Australia’s same sex marriage vote

Predictably, the debate is turning vitriolic. The issue seems less important than the opportunity to vilify adherents of one side or the other.

If you say you will vote yes, your opponents will tell you it is the harbinger of the end of civilisation as we know it. If you say you will vote no, then the strident supporters will accuse you of standing in the way of equality and a better society. In addition, you are self-evidently a homophobe, too.

The intellectual dimension of the debate is almost entirely absent. But, this is not about reason or ration for many people. It is matter of deeply held subjective views.

I am not interested in canvassing and promoting my views here. I must also say I am not particularly interested in your views, either. That goes for footballers, soapie stars and shock-jocks, too. Who really cares what they think?

So, we will have a postal vote that will only be completed by people who feel strongly on the issue. This vote may, or may not, be accurately counted, because, let’s face it, the ABS don’t have a great history, nor have they handled such postal voting before. Assuming they can open their mail and count it, the government may, or may not, choose to bring the matter to parliament.

If they do, our representatives may, or may not, cast their vote taking into account the apparent opinion of the Australian people.

We already have politicians telling us how they will vote, regardless of the outcome of this plebiscite. Seems kind of useless to hold the vote, doesn’t it?

This will cost us over $100,000,000, and may, or may not, give us some equality, or rescue civilisation. What a joke. Think of the good that money could do. Think of the coal-fired generator it might be a deposit for. Or, a new tank, or funding for another robo-debt collection system. Or, even police or nurses if we had to.

Perhaps our politicians could just stand up and do what they were elected to.

I don’t recall a plebiscite on invading Iraq. I don’t recall a plebiscite on whether we should put refugees in the equivalent of concentration camps.

To justify this egregious waste of money because it was “an election promise” is laughable. When were election promises held in such high regard before?