Opinion The 'Carlton related stuff that doesn't need it's own thread' thread

[fnm_just a man]

My position is obvious to anyone who read posts in previous thread. I voted 'yes' to a survey that I should not have been involved in at all. I, like all other heterosexuals, should not have been granted a vote on an issue that affects a minority group - a group that does not include me or any other heterosexuals. However, this is the unfortunate position we've found ourselves in.

Carlton FC should have revealed, unequivocally, what it stands for as an organisation. Anything else was always going to end badly. The statement put forward deliberately avoided stating that the organisation supports the 'yes' vote, but danced around it with their support for equality. Among the concerning inferences from the statement, is the question: 'does the club even know what it stands for?'. It strikes, partly, as an issue with our identity.

Many people are responding to those of us who are upset at the statement by saying that they don't want the club telling them how to vote so they're happy with the statement, or that they can read between the lines to see that the club is actually saying 'yes' without them having to state it. To me, this is misguided and missing the point as to what is upsetting to many of us.
I also don't want the club making a statement telling people how to vote. What I want is for the club to acknowledge what they stand for as an organisation and if what they stand for is equality (which they clearly state is the case), inclusion and fairness, then stand by that by standing with the 'yes' vote. That is not campaigning. It is simply telling us that as an organisation they support equality for all the people who are affected by the vote, including those involved with the club in any capacity. That is what a 'leader' with 'an absolute commitment to equality' would do.

The end result was a wishy-washy statement by a club that didn't want to lead at all but wanted to be seen to be making a positive statement all the same. The problem is that it is so obvious that the club deliberately avoided supporting the 'yes' vote that it comes across as a lame attempt to be seen to be doing the right thing, so to speak, without the courage of their convictions.

I can understand people not wanting sports clubs to get involved in issues not directly related to on-field performance. For people with that view, I accept that we simply have to agree to disagree.

My personal view is that if an organisation, including a sports organisation, can play a positive role in bringing about equality for all in society, then they should. Specific to the current issue, my view is that the club needs to make an unequivocal statement supporting the 'yes' vote (remember, pledging their support does not equate to campaigning), not only because it is a matter of human rights that appears to match the overall mission of the club, but to show that all people involved in the Carlton Football Club are equally supported and welcomed, without discrimination. It is not the time to sit on the fence, it is the time to acknowledge what is the right thing to do and lead the way.

Finally, I am left wondering who was it that influenced the club's decision to avoid saying 'yes'? That is of great concern to me, because I really don't think the statement was a true reflection of the views of the current day-to-day operators. But who knows?

As it has panned out, what should have been a simple and clear statement presenting the organisation's values by supporting equal rights for the LGBTQI community, has instead, by deliberately avoiding being upfront, created a storm that the club will no doubt have to address in the coming days.

 

[lily of laguna]

My position is obvious to anyone who read posts in previous thread. I voted 'yes' to a survey that I should not have been involved in at all. I, like all other heterosexuals, should not have been granted a vote on an issue that affects a minority group - a group that does not include me or any other heterosexuals. However, this is the unfortunate position we've found ourselves in.

Carlton FC should have revealed, unequivocally, what it stands for as an organisation. Anything else was always going to end badly. The statement put forward deliberately avoided stating that the organisation supports the 'yes' vote, but danced around it with their support for equality. Among the concerning inferences from the statement, is the question: 'does the club even know what it stands for?'. It strikes, partly, as an issue with our identity.

Many people are responding to those of us who are upset at the statement by saying that they don't want the club telling them how to vote so they're happy with the statement, or that they can read between the lines to see that the club is actually saying 'yes' without them having to state it. To me, this is misguided and missing the point as to what is upsetting to many of us.
I also don't want the club making a statement telling people how to vote. What I want is for the club to acknowledge what they stand for as an organisation and if what they stand for is equality (which they clearly state is the case), inclusion and fairness, then stand by that by standing with the 'yes' vote. That is not campaigning. It is simply telling us that as an organisation they support equality for all the people who are affected by the vote, including those involved with the club in any capacity. That is what a 'leader' with 'an absolute commitment to equality' would do.

The end result was a wishy-washy statement by a club that didn't want to lead at all but wanted to be seen to be making a positive statement all the same. The problem is that it is so obvious that the club deliberately avoided supporting the 'yes' vote that it comes across as a lame attempt to be seen to be doing the right thing, so to speak, without the courage of their convictions.

I can understand people not wanting sports clubs to get involved in issues not directly related to on-field performance. For people with that view, I accept that we simply have to agree to disagree.

My personal view is that if an organisation, including a sports organisation, can play a positive role in bringing about equality for all in society, then they should. Specific to the current issue, my view is that the club needs to make an unequivocal statement supporting the 'yes' vote (remember, pledging their support does not equate to campaigning), not only because it is a matter of human rights that appears to match the overall mission of the club, but to show that all people involved in the Carlton Football Club are equally supported and welcomed, without discrimination. It is not the time to sit on the fence, it is the time to acknowledge what is the right thing to do and lead the way.

Finally, I am left wondering who was it that influenced the club's decision to avoid saying 'yes'? That is of great concern to me, because I really don't think the statement was a true reflection of the views of the current day-to-day operators. But who knows?

As it has panned out, what should have been a simple and clear statement presenting the organisation's values by supporting equal rights for the LGBTQI community, has instead, by deliberately avoiding being upfront, created a storm that the club will no doubt have to address in the coming days.

I haven't read any other clubs statements nor any Facebook outrage, only what has been quoted in this forum.
The statement from the club is not ambiguous, it clearly says it values and supports equality.

 

[djw1952]

No matter how many ways I try to interpret the club's statement, every time it is clearly supporting the 'yes' vote.

"The issue of 'same sex marriage' is essentially one of equality..."

"...but we do strongly reinforce our Club's absolute commitment to equality - and a community that is free from any form of discrimination."

To me this is unequivocal.

Yes, it is being couched in diplomatic terms, and I think too many people are getting bogged down in semantics.


The club has made a statement and it is undoubtedly supportive of same sex marriage. Maybe people should focus on that, rather than placing too much significance on the wording.

You are correct, and it is how people want to interpret stuff that gets their knickers in a twist.........Carlton in my opinion have supported the yes vote, while not telling our supporters to vote in any direction because it is political and people are always divided over such things. Some obviously want the club to come out with a one sided statement and then they would be poo pooed over that as well..........on these topics you are damned if you do and damned if you don`t !!!

 

[Jindrrk]

Don't think there was a particular turning point, but more that Richmond choked on the occasion, particularly at half-time.

And definitely go the Duigan path.

Many thanks

 

[djw1952]

Why the afl and clubs seem compelled to make statements on this issue is bizarre. Stick to football

Totally.......and let`s face it marriage is dying on it`s feet these days and keeping divorce courts in business........but everyone should have the right to get divorced if they want to!!! Seriously though it should not come down to all the slanging matches that are going on.........to me it shows just how pathetic our politicians are that they have to get the public involved in order to force this whole issue onto the front foot, when they should not be able to decide who can or cannot get married...........just get it done and out the way so we can all move on..............

 

[Monkey King]

I don't believe you have the right [to vote no] and this whole thing is a farce.

I don't believe I have the right to vote yes or no and I'm not giving merit to this farce with my participation. The bang drumming and hoopalah from both "sides" leaves me comfortable with my decision.

 

[Jabba73]

I don't believe I have the right to vote yes or no and I'm not giving merit to this farce with my participation. The bang drumming and hoopalah from both "sides" leaves me comfortable with my decision.

Exactly the response wanted by those trying to undermine the publics previously high support for SSM, through a convoluted process designed to create voter fatigue about SSM, through arguments over process rather than about the real issue.

A lack of response will be trumpeted as the "silent majority" refusing to endorse the concept and encourage politicians to avoid dealing with the issue.

Not sure society can afford to give politicians a "get out of jail free" option that can be used every time they don't want to deal with an issue themselves. How many times a year are you willing to have $100m and change be spent to check your opinion on issues? Once we open the door to this type of process it won't be easily shut.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Friends,

I just want to say one thing about this. This is not an issue about religon or freedom or political correctness. It's about basic legal equality. People who aren't married do not have the same legal rights as those that do. When it comes to estates, super, health treatment and a myriad of other issues.

Imagine the outcry if a particular race or religion was excluded from marriage and was discriminated against in that way. Again, this is about basic equality before the law.

It's ok to vote no. It's ok to sit on the fence. But it's important to understand and acknowledge what you are voting against.

It's in that context that I'm enormously disappointed in the club. Sports has enormous role to play in these circumstances. It's why it's so great.

 

[Monkey King]

Exactly the response wanted by those trying to undermine the publics previously high support for SSM, through a convoluted process designed to create voter fatigue about SSM, through arguments over process rather than about the real issue.

A lack of response will be trumpeted as the "silent majority" refusing to endorse the concept and encourage politicians to avoid dealing with the issue.

Let's say I'm a vegetarian. And you give me a BigMac, telling me to eat it or you'll gonna kill the chicken. Do I eat the BigMac, or let the chicken die? Some would have me believe that I should feel compelled to engage in the outcome of this dilemma, but it's all just someone else's construct that I'm being coerced to legitimise with my participation. You wanna kill the chicken, kill the chicken. You wanna eat a BigMac, eat a BigMac. I don't care what my denial of participation in the process will be claimed as having represented. Don't foist the construct on me and don't hold me accountable for the outcome.

 

[Bobmonkey]

Friends,

I just want to say one thing about this. This is not an issue about religon or freedom or political correctness. It's about basic legal equality.

It's in that context that I'm enormously disappointed in the club. Sports has enormous role to play in these circumstances. It's why it's so great.

You're disappointed in then Carlton FC after stating the issue is about equality.... Something the club categorically supports according the the release:

"As a Club, we respect that this is about personal choice, and as such don't intend to campaign on the issue, but we do strongly reinforce our Club's absolute commitment to equality - and a community that is free from any form of discrimination."

Care to elaborate on why you're disappointed...?

 

[KnaveyBlue]

Carlton is a sporting club, not an individual, and therefore has no vote in this matter. However, we encourage all our supporters to voice their opinion via voting ballots. Thanks and good day.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

You're disappointed in then Carlton FC after stating the issue is about equality.... Something the club categorically supports according the the release:

"As a Club, we respect that this is about personal choice, and as such don't intend to campaign on the issue, but we do strongly reinforce our Club's absolute commitment to equality - and a community that is free from any form of discrimination."

Care to elaborate on why you're disappointed...?

Because saying you support equality then going out your way to avoid supporting the yes vote is the hollowness of sentiments.

If you support equality you're obliged to speak out against inequality. You can't have your cake and eat it.

 

[TooBlue14]

Because saying you support equality then going out your way to avoid supporting the yes vote is the hollowness of sentiments.

If you support equality you're obliged to speak out against inequality. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Carlton will buy two cakes, eat one and put the other in the cabinet for everyone to see.

 

[TheKing101]

I am so sick of hearing about all this vote yes or no crap. It is causing people to becoming conflicted with each other. It's even breaking up families who support different views. Just make a seperate law from the original law of marriage that applies for gay people. That way religious people can't complain about the sacred law of marriage being violated and gay people no longer have anything to argue about. Maybe my view is too simple, but ffs shut up about it.

 

[gab213]

Darcy V was at the AFL 'yes' photo-shoot today, I wonder what she's thinking?

Darcy V has made a stand as an individual who has a vote, the Carlton Football Club is representative of all its members, regardless of where they stand on the issue. The football club has no need or right to attempt to direct their members.

To say the Club has not embraced the issue of equality is garbage. That statement made it quite clear where they stood on the issue. I'd be more likely to cancel my membership if they attempted to strongly influence my vote.

Whatever the club has to say about the issue would never have any bearing on me, I voted yes because I chose to, I am capable of making my own decisions.

 

[gab213]

I am so sick of hearing about all this vote yes or no crap. It is causing people to becoming conflicted with each other. It's even breaking up families who support different views. Just make a seperate law from the original law of marriage that applies for gay people. That way religious people can't complain about the sacred law of marriage being violated and gay people no longer have anything to argue about. Maybe my view is too simple, but ffs shut up about it.

The politicians created this mess by refusing to take responsibility themselves. Spineless bastards.

Marriage equality should never be this big of an issue in this day and age, just legislate to allow it and be done with it.

 

[gab213]

and that fat Italian President. What's his name???!

Really? You think that's acceptable? Grow up.

 

[DangerousD]

I don't understand. Does anyone think that the statement made by the club, the NRL, AFL etc will change anyone's point of view on the matter?

Of course, if you are of a certain opinion or view and you constantly have friends, people you admire, clubs you support, businesses you support telling you to reconsider then I think people will re-asses.

For some it may not change but I feel racism in sport wouldn't be as widely condemned and supported at the level it is today without the campaign from the AFL and other codes.

 

[GPW1]

i have no idea why organisations/businesses/etc even bother releasing statements about SSM. No matter which side they support or what they do or do not say, they will get smashed by the public.

 

[HARKER]

I thought the statement was unequivocal - the club supports equality, and it respects the right to people to have personal views - i mean its right there. Personally I think the football club - it IS supposed to be a football club after all - has bigger fish to fry than political statements. I for one would like them to try and win another flag before I die.

Im voting yes on this - oddly enough my mother is gay and this directly impacts her.

Now there's a fresh idea.

I voted somewhat reluctantly and that has nothing to do with my view on the issue but for the process.
Good post The_Wookie

 

[ESKIE]

Or, how would they feel if they want to get married but complete strangers have a say in wether you can or not.

The club is a community leader, it has failed to support many members and employees, I'm disappointed.

This is not a time for status quo.

Anyway I respect other people's opinions, been interesting reading on here, thanks

No more from me

 

[BigFrizz36]

In my mind the club had two options
Option 1 - say what the club said and finish it by saying "and as a result we are supporting the yes option"
option 2 - say nothing.
instead we managed to put ourselves into no mans land where we are on the front page of the HeraldSun stating "carlton refuses to support campaign".
the whole postal ballot was planned by the hard right of the liberal party to enable them to muddy the waters as they refuse to accept that 70% of the population believe in gay marriage. it allows them to introduce the "yes people are bullies" and "safe schools will destroy society" rubbish.
we have put ourselves at risk of becoming poster boys for Eric Abetz and Andrew Bolt and i find that incredibly disappointing.

 

[HARKER]

Probably, but more to do with the reaction rather than any wrongdoing is my guess.
You'd think they just said there is right and wrong on both sides at a nazi rally judging by the way this has been interpreted.

Do people want Kate Jenkins sacked now?

Our soon to be new President? That wont happen.

The faux-outrage on the CFC's statement is somewhat comical.
Whether Carlton 'needed' to put forward any statement at all, can be debated but not for the content.

Let's just keep our focus on what the club is set-up to do: Football.

 

[Jabba73]

Let's say I'm a vegetarian. And you give me a BigMac, telling me to eat it or you'll gonna kill the chicken. Do I eat the BigMac, or let the chicken die? Some would have me believe that I should feel compelled to engage in the outcome of this dilemma, but it's all just someone else's construct that I'm being coerced to legitimise with my participation. You wanna kill the chicken, kill the chicken. You wanna eat a BigMac, eat a BigMac. I don't care what my denial of participation in the process will be claimed as having represented. Don't foist the construct on me and don't hold me accountable for the outcome.

How about you are vegetarian and I want to be able to make that choice too?

Unfortunately I am forced to eat Big Macs because I live on the street next to yours. I have asked to be allowed to be vegetarian because eating meat makes me ill, but the council wont even consider it unless I get every person on both our streets to sign a petition forcing them to think about considering it. They haven't promised me anything, just they will then let everyone on the council vote however they like about the outcome.

If you don't at least read the petition, are you still allowing me the same choice as you? It is really none of your business if I eat meat or not, unfortunately you are directly responsible for deciding whether I have to, or if I get a choice in the matter.

BTW, the chicken is a distraction. The chicken is going to become nuggets regardless of your choices or non-choice. Forget the chicken, focus on whether I should be allowed to choose to be a vegetarian like you can choose.

 

[Monkey King]

If you support equality you're obliged to speak out against inequality.

I suppose one problem I see here, is thinking that a "yes" vote represents equality. I certainly don't see a majority homosexual votership being given an official voice on the legitimacy of heterosexual marriage.

This whole question of SSM fundamentally undermines equality in my eyes. The question should be; firstly, do two consenting adults have a right to commit to each other through marriage and enjoy the benefits that commitment allows? Secondly, do we adhere to the notion of gender equality, that neither man nor woman shall face discriminiation based on their gender? If these two questions are answered yes, it is an agreement to conditions that effect everyone equally, without the need to segregate anyone into a sub-category.

The club should've remained silent on the vote itself, other than to say it supports true equality.