AHC: Australia achieves marriage equality considerably earlier.

[GeographyDude]

As it happens we were both, we were the only developed country to avoid recession during the GFC! Although KRudd did blow all the savings we had in the bank and run us into debt. . .

GFC = Great Financial (Institution) Collapse of 2008?

And Congrats to the Aussies for being both smart and lucky! Although I'm sure you were hurt somewhat because your trading partners were hurt, right?

And this is the point where I become a Keynesian and we may or may not part intellectual company. I very much accept a counter-cycle approach to spending: during low times, we do want to deficit-spend to boost the economy, and during boom times, we want to save money both for it's own sake and to cool the economy.

 

[GeographyDude]

Its more of a big deal if a PM is religious rather than if they aren't.

It's a little different here in the United States.

and that's putting it mildly

 

[Riain]

Global Financial Crisis.

Yes the economy slowed down but didn't stop growing, I got $4800 stimulus cash and bought my first home with the $17,000 first home buyers grant. Throwing money at the building trades saved us from recession.

 

[Riain]

It's a little different here in the United States.

and that's putting it mildly

Yes, I've noticed.

Krudd was courting Hillsong church and it was thought to be a bit sus, what are those god botherers whispering in his ear?

 

[sprite]

No Howard. Have Hewson win in 1996 and keep the Liberal party from their decent in to US style conservatism

 

[Jellico]

The times suited Howard. Labor had been in long enough to get an "its time" factor. Keating always pushed hard to drag Australia into the Asian century, then after his lucky win doubled down even harder. While he was right, it was probably too much too fast and I firmly blame Keating for Pauline Hanson and Co.

People wanted a break by the time Howard came in and his policies and economic luck gave it to them. It is always worth remembering that immigration (including that from non European countries) boomed during his years. Howard's great trick was to continue with inevitable historic trends while convincing people that they were okay with it.

It is just a shame that his side of the Libs grew too strong and wrecked the party so when the strong leader was lost it all collapsed in a heap. (I like to see all parties strong, confident, and arguing ideas rather than fighting over % points in poles.)

The good part of Hewson winning would be parties would have been willing to fight a contest of ideas for a election or two more rather than running scared of fear campaigns.

The bad part is he would have ruled as Keating lite at a time when people wanted to stop the merry-go-round and get off for a while. That could lead to a more socially conservative Labor rejecting the Keating years at a time when the machine men were taking over. About 5 years too early for SSM and they could well scupper it themselves. Now my brain is hurting.

 

[GeographyDude]

Global Financial Crisis.

Yes the economy slowed down but didn't stop growing, I got $4800 stimulus cash and bought my first home with the $17,000 first home buyers grant. Throwing money at the building trades saved us from recession.

I'm glad you were able to buy a home.

Here in the U.S., when I last worked as a preparer for taxes pertaining to 2008, there was a refundable "credit" for first-time homebuyers of $7,500, but it was actually an interest-free loan that had to be paid back in even installments over 15 years.

One unexpected part, and a part I like and agree with, is that "first-time" was defined as not having owned a home within the last two years.

Actually, there are many good aspects of the U.S. tax code, such as the Earned Income Credit which other countries have copied.

 

[Mr J]

The times suited Howard. Labor had been in long enough to get an "its time" factor. Keating always pushed hard to drag Australia into the Asian century, then after his lucky win doubled down even harder. While he was right, it was probably too much too fast and I firmly blame Keating for Pauline Hanson and Co.

People wanted a break by the time Howard came in and his policies and economic luck gave it to them. It is always worth remembering that immigration (including that from non European countries) boomed during his years. Howard's great trick was to continue with inevitable historic trends while convincing people that they were okay with it.

It is just a shame that his side of the Libs grew too strong and wrecked the party so when the strong leader was lost it all collapsed in a heap. (I like to see all parties strong, confident, and arguing ideas rather than fighting over % points in poles.)

The good part of Hewson winning would be parties would have been willing to fight a contest of ideas for a election or two more rather than running scared of fear campaigns.

The bad part is he would have ruled as Keating lite at a time when people wanted to stop the merry-go-round and get off for a while. That could lead to a more socially conservative Labor rejecting the Keating years at a time when the machine men were taking over. About 5 years too early for SSM and they could well scupper it themselves. Now my brain is hurting.

Or Howard could win '96 but lose '98. I mean even in OTL it was damn close, the ALP did win the popular vote.

 

[Fred the Great]

If you stymie the defining of marriage in 2004 as between only an man and a woman, then when the Australian Capital Territory legalised gay marriage in 2013, it wouldn’t have been struck down by the courts for being inconsistent with the Federal Law. So that’s 4 years earlier, at least in the ACT.

This is the correct answer. If Howard doesn’t legislate to define marriage as between a man and a woman then the ACT would likely win any court battle (there’d still be a challenge but probably by the Christian lobby). And then states would gradually follow, leading to federal legislation under Rudd perhaps. But it’s not going to happen any earlier than 2013.

 

[Riain]

That Howard could pass such legislation as late as 2004 with no fuss shows how little traction the agitators for SSM had achieved. If the majority of people really thought legislating for SSM was an important issue Howard couldn't have done what he did and stall SSM agitation for a decade.

 

[Fred the Great]

That Howard could pass such legislation as late as 2004 with no fuss shows how little traction the agitators for SSM had achieved. If the majority of people really thought legislating for SSM was an important issue Howard couldn't have done what he did and stall SSM agitation for a decade.

The realistic POD would not be support for marriage equality in 2004, but that it just wouldn't be seen as such an issue as to get much political benefit from legislating to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. I mean, really there actually wasn't much electoral benefit because it was an amendment supported by Labor at the time. I don't think Howard did anything to stall marriage equality in the end. I think he helped give the campaign a push along.

 

[GeographyDude]

Here in the States, there was an interesting coda in which conservatives really criticized transgender rights, as if they had never thought through the issue, Should transgender persons have the same rights as everyone else? Yes, they most probably should. Of course, they should.

Was there a similar struggle in Australia?