Preamble

You know, there's surprisingly little official information being disseminated about this topic. It's not my intention to push an agenda here or influence individual decisions but I find that for an issue the government has decided is pressing enough to take to a postal plebiscite in the context of deteriorating living standards, the casualisation of the workforce, immigration and housing affordability crises and a systemically corrupt banking sector, why is it that when I went to the AEC website just now in order to research for this post, I couldn't even find the date of the survey?

Scrolling down, I found a tweet on aec.gov.au that told me where more detailed information could be found. I clicked on the link and started reading. I'm told that the Australian Tresurer (um, OK, shouldn't treasury be more focused on our deteriorating fiscal stature?) has instructed that the plebiscite be conducted in accordance with "the Census and Statistics Act 1905".

I found myself thinking "well that's nice dear, I'm still looking for when it's being held and some more general information". Scrolling further I was able to read about who can participate and the eligibility cutoff dates. The next section was on Silent Electors and Special Strategies to support participation until finally I get to what I'm after.

So, now I'm equipped to introduce this post! ...

hawaiipublicradio.org

Gay Marriage Survey In Australia

To summarise the AEC website, the Australian government has decided to hold a postal survey on the issue of "whether or not the law should be changed to allow same sex couples to marry." Eligible voters will be posted survey forms over a two week period from 12th September. The survey will not be compulsary and results will not be released prior to 15th November 2017. We're told that the survey data will be kept secret but we're not told that the result of the survey will actually become law.

My Thoughts

I've been thinking of how to tackle this in a post for some hours. I have known gay men in my life, one from school and some I've know through mutual friends. Just as you'd find in a broader sample of society, I've found these individuals to fall within a spectrum. Some I've not been interested in associating with and others have been the most compassionate and giving individuals willing to sacrifice time and resources in a genuine effort to forge friendship.

To me, the issue of sexual preference is as irrelevant to my decision to associate with someone as the colour of their hair or whether they live in and even or odd postcode. I'd thought of touching base with one of these contacts to conduct an interview with them for this post, but thought that could take a lot of time and I really wanted to jot some thoughts down quickly (let me know if there's interest in this however, it could make for an interesting followup).

Now that that's out of the way, I wanted to openly say that I find myself somewhat unpolarised on the issue. By this I mean that dispassionately said, I can't say I feel strongly either way and I'm not sure what that says about me. In the interest of disclosure, I feel that I will be voting yes and I thought it may help my own thought process as well as help others to process their decisions on the issue if I listed some of the more common arguments:

Arguments for voting yes

• Broader dissemination of love & happiness (this is probably the big item for me. I'd feel trodden on if the state told me I couldn't marry my wife for whatever reason so I hate to think that others are robbed of this formal expression due to a state imposed formality)
• Equality
• A vote against religion (this is another issue of importance for me. I find religion to be an oppressive force of manipulation and dominance and object to any imposition that isn't able to be opted out of)
• Human rights

Arguments for voting no

• Classical conservatism and a desire to keep things "how they have always been"
• Elitism? (I'm thinking aloud here. It's quite possible that some people just don't want to share what they are entitled to)
• Religious compliance (this is important to some but I find it a particularly egregious argument - personally)

I'm sure these are incomplete lists but they are something of a foundation for consideration.

The broader context

As I mentioned in the preamble, I fail to see why this is now coming to a survey. Why not two years ago? Why not ten years ago? If it is an issue of importance, why is the vote optional? Personally, I prefer the American system where voting is optional. Refusing to or abstaining from voting is itself a vote in my mind and forcing me under the threat of fines and penalties to attend a crowded public place to express a vote is somewhat against the whole idea, right?

Australia has used plebiscites previous for the determination of certain specific issues. The National Song plebiscite of 1977 for example was used to determine which tune Australians would prefer to "mark occasions where a particularly Australian national identity was desired". Is marriage law in that same boat? If any of the arguments of human rights or equality hold true, even partially then the answer is a resounding no. These are radically different issues then and should in my opinion not be treated with the same level of interest.

More important to me actually than the issue of gay marriage is the growing collection of decisions being made by the Australian government that is not being subjected to the opinion of the people. Take the issue of the announcement of more powers for the Australian military on Australian soil as just one recent example that I've written about. These are fundamentally critical issues, the implications of decisions around which will have far reaching impacts for us all. These are the decisions happening without the public discussion and without the critical debate. There are zero arguments of substance for the announcement of the amalgamation of ASIO with the Australian Federal Police and other counter terrorism and law enforcement and intelligence agencies in a super ministry akin to Britain's home office without the voice of the people; something I've also passionately written about.

As I said in the introduction of this post, I have no particular agenda here. I simply want to talk about the issue of this plebiscite and introduce scrutiny on the issues that it seemingly is overshadowing. I have no problem voting to empower people to live their lives free of the state (a state issued voting card will never be the tool to achieve that by the way) but I also want that voting card to come with others that allow me to voice my abject rejection of increased state power, their use of force and the increasing erosion of liberties in the pursuit of intangibles.

What's more, is it just the vote that people are interested in or the change in the law? I fail to see any evidence that an overwhelming yes vote will result in a change in the law. Is this just a money splash to placate those interested in holding a survey?

The issue of security is always a big one for me too. The AEC doesn't hold the best reputation in this regard and @ausbitbank in particular has previously written about the compulsary Census held in Australia which garnered discussion on the mass collection of great detail on the citizenry. This data collection is problematic and cannot be guaranteed to be anonymous or safe in any way.

Thank you all so very much for reading and I hope only to inspire thought in my steemit audience. These are issues greater than Australia and need serious attention and discussion that will likely and necessarily be uncomfortable and alienating in the short term.