Prev
Next

Gay marriage row: in defence of Wendy Francis

Lyall Mercer

by Lyall Mercer

16 Aug 05:40am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

14

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

50

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

121

Filed under: Censorship, Discrimination, Election 2010, Family First, Gay Marriage, Wendy Francis

62 comments

Few have succeeded in defending the seemingly indefensible; O.J Simpson’s attorney being a notable exception. Yet I will attempt to make a defence for Wendy Francis, Queensland’s much maligned Senate candidate for Family First.

Family First Senate candidate Wendy Francis.

At the outset – a disclosure. Francis has used my PR company in the past for strategic advice (don’t laugh – I already know what you are thinking) and I assisted her from a media perspective in her campaign to “make the outdoors G-rated” a few months back.

That said, this article is not being written for her, nor does she have any knowledge of it. I am merely adding my perspective to bring some sense of balance and understanding to what has been an extremely one-sided, and in some ways unfair, reaction.

My personal interaction with her also provides me with an insight not known by the countless critics and commentators.

Upon meeting Francis for the first time – well after she had been selected by her party as their candidate – I thought she was too nice to be a politician. She appeared to be the sort of person that would make Snow White look like a tramp. If I had known her earlier my advice would have been not to stand as a political candidate. She’d surely be eaten alive.

But there is another side to her; one that is determined, pushy, passionate and independent (and annoying) – none of which are bad attributes within the game of politics. It is the combination of these two personalities that make her such an interesting and successful person. I’ve met a lot of politicians and can say without hesitation that Queensland could do worse than be represented by Wendy Francis.

The recent comments – and reporting of them – need to be taken in context. Francis is passionate about her beliefs and they include marriage being between a man and a women. When we take away the emotion (and choice) of the actual words she used and put aside the vitriolic reaction from those opposed we must concede that a lot of people would agree with her.

Many Australians also think that children should not be raised by gay couples. That people would think this way may not be agreeable to many but denying it is delusional.

This being the case, the question must be asked – Is Wendy Francis allowed to believe this? Of course she is. Equally those opposing her view have a legitimate right to counter her argument and put forward a logical response. But here is the problem – a problem that is more an indictment on current culture than it is about the issue of marriage. There is a right way and a wrong way to respond to people with opposing views – even if those views seem abhorrent to you.

The wrong way was chosen by too many and continued acceptance of this by the community and the media is taking us down a dangerous path. The response to Francis on forums like Twitter was abusive, rude, depraved and unacceptable. That these same people were lambasting Francis for being intolerant takes the meaning of hypocrisy to supersonic levels!

The argument that the comments from Francis were equally abusive and disrespectful to gays doesn’t wash. Francis never told anyone they were a c___ or that people should kill the b____ (these were the nicer comments). She never said things about anyone’s children or used language so intense in its vulgarity that it would make any decent Australian cringe.

Not only did Francis cop it from the social media users but she wasn’t helped by those who are supposedly her friends – the churches and family organisations that are on her side, who remained silent while she was thrown into the lion’s den. This only exposes the fear the modern church has, driven by an obsession to stay on middle ground, lest they offend anyone.

Don’t agree with Francis; don’t vote for her. That’s your right. But she – like all of us – deserves to put forward her views. If her comments were extreme, she deserves the chance to acknowledge this and to be offered forgiveness.

Let’s not create a public environment so brutal that decent people – like Wendy Francis – will be too scared to put their passions and views on the line. Australia would be worse for it.

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

62 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • meinsydney says:

      06:32am | 16/08/10

      You say…

      “The argument that the comments from Francis were equally abusive and disrespectful to gays doesn’t wash. Francis never told anyone they were a c___ or that people should kill the b____ (these were the nicer comments). She never said things about anyone’s children or used language so intense in its vulgarity that it would make any decent Australian cringe.”

      Actually I find Francis’ comments far more offensive than those who disagree with her. 

      Francis was called names and treated to some vulgar language on twitter and you feel sorry for her?  In my experience, that is par for the course if you want to become a pollie. 

      And if you want to obtain that power so that you can use it to discriminate against a large portion of our population (in this case the gay people in our community), you have to expect fair minded and rational people to react to that. 

      The last thing this country needs is another homophobic representative and I hope the attacks on Francis cause her to gain a conscience and try to obtain office on her own merits (assuming she has any) rather than try to get there by discriminating against, and stirring up hatred towards, minority groups.

      Reply

    • Maggie says:

      06:44am | 16/08/10

      Her attitudes contribute to : homophobic violence, harmful psychiatric ““treatment”, children being removed from gay parents, people in the closet and thereby living an unauthentic life and perhaps engaging in risky sexual behaviour, discrimination in the workplace…..... need I go on?
      If she is elected she will impose these views on others.
      While I don’t believe in personal attacks on politicians her views lead to so mcu personal suffering that I can’t bring myself to care.
      People with such extreme views should not have the capacity to influence policy and legislation, I don’t care how nice she is!

      Reply

    • Tony says:

      07:43am | 16/08/10

      As Evelyn Hall would have it ‘‘I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it’‘.

      This *is* still a democracy (well, until Labor get in and the unions take over) and, as such, we have a right to air our beliefs. I felt much he same way when the left vilified Pauline Hanson. She also said what many, many people were thinking.

      Trouble is, the rabble on the left have got intimidation down to a fine art, doubtless due to their thuggish heritage and people are simply afraid to speak their minds lest they offend the Political Correctness Squads.

      It is about time some of these Laborite knuckle-draggers were arrested and charged. There would be ample scope given some of the comments they made about Ms Francis, especially the physical threats. It isn’t hard to chase down IP addresses. Get a few of these left-wing bully-boys in the dock, facing a judge and lets see how tough they are. Most of them have trouble counting to 21 without taking heir trousers off and they’ve already demonstrated their lack of vocabulary (swearing is the province of those with no imagination).

      Reply

    • L. says:

      08:32am | 16/08/10

      “This *is* still a democracy (well, until Labor get in and the unions take over) and, as such, we have a right to air our beliefs.”

      Umm…no. Democracy and “freedom of speech” are not the same thing. We have no such right in the country. The christian right lobbied very hard against an Australian Bill Of Rights.

    • Lauren says:

      10:07am | 16/08/10

      Democracy is having someone eleced by the public to represent them in Parliament. It’s got nothing to do with freedom of speech.

    • James1 says:

      10:09am | 16/08/10

      Pauline Hanson said some stupid things, and she got called out for it.  She had every right to say the dumb things she did, and her detractors had every right to call her dumb for saying them.  What is the issue?  In any case, less than ten percent of Australians agreed with her.  Where is the intimidation?

    • LC says:

      04:31pm | 03/01/11

      Tony, sorry, but until they start spewing threats of violence, they haven’t committed a crime.

    • L. says:

      07:46am | 16/08/10

      “The response to Francis on forums like Twitter was abusive, rude, depraved and unacceptable.”

      Right… As opposed to referring to gay parents as child abusers, which is apparently OK. Gotcha.

      Reply

    • Flying Spaghetti Monster says:

      07:53am | 16/08/10

      So… We’re being intolerant of her intolerance?

      She likened gay couples raising kids to child abuse, but says nothing of religious indoctrination of the young.

      She’s a pathetic hypocrite, a luddite and a bigot.

      Sure, she’s allowed to have an opinion, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to sit idly by and say “Oh look, Wendy has an opinion, good for her!”

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      08:32am | 16/08/10

      Some people, myself included, do have the intelligence to realise that they can ignore this woman. Just like I will also ignore the “pathetic hypocrite, a luddite and a bigot” bit of your spiel. You too are trying to evoke hatred with your comments. Her views will not have a marked impact on the election and though she is very extreme in her language, she does in fact represent the opinion of the majority. I am not advocating what she said - but come of the grass - you don’t have to sit idly by - you just have to come to grips with reality - this is the opinion of majority Australia and until that changes (look how long it has taken in the US and has been - and no doubt will continue to be - overturned and then turned back over) we will not have legalised same sex marriage.

    • AliceC says:

      01:51pm | 16/08/10

      @Flying Spaghetti Monster

      My lord, you have appeared!!! I told them you were real, not this ‘God’ nonsense. : )

      I also told them you said all people are equal. Now let them try and tell me I’m crazy!!!! Mwahahaha!!!!  : )

      @fairsfair
      ‘Her views will not have a marked impact on the election and though she is very extreme in her language, she does in fact represent the opinion of the majority’

      Which majority do you speak of? Every person I know supports gay marriage, so statistically 100% people support it (using your theory of backing up claims).

    • BK says:

      07:56am | 16/08/10

      Apparently, rest of us can tell Christians what to think in the strongest language. possible. It is only Christians who get accused of imposing their views on others.

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      08:18am | 16/08/10

      That’s because no-one’s telling Christians they can’t get married and raise kids. That’s what the fundamentalists are telling gay people.

    • John chang says:

      07:59am | 16/08/10

      Hi, i totally agree with that and being indonesian, raised in singapore and growing up my teenage year in indonesia, now in my late 30s, i did notice how culture for freedom of expression has changed in australia. In singapore, freedom of expression has always been and still a “controlled
      expression”, while in indonesia, things has since changed towards freedom “uncontrolled”, while in australia with freedom expression as a valuable asset have somehow become an arena controlled by offensive and vulgarity expressions that somehow undermined his or herself the valuable opportunities to express their freedom of mind to trully understand the valuable meaning of freedom of expression with sharpmmind and intelliegence, in this great country of sustralia, a sad fact.

      Reply

    • Andrew Mckenzie says:

      08:03am | 16/08/10

      Great article Lyall.  In an election devoid of the major parties will to say anything about anything, Wendy has been a breath of fresh air

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      08:20am | 16/08/10

      Fresh, bigoted, let’s-discriminate-against-other-people air.

      She hardly represents anything different, anyway, with both big parties pandering to the ACL.

      The only party standing for something principled at this election is the Greens.

    • Andrew says:

      05:36pm | 16/08/10

      Don’t forget the Sex Party!

    • Raybo says:

      08:22am | 16/08/10

      “When we take away the emotion (and choice) of the actual words she used and put aside the vitriolic reaction from those opposed we must concede that a lot of people would agree with her”.

      In which case what are we left with? Some subtext accessible only by those who have previously been employed to sell her to the masses?

      It was a silly ubstantiated and offensieve view for which she obtained some quite reasonable rebuttal.

      In any event, the entire premise of your article only works if you selectively omit the fact she equated gay marriage with child abuse - i.e. the bit people primarily objected to

      Reply

    • Soultrader says:

      08:41am | 16/08/10

      I concur - the carry on and vitriolic abuse is much worse tahn what Wendy had to say.
      But what can you expect from people who have self-imposed persecution complexes. Talk about one-eyed, bigoted, unthinking attitudes to anybody that disagrees them.
      Beatiful language by these wannabes too. I can not believe people contiually use such vulgar language. Try studying the English language to discover descriptive words to back your arguments, instead of plummeting to the lowest common denominator - filthy language. All that does is detract from any sort of reasonable discussion.
      To all those that use gutter language like the C and F words - use your mental agility to argue your point, not just think of what’s below your belt.

      Reply

    • Grant says:

      10:17am | 16/08/10

      When you criticise people about the proper use of the English language, it is advisable to check your own.

      There are several spelling mistakes, a couple of fragment sentences, and a dangling modifier.  The em-dash is normally used to separate text that represents a sudden shift in focus or thought.

    • MK says:

      07:31pm | 16/08/10

      Self imposed persecution complexes?

      Seriously?

      Have you been paying ANY attention to this debate? How about you educate yourself on the issue AND the English language, before accusing other people of not doing so.

    • Grant says:

      09:03am | 16/08/10

      I agree with you Lyall, Wendy like everyone else is entitled to their opinion, no matter how abhorrent it may be. 

      But people who disagree with Wendy are also entitled to express themselves even if it is abusive, rude or depraved.  If it libel or defamation then she can take action, if it is illegal behaviour like a death threat then it can be reported to the police.

      What you are really saying Lyall is that you want freedom of speech as long as it fits in to your category of what is acceptable to you.

      It doesn’t work that way.

      Reply

    • FSM says:

      09:22am | 16/08/10

      It does for the Christians in this country.

    • astrid says:

      09:09am | 16/08/10

      I tend to agree, at least for now we can express our views. I think there will become a time where Family values will not be allowed to be expressed. And that the political correctness will also inflict itself on the core of our countries base. Which is families.  No matter how much I disagree with gay marriage I support people right to express a view on it. Simialr to the Greens they are truely bizarre and have some crack pot policies but at least they can still express thier view no matter how weird. On the other hand I find people response to Francis’ comments alarming and from an extreme side and should not be tolerated

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      08:03pm | 16/08/10

      WTF? With both major parties handing middle class family welfare like no tomorrow and boot licking anything that looks like a family, someone is saying that family values are being infringed upon. How bizarre. The only extreme side is the right wing Christians who won’t tolerate any threat to their concept of marriage (which is a universal institution, not a Christian monopoly)

    • AJ says:

      09:12am | 16/08/10

      I read quite a few of the “comments” in the various articles about the original tweets and then the subsequent apology and I agree that a lot of them were definitely (inappropriately) abusive towards Wendy Francis (and her supporters), but there were probably just as many which were abusive towards gays and lesbians and similar to the calls for Wendy to “die a painful death” there were numerous comments that all gays and lesbians should be put to death.

      It’s pretty clear that a number of politicians oppose same-sex marriage, including the leaders of Labor and Liberal, but none of them have likened same-sex marriage (and the resulting ability for same-sex couples to adopt (which is already permitted in some parts of Australia)) to child abuse in a highly public forum.  I received Wendy Fracis’ pamphlet and it repeats everything she said in her tweets, but in a far “nicer” way. If Wendy Francis (and her supporters) expect people to be respectful of her and her policies, then she needs to demonstrate that same level of respect in her comments.

      As for the whole “the (silent) majority disagree with same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption” therefore it is okay to make (incendiary) comments against legalising same-sex marriage argument, I find it to be almost as amusing and disappointing as Wendy Fracis’ tweets. The silent majority has supported a number of positions over the years which in hindsight were pretty deplorable, including Australia’s treatment of Aborigines. If the sole measure of societal progression is to be whether or not the “majority” supports “moving forward” (pun intended), then I would imagine I would still “own” any future wives and would be free to sell my daughters into marriage or slavery as I please not to mention being able to beat my slaves as and when I please (including beating them to death).

      Reply

    • Jason says:

      09:34am | 16/08/10

      “Don’t agree with Francis; don’t vote for her.”

      Consider it done- cheers mate

      Reply

    • Tedd says:

      09:50am | 16/08/10

      The most significant recent comment about homosexuality was Will Anderson’s comment during a recent rally - it is something he was born with.  From a Christian point of view this means “God-given”, and do deny that reality is where Christianity’s derision of homosexuality is hypocritical.

      Reply

    • Gruff says:

      04:11pm | 17/08/10

      Born with ‘being gay’? I have a friend who is gay.  His partner is gay and happens to be an identical twin. That means his twin has the same DNA.  If it were true that people were just born gay, then surely the twins must either both gay or both straight.  While I concede that one case does not prove anything, I think it is a bit dismissive and simplistc to just say that people are born gay and thats that. BTW, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with being gay, and gay people should be able to live how they please and marry if they wish.

    • Tedd says:

      07:09pm | 17/08/10

      Gruff: it may not be “in the DNA” - it may do with a number of things.  you do not say what the identical twins sexuality is.

      Besides ity is how a person described himself - i.e. he was saying his homosexuality was innate or “hard-wired”.

    • Lauren says:

      10:04am | 16/08/10

      I feel like I’m back at my all girls Catholic high school getting told off by the principal during assembly….

      Honestly, you’re defending Wendy because of the twitter replies were not up to your standard? It’s twitter, give the trolls and inch and they’ll flattern you and your dog and mother in law at once.

      She is pathetic, and should not be receiving any where near this amount of media attention.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      10:15am | 16/08/10

      Personally, I hope she gets into the senate.  Should be entertaining…

      Reply

    • Elphaba says:

      12:01pm | 16/08/10

      Steven Fielding was enough.  We had 3 years of an ‘entertaining’ Senate.  No thanks.

    • ben says:

      10:47am | 16/08/10

      Thanks Lyall, but nobody needs to defend Wendy. It’s only a few media people who disagree with her comments. The vast majority of people believe every child should be raised by their biological Mother and Father.

      Reply

    • Ash says:

      12:45pm | 16/08/10

      And if their biological parents are abusive? Or negligent? That’s ok, because they’re the ‘biological parents’.

      Your argument doesn’t hold up sorry.

      Count me out of you so-called ‘vast majority’. Which by the way, doesn’t include pretty much every single person I have ever discussed the topic with, be it colleague, friend or family. As BC says below, where did you find these figures?

    • Rick says:

      04:10pm | 16/08/10

      @ Ash:
      “doesn’t include pretty much every single person I have ever discussed the topic with”

      Have you ever heard “birds of the same feather…”

    • ben says:

      04:29pm | 16/08/10

      Well, if a child doesn’t have a right to be raised by Mum and Dad, does anyone have a right to anything? Bit of slippery slope when we start taking rights away - where do we stop?

    • Hel says:

      04:52pm | 16/08/10

      @Rick
      That exact same logic could and should be applied to Lyall.

    • YZ says:

      05:01pm | 16/08/10

      @Ben - it’s not that simple, in the world of divorce we have step parents, single parents, widowed parents etc, are you saying that they shouldn’t raise the kids? are you saying the step parents are not parents? what about the single parents be they mother or father?

      It used to be back in caveman day or African families, or Native American families back in the day and Aboriginal families, there wasn’t this whole ‘mother/father’ thing, it took a village to raise the child. The mother would teach what she knew, the grandmother would then have a turn, the father, the chief of the tribe everybody had a turn raising the children.

      Children have a right to a LOVING family. period. it is not up to us or society to judge what is ‘normal’ when it didn’t used to be this way. as long as there is love, kindness and the child knows they are not a burdon and are wanted what else do they need?

      We have teachers, coaches, uncles, aunties, grandparents for the children to emulate and look up to, what does it matter if for a few hours at home they have 2 mummies, 2 daddies, 1 mummy or 1 daddy or hell 1 guardian as their parents are dead?

    • MK says:

      07:47pm | 16/08/10

      I and a ‘vast majority’ of people I know, not all of whom happen to be my friends or family, seem to be of the belief that children have the right to be raised by a family who will love and care for them unconditionally.

      I love that you use the word biological. How very narrow minded of you. So, we are taking away a child’s rights by placing them with a loving family if they have come from an abusive home, if they have lost their parents and they’re placed with other family members, if they are adopted by a loving family who will care and provide for them?

      You clearly have no idea about the concept of ‘family’ and what it implies. Nor do you have any idea about the variety of family units we have in this country, your comments make this apparent. One thing I do agree with you on is that this IS a slippery slope - if we start saying that children should only be raised by a ‘mother’ and a ‘father’ - where does it leave these other families i.e. adoptive, single parent, foster families etc?

    • BC says:

      11:00am | 16/08/10

      Wow ben! I wasn’t aware you were responsible for polling the ‘vast majority’ of Australians. Are you able to give me some harder facts about what consitutes the ‘vast majority’, when and where you undertook your research and where your findings were published?

      I wasn’t part of the study and am really concerned that I might be missing out on making sweeping, generalised statements.

      Reply

    • meinsydney says:

      05:40pm | 16/08/10

      I think if Ben did his research he’d probably discover that the majority of Aussies are in favour of gay marriage.  All the polls I’ve seen show the majority in favour of it.  Hopefully Ben will come back and tell us where his “research” was done.

    • Gerry says:

      12:11pm | 16/08/10

      Lyall - well said. You’re brave. And your willingness to stand up and defend the notion of a balanced debate is admirable. Good for you!

      Reply

    • WhereIsTheLogic? says:

      01:33pm | 16/08/10

      Thanks for this - it had to be said.

      There is just no logic in the same-sex marriage debate. All hot air and personal insults.

      Ultimately the state has no interest in most personal relationships. It’s interest in the heterosexual union stems from its procreative nature. The state has an interest in encouraging stability in relationships which are potentially procreative.

      Only one kind of human relationship is potentially procreative: the heterosexual union. That’s why the state is only interested in regulating these kinds of relationships, and only by encouraging stability through the institution of marriage.

      Why should the state care whether a same-sex couple promises to stay together forever? It’s a private matter. None of the state’s business.

      Reply

    • L. says:

      02:07pm | 16/08/10

      “It’s interest in the heterosexual union stems from its procreative nature. “

      So if gays were allowed to adopt, that would make married hetro’s less likly to have children…how exactly..??

      “The state has an interest in encouraging stability in relationships which are potentially procreative.”

      So if gays were allowed to adopt, that would make married hetro’s relationships less stable…how exactly..?

      “That’s why the state is only interested in regulating these kinds of relationships, and only by encouraging stability through the institution of marriage.”

      If that were true, why is it so piss easy to get a divorce..?

    • Daniel says:

      01:34pm | 16/08/10

      I believe that “family values” should be about strengthening the family unit. This should include the right for same sex parents to marry and adopt. Family first should be encouraging supportive families and supporting women who choose to take control of their reproductive options. Having an abortion because you can’t give a child the life that it deserves is a prime example of having a family when it is right for both of you. Family values are important to foster a functioning society, but they are being hijacked by people who should just mind their own business.

      Reply

    • Barry says:

      01:37pm | 16/08/10

      Well done Wendy Francis for stand up for Australian families. Im glad she has the courage to speak up. I will be voting for her in the Senate.

      Reply

    • MK says:

      07:50pm | 16/08/10

      Well done Wendy Francis for standing up for SOME Australian families. Let’s make that clear.

    • MIchael says:

      03:29pm | 17/08/10

      Barry, just wait until she takes your rights away (assuming she makes the Senate, which she probably won’t).

    • Ian Freely says:

      01:44pm | 16/08/10

      He started out stating his company worked for her and then told a big fat porky by suggesting he wasn’t writing the column for her.  Amazing then how the article is totally about ‘telling her side of the story’.

      This is some amazing spin here—well done!

      And if people like Wendy want to be in public life they should remember what they say in public stays with them.  What she said is indefensible and has nothing to do with creating an environment of fear.

      Reply

    • YZ says:

      01:48pm | 16/08/10

      What got my (and a lot of my friends) backs up wasn’t that she was against gay/lesbian marriages and adopting children, it was saying that it was the same as child abuse, which to me seemed like she was saying that having same sex parents is the same as getting beaten or sexually abused by your guardians, what rot. the argument seems to be about being teased, now things may have changed in 12 years since I was at school but what kids got bullied about were, wearing glasses, having hairy legs (girls) talking with a lisp, having funny shaped ears, being fat, being pale, having freckles, colour of their hair and the list goes on, not once was it because they had 2 mums or 2 dads.

      Also there are same sex families out there with kids but the children still see their dad, it just happened that mum fell in love with another woman, yes they live with 2 women most of the time but dad still has visitation and is still involved in the childs life.

      Reply

    • Bondi Billy says:

      03:28pm | 16/08/10

      Poor kids, life can be so cruel sometimes.

    • Elphaba says:

      01:50pm | 16/08/10

      If you’re going to ‘tweet’ this kind of viewpoint, you’re going to get slammed, because the internet is filled with vitriolic trolls.

      She was attacked because her ideas are antiquated - not only are they a slap in the face for gay people (and by now, we should all be able to deal with the fact that there are gay people in the world), but also a slap in the face for any child being raised in a family that doesn’t consist of a mother and a father.

      If you hold a controversial opinion, and you want to voice it, you have to be prepared for this reaction.  Honestly, she must have been living under a rock with her fingers in her ears is she thought that she wasn’t going to cop it.  It’s as bad as Steven Fielding and his theory that women will get abortions on the public purse once paid parental leave goes through.  I’m pretty sure I dispensed with trying to make a reasoned argument and just called him a douchbag - because he is one.

      A noble defence, Lyall.  But if she’s perturbed by the vitriol she been served - she needs to rethink her career.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      02:27pm | 16/08/10

      Wendy Francis is entitled to her opinion. What she is NOT, nor ever will be, entitled to do is force others to accept her opinion. Let Wendy & others get on with their own lives as they wish & let them allow others to do the same.
      A question fundamentalist pentecostals & others refuse to address, let alone give a rational, considered answer to is:
      If marriage should only be between a man & a woman and only they should be allowed to bring up children, what are they proposing to do with the 1000s of children from all those hundreds of thousands of male/feamle marriages which, according to the statistics, for what they are worth, tell us that over 50% of all marriages end in bitter divorce?
      Many of those children end up, mainly as a result of the undue bias by the Family Court towards women, in one parent (female) only family?
      By what right does Ms Francis, or anyone else for that matter, decide that two loving people should not be allowed to make a commitment to each other?
      Certainly most religions, in particular the allegedly Christian ones would refuse to marry a same-sex couple in one of their, mostly empty, churches & that is their prerogative.
      Who gave them & their members the right to deny same-sex couples non-religious, non-church marriages? Thankfully we live in a Secular Society and religions should butt out.
      It should not be forgotten that all those who take part in “churched” marriages still take vows to ‘put aside all others & cleave unto each other until death do us part”. In other words they marry for life. Given that over 50% of these churched marriages end in acrimonious & bitter divorce what does that say about the people who take part in them? Hypocrites? Liars? What does that say about their belief in God? An oath/vow ‘before God’is the most serious those who believe in one can take.
      Given the massive break-up of marriage between men & women a thinking person must ask both Mixed Sex & Same Sex couples: Why do you bother with all the expense when you can just as easily simply live together?
      I knew a couple who lived together for 15 years. They bred. Suddenly they decided to get married in a church. Within 3 months they were no longer speaking to each other, within 6 they were living in seperarte homes & within 18 months they were divorced!
      It would be interesting to know how many same sex couples there are. How long have they been together? How many of those same-sex couples are parenting children as a result of a break-down of their former mixed-sex marriages?

      Reply

    • Bobster says:

      05:09pm | 16/08/10

      She got off light.

      I’m pretty happy that she copped a hiding for the child abuse comments, but when she came out and used the Stolen Generation excuse as a way of backing off I feel the media and the public should have gone for the throat.

      Yeah, people are entitled to hold their bigoted opinions but then the rest of us are entitled to tell them their bigoted opinions belong in the stone age.

      Reply

    • chrisozman says:

      05:58pm | 16/08/10

      When the subject on web forums turns to people like Wendy, somebody in this world who actually BELIEVES in something, the reaction is enlightening. Almost all responses are written by abusive people, almost all of them happen to be either gay, atheist or more likely both. When it comes to what is right and noble, the proof is in the pudding, a person’s character. People full of vitriol and hate, be they gay, atheists or pedophiles have no business being parents, let alone married couples. If you hate God so much that you want to follow these degrading and empty lifestyles to your ultimate destruction then, sadly, you are able to make that choice. But don’t try to take our beautiful, innocent children with you.

      Reply

    • P. Darvio says:

      07:39pm | 16/08/10

      The GOD you refer to and your instruction book from GOD called the Bible says that gays are to be put to death, virgin women who have premarital sex are to be stoned to death, and the innocent children you refer to are being raped by Christian priests.

    • Mary says:

      08:02pm | 16/08/10

      Please don’t allow members of the Catholic Church to sexually assault our beautiful, innocent children and perhaps we’ll get back to you.

      It kills me to say that, because I am a member of the church. I believe in God. But I find these kinds of outdated and frankly insulting views on people and their lifestyles to be against my beliefs in a loving God. Who are you to speak for God? Who are you to pass judgment on the beliefs of certain people PURELY because of their lifestyle choices?

      Given what poison you’ve just spat out, what business do YOU have being a parent? What business do you have bringing a child into the world and teaching them to hate or dismiss people who are different to them? You are doing more damage to our children than any of those you speak out against. You are fostering prejudices in a society that is starting to grow, learn and change for the better.  Stop holding it back.

    • chrisozman says:

      11:58pm | 16/08/10

      P.Darvio, so which Bible are you referring to? Please quote the scriptures you refer to, or is it one of those “somebody told me that’s what’s in there” stories? Half-truths are the currency of hate-filled people like yourself aren’t they? Yes God once intervened and destroyed a whole city full of gays, as is his absolute right, but he never gave an instruction for anyone else to follow suit. The virgin thing? Sorry, perhaps you read that in the book of Mormon or on the wall of a Church of Scientology Tardis? And the “Christian” priests? Surely even you don’t believe people who are actually Christians would do such an abominable thing. Certainly over the years there have been many gay atheists masquerading as priests to access innocent children, perhaps you know some of them? Lastly “Mary”, nobody who truly believes in God falls for your moral equivalence psychology, homosexuality is wrong, always has been, always will be. Which “lifestyle choice” were you referring to by the way, the gay, atheist or pedophile?

      I can only presume your “Church” is the Uniting Church, whose beliefs are more akin to devil worship than those of God Almighty. I don’t speak FOR God, and would never presume to do so. I would strongly suggest however that you both speak TO him.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      05:40pm | 17/08/10

      Chrisozman, gay and peadophile are totally seperate, the priests you mention are evil but I dont know how you draw the link to call them gay athiests, and I think if you actually knew your bible you would recall the verses mentioned and not need page numbers. Please stop embarrassing your fellow Christians

    • Ace says:

      10:27am | 17/08/10

      No, Ms Francis, allowing people to spread the belief that homosexuality is a sin or a sickness is what has caused hundreds of thousands of cases of child sexual abuse in churches and religious institutions across the world.

      Therefore, more accurately, legalising religious indoctriation is like legalising child abuse.

      Reply

    • LC says:

      04:28pm | 03/01/11

      “But she – like all of us – deserves to put forward her views”

      Agreed.

      Then again, if she chooses to put forward homophobic views, or demand all children to be religiously indoctrinated by law, rational and open-minded people will speak up, and it’s not always going to be civil. However, that is in the job description of a politician. She isn’t the first, and certainly won’t be the last one to be on the business end of offensive comments.

      After all, don’t everyday people “deserves to put forward her views” as well?

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

14

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

50

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

121

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed