.
It is obviously a partisan article, (most are) but it seeks to take on the equally partisan view run by the government every day that every perceived bad thing in Australia is the fault of the ",left" - whatever that is?- whether it be the ALP, Bill Shorten, the Unions, Labor Premiers. Bikers, Get Up, The Greens, the YES campaign, marxists, gay activists, environmental activists, refugee activists, any other activists they don't like, the "godless" or past Labor Leaders. Pretty diverse lot of views there.
I think the article may be right to dismiss Abbott in the longer term now because of his ineffectiveness. My problem with the article is it's focus on Dutton as an emerging force. Plod is not that clever. We are now starting to see Morrison publicly fashion himself as the next Christian soldier to lead the Liberals. My question about Morrison is to do with whether his evangelical type of Christianity will be acceptable to the powers that be in the Liberal Party. All Liberal PMs have been from "mainstream" denominational backgrounds as far as I know. The Dutton Morrison battle will be interesting and hopefully very destructive for the Liberal Party..
Truth is Shorten has never been PM so how can he really be responsible for anything to do with the running of Australia? He simply leads the biggest non government voting block in parliament. 49.64% of people didn't vote (2PP) for him to be the first Leader of The Opposition ever to roll over on everything.. Even the current PM is only responsible for what he wants to be responsible for.
As for past Labor leaders, really how much time have they had in charge since we started to implement neoliberalism in earnest in Australia under Howard in early 1996. In the intervening time, almost 22 years, Labor has been in government for a bit under 6 years (3 of those in minority). Howard was PM for about half that total time.
Commonsense tells you, which side of politics is the more likely to have caused any problems we are struggling with currently.
The thing I do hold Rudd and Gillard accountable for is blowing Labor's chance to rebalance the pendulum more. They should have had minimum three terms of majority government after the 2007 victory. Instead they got one- Rudd's. Rudd then cruelled the chance of a second Labor majority term during the 2010 election campaign the result of which consigned Gillard to minority, which I think was also a contributing factor to the disintegration of government later in that term.