Buy My "Yes" Vote

[icyfroth]

Warnings have been issued to the eBay seller trying to flog their say in the same-sex marriage postal survey for $1500.

 

A Sydneysider who is selling their ballot paper on the same-sex marriage postal survey has been warned they face possible jail time or a $2000 fine, with an independent senator saying it's making a mockery of the exercise.

The eBay listing, which has been taken down, was published on September 18 and titled, Buy My Vote.

The bid started at $1500.

"What is this plebiscite worth to you", the seller writes in the ad description.

"The reason I'm selling my vote is because either way I don't care, but thought there are people who do."

The seller promises part of the proceeds of the auction will go to help kids battling cancer.

The Australian Bueau Of Statistics, which is conducting the survey, told SBS World News it considers any submission of a survey response that's been bought or sold a criminal offence.

The offence against the Census and Statistics Act 1905 carries a maximum penalty of $2,100. The Criminal Code offence carries a maximum penalty of 12 months imprisonment,” a spokesman said.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/09/08/same-sex-marriage-sydneysider-slammed-hawking-vote-eba...

No way this plebiscite is going to truly reflect the opinion of the general public. It's going to be so skewed.

[davidc4430]

Q&A: Audience member tells Liberal MP 'your no vote on SSM says my relationship isn't worthy'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-19/qanda-audience-member-makes-ssm-speech/8958194

i have heard it said that the arguments being put forward to not allow SSM are very similar to those put up against letting women vote, letting women into front bars of hotels and giving aboriginals the vote.

basically all hell will befall us and fire will reign down and punish us.

me, i'm willing to take the risk that gay people getting hitched wont change my life in the slightest but it might make someone elses life a little better.

[k1ooo-slr-sales]

david, I liken it to the refusal of John Howard to say "sorry" to the Stolen Generation when he was Prime Minister.  The argument against saying sorry was that it would be an admission of guilt/liability and that it would open the floodgates to lots of claims for compensation.  When Kevin Rudd did say sorry in parliament it was widely reported and celebrated . . . . and I can't recall any news stories of lots of claims for compensation based on an admission of guilt/liability.  The sun still rises every day, life goes on.

Think back to the news stories about John Howard's refusal, and then Kevin Rudd's apology, and compare that with how much we read/hear about saying sorry now.  I only read/hear about it once a year in Feb on Sorry Day.

I believe that if the SSM survey results in a Yes result and the law is changed we will be in a similar situation to the apology to the Stolen Generation i.e. it will get a fleeting mention once a year and we will wonder what all the fuss was that stopped it happening earlier.  The sun will still rise every day, life will go on.

[***super_nova***]

Nobody has the right to vote on giving fellow citizens the same right they have.  That is NOT democracy.  Either we all have certain right or nobody should have it. 

This is a perfect example why gay people need the same protection as the rest of us:

[lind9650]

Many years ago, when I moved to this little rural town, we had a couple of young men as neighbours. The whole community knew they were a couple and accepted them as such. Both men were much involved in community organisations, charity work and were the nicest, polite and helpful gentlemen. They were invited to parties, weddings and social events, had a great sense of humour and blended in like anyone else.

Then tragedy struck and one of them had a fatal accident at work.

The family that had disownwd them years ago when the lads came out and told they were gay, all of a sudden swooped in like vultures and claimed the sons superannuation, workcare compensation and his share of the house that the two men had bought together. Even so there was a will, the court deemed next of kin the right to claim.

Because the living partner did not have the money to pay them out, he had to sell the house and move into rental accomodation.

The whole town was upset about the unfairness of the law and the parents that did not want to know their son for almost 30 years. If they had been legally married the living partner would have inherited what should have been rightfully his.

It has happened time and time again that family who ostracise a gay member of the family will turn to vultures if there is any money involved after the death of a gay person.

I may be old, but I have seen enough hypocricy in my life to know why I have voted YES.

Erica

[***super_nova***]

And even worse, there have been cases when one of the gay partners had a natural child, who considered them both as their parents.  When the biological father died his estranged family had a right to get custody of the child.  So young kid who up till then had 2 loving same sex parents, was scooped up by homophobic grandparents they never met before. 

I do not blame them if the gay community is getting loud; thy are fighting for something extremely important to them.  It will make absolutely NO difference to me or any other heterosexula person.

[lyndal1838]

Erica, I understand what you are saying but that situation can arise even in legally married heterosexual couples. 

Any family member can challenge a will if they believe they are entitled to more of the estate.   In fact they don't even have to be family members....there is provision for a challenge to a will by anyone who is closely connected to the deceased person.

Even without any change to the marriage laws, gay couples still have the same rights as defacto couples.

[***super_nova***]

I just ralised that my avatar looks like sort of a rainbow  🙂  it has been like that for 10 years
 

[***super_nova***]

---

@lyndal1838 wrote:

Even without any change to the marriage laws, gay couples still have the same rights as defacto couples.

---

In marriage your spouse is automatically the next of kin.  In de-facto not so.  Heterosexual de-facto couples choose to be de-facto, the same sex couples have no choice.

[davidc4430]

---

@lyndal1838 wrote:

Erica, I understand what you are saying but that situation can arise even in legally married heterosexual couples. 

Any family member can challenge a will if they believe they are entitled to more of the estate.   In fact they don't even have to be family members....there is provision for a challenge to a will by anyone who is closely connected to the deceased person.

Even without any change to the marriage laws, gay couples still have the same rights as defacto couples.

---

from what i gather contesting a legal will is not simple and unless there is a lot of money involved the most likely outcome if the courts and lawyers walk away with the cash and those in the family end up with a bill.

[lyndal1838]

It is very simple to contest a will David.  Provided the person who is contesting the will is eligible to do so under the law your lawyer just goes ahead and lodges the claim.

It also depends on what you call a lot of money....my father's will was contested and it was worth about $1 million....the main asset was a home in Sydney.

If the claimant is successful the estate pays the costs of both parties...in our case it cost roughly 10% of the estate but it was settled by negotiation....if it had gone to court it would have been a different story as a good QC can cost thousands of dollars a day.