Prev
Next

It’s understandable Gillard doesn’t get it on gay marriage

Julia Thornton

by Julia Thornton

05 Jul 05:50am

Must Reads

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project - this is a caption

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

41

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics - this is a caption

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

60

Please enter your password - this is a caption

Please enter your password

39

Filed under: Election 2010, Gay Marriage, Human Rights, Julia Gillard, Politics

135 comments

I’m relatively proud of what I’ve achieved professionally and personally. I wrote a letter of complaint that got me a new washing machine and a new career; I got the word ‘existential’ on the letters pages of The Daily Telegraph, got to ride in the Queensland and Federal Governments jets and I saved the government $10million in one afternoon.

I contributed to this being impossible in Australia

This was all before I discovered nominative determinism. Today’s name is Gai Lemon, a woman featured in an article in the Q Weekend in The Courier Mail about 20 years of Gay Rights in Queensland.

Which brings me to my point. There is one thing I’m not so proud of and that is my part in the amendments to the Marriage Act.

What did I do? Well, I wrote a speech for my then boss, which he delivered to Parliament, and then he voted for the amendment that was moved in 2004.

I rationalised that if he had to make a speech, which was moralistic, religious and quoting the Bible, I wanted to make sure it wasn’t the Old Testament he was quoting. I wanted the conservatives to understand the Christians. I wrote it with my father in mind – a man who can’t say Richard Branson’s airline.

It wasn’t a bad speech either. It also wasn’t a speech that will make into a ‘great oration’ book. It did the job.

At the time, I wasn’t married and I’d never met anyone I could see myself with when I was shelling peas on the back verandah in a floral frock and apron. (Me in the frock and apron, him in a pair of overalls whittling.)

I don’t think until you’ve really loved and wanted to commit to someone for the rest of your days you can understand the impact of being told by a government that you don’t have the right to marriage.

This is why it was so easy for me – then a single person – to write the speech on a debate that would insert ‘the union of a man and a woman’ into the Marriage Act.

I didn’t understand.

When I got married myself, the celebrant said ‘marriage is the union of a man and a woman – I have to say this by law now. They’ve killed the gay market’. It was rammed home to me what I had done.

Every wedding I go to I get this sick feeling in my stomach when the celebrant says ‘marriage is the union of a man and a woman’ that my gay friends who want to get married can’t.

I have never seen myself as a fag hag, but I have a surprisingly large number of gay friends. Most of them are in long-term committed relationships, which put some of my heterosexual couple friends to shame.

Facebook allows me to keep in touch with them and I can see how angry they are in their status updates about this issue.

One friend, living in Canada said it best: “I have more rights as a tourist in Canada than I do as a citizen of my own country.”

So I can forgive Prime Minister Gillard for not opening an old wound like the Marriage Act. She’s never been inspired to make that commitment to someone. Her career is what is important.

But there are a lot of people in Parliament who apparently have met the person who makes them whole, who have joined with them in marriage and who feel no qualms about locking out homosexuals from being able to stand in front of their friends and family and make the ultimate commitment to their partners.

I don’t understand how they could do it, particularly when they say they are Christians.

Members of the Liberal Left (wets, if you prefer the old term) did their bit for homosexual partnerships in the Howard Government. Giving gays rights to superannuation, amending the law so they can be nominated as the beneficiary. 

It seems like a lot of paperwork is required for some sections of the community, because the darned things tend to ‘expire’. But for me, provided my husband doesn’t write a will giving his super to someone else, it will fall my way when he dies. Will or no will, I have automatic rights. Automatic rights.

(I’m not sure the current de facto laws give equality to same sex de facto marriage breakdowns as they do to mistresses or the male equivalent of a long term mistress. And I wonder if a gay mistress in a relationship with a married man ever tried to use the mistress laws, how successful he would be?)

At about the time I wrote that speech, my father found out that two of his old colleagues have children who are gay. He had to adjust his thinking about ‘gay’ because he knew these kids when they were kids. He knew them when they called him Mr Thornton and answered questions about how school was going for them and they tracked dirt into the house.

They’re still ‘good kids’, successful and responsible citizens.

When he said maybe it wasn’t necessary to amend the Marriage Act, I was a bit surprised.

“Well, it’s like Queen Victoria said, isn’t it? So long as they don’t frighten the horses.”

If my father can countenance it, then I’m sure others will too. Just ‘sell’ it.

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
266Who 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...

135 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Ripa says:

      06:59am | 05/07/10

      Marriage is between a man and a woman.
      Is there something wrong with “the punch” ? is the only time marriage is allowed to be glorified is when its referred to gays? Hetero couples should feel guilty?

      Reply

    • Jeremy says:

      07:23am | 05/07/10

      “Marriage is between a man and a woman.”

      And when the discrimination is removed, it will be between two consenting adults.

      “Hetero couples should feel guilty?”

      Only the ones who support discriminating against other people on the basis of their gender or sexuality.

    • Ripa says:

      07:53am | 05/07/10

      You discriminate against Hetero couples, you are saying Hetero couples are not entitled to distinguish themselves by marriage, you are demanding that it extend to everyone. The logic makes no sense.I demand gay couples do not differentiate themselves, and therefore dont exist.

    • Tim says:

      09:06am | 05/07/10

      Jeremy,
      “Then it will be between two consenting adults.”

      Why are you so predjudiced against polygamists?
      And for that matter minors?

      Marriage rights for all.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:23am | 05/07/10

      “You discriminate against Hetero couples”
      Discriminating against people’s right to discriminate?

      “you are saying Hetero couples are not entitled to distinguish themselves by marriage”
      White males with land aren’t allowed to distinguish themselves from others by being the only people who vote.  We got rid of that nonsense decades ago.

      “you are demanding that it extend to everyone.”
      Not to everyone.  To gay couples.  Don’t go slippery-slope on us, Ripa.

    • Tim says:

      10:41am | 05/07/10

      Steely Dan,
      “Not to everyone.  To gay couples.”

      So you think discrimination is OK as long as gay couples are not part of the discriminated group?
      What’s the difference between this argument and the churchies?

    • Zaf says:

      11:49am | 05/07/10

      “you are saying Hetero couples are not entitled to distinguish themselves by marriage”

      you just distinguished them by describing them as hetero couples. wtf?

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:58am | 05/07/10

      @ Tim
      “So you think discrimination is OK as long as gay couples are not part of the discriminated group?”
      I’m OK with discriminating against adults who want to marry children.  I singled out gay couples in my last comment because that’s what the proposed legislation change is about.  It’s best to peg it down when people are trying to use the slippery-slope argument.

    • Reg says:

      05:14pm | 07/07/10

      No there’s a third one Ripa. That is when a couple choose to stay together for 30 years, as we have, without any state intervention at all.* Please read this as a glorification of NOT- marriage and a vote against governmental involvement in the process of commitment to others.

      *Except tax penalties as a slight coercion naturally.

    • DD Ball says:

      07:10am | 05/07/10

      I find that people that aren’t Christian don’t get the point. Were i to be part of a legislature I would have no problem with passing a secular marriage act allowing gays to marry in law, but allowing churches to not recognize the union. There is nothing to be gained by forcing faithful people to act against conscience. I often choose to follow my faith which I hold above the law, as well as following the law .. that is scriptural. Property rights are important. I also note that those who are worried about gay marriage often fall on the side of the ridiculous left .. social conservatives, but not economic ones. It is similar to my views on abortion. I’d rather not have it, except for dire consequences, which isn’t -part of lifestyle choice. Something I choose to adhere to from conscience, not by law.

      Reply

    • Pat says:

      08:01am | 05/07/10

      How is anyone forcing you to act against your concience DDBall?  No-one is forcing you to get gay married.

    • Rod Blaine says:

      08:23am | 05/07/10

      > “... but allowing churches to not recognize the union”

      And how long do you think that exemption would last, with the ALP and Greens run by Rob Hulls/ Brian Greig-type ideological enforcers?

      Yeah, I’d like the law to strike exactly the balance that you’ve outlined here, too. But given Australians’ (both the wowsers’ and the libertines’) very shaky record at grasping the concept of “leave other people alone if they’re not coercing you”, I can see why the anti-gay side want to fight the battle as far from their home shores as possible.

    • iansand says:

      08:29am | 05/07/10

      It is not compulsory for marriages to occur in churches.

    • Michael Dunn says:

      08:55am | 05/07/10

      Don’t tell me we need to re-visit the old “being gay is a lifestyle choice” garbage again!  I thought we were way past that.  Are there still people out there who believe it’s a choice???

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:30am | 05/07/10

      “And how long do you think that exemption would last, with the ALP and Greens run by Rob Hulls/ Brian Greig-type ideological enforcers?”

      Slippery slope much, Rod?

    • Rod Blaine says:

      11:07am | 05/07/10

      So, you don’t think it’ll happen, Steely Dan?

      10-15 years ago, “two men marrying” was a late-night punchline, and gay-friendly politicians like Senator Chris Puplick were saying things like “I support equal rights for gays in all areas, other than traditional marriage”. Now it’s law in many states and countries. If the guiding principle behind all this was “people have the right to live their own lives as they think right, as long as they don’t impose it on me”, I’d be giving three cheers. Unfortunately, I suspect the real motive - on both sides - is nothing so principled, but rather “kick heads on the opposing team, take revenge for past slights, and use the full power of the law to brand people who disagree with us as Nazis” (and yes, the anti-gay side are just as happy to play the Nazi card when it suits them).

      Maybe you can dismiss this by pulling a sound-bite from a Logic 101 textbook. Or maybe you won’t care because by 2030 you’ll be living in comfort on this nice bridge in Sydney Harbour which can be yours once you deposit just $999.95 in the following bank account…

    • Zaf says:

      11:53am | 05/07/10

      “allowing churches to not recognize the union”

      straw man argument.  many churches already refuse to recognise some heterosexual unions for various reasons, despite the state recognising these unions.  for eg, the Catholic church doesn’t recognise a marriage between a cathoilc and a non-catholic that takes place outside a catholic church.  this is not an issue for anybody but catholics who willingly remain in the catholic church.  the issue is state recognition, not the views of different churches.

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:13pm | 05/07/10

      @ Rod Blaine
      “So, you don’t think it’ll happen, Steely Dan?”
      No, I don’t.

      “Now it’s law in many states and countries.”
      And I don’t have a problem with that, whether its considered a backflip or not.  Good policy is good policy.

      “Unfortunately, I suspect the real motive - on both sides - is nothing so principled”
      That’s your opinion.  But even if that were the case, that is no reason to move to an equitable position simply because you perceive a threat at the extreme end of the spectrum.  Allowing indigenous Australians to vote in the 1960s could have been the first step to whites being enslaved by blacks – would that have been a good argument for voting ‘No’ in the referendum?  It’s a classic slippery-slope argument.

      “Maybe you can dismiss this by pulling a sound-bite from a Logic 101 textbook.”
      I should, and I did.

    • Kathryn says:

      12:29pm | 05/07/10

      As a Christian, I take great offence at that. I get it. I’ve advocated long and hard for same sex marriage both within and without my church. Please don’t accuse all Christians of being prejudiced just because some prejudiced people are Christian. PMJG isn’t Christian, and opposes same sex marriage.

    • DD Ball says:

      01:17pm | 05/07/10

      Pat, straw dog attempt. Where did I write that?
      Rod B, good point. The problem is not gay union, but forcing the churches to accept gay union. The nub is that churches do the work that states should but cry poor on, and so they need the churches for their work, but in accepting that, the churches have a state authority that puts the issues like gay marriage at odds with simple equal rights.
      Iansand, if gay marriages are accepted by law then Churches will be open to liability for failing to be amenable.
      Michael, such things are also a choice. I note some lead their lives celibate. That is choice. Some are abused, and there are elements of choice there too, for which victims should curse Deepak Chopra.
      Zaf, this issue is more than for Catholics, but it is an issue for them too.
      Kathryn, I have no problems with any religious institution accepting such choice. I will not accept it being forced on them.

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:59pm | 05/07/10

      @ DD Ball
      “iansand, if gay marriages are accepted by law then Churches will be open to liability for failing to be amenable.”
      Not at all. Churches will not have to accept gay marriages (even if its written into the legislation specifically, that element of the law would be ruled unconstitutional in a court).  Churches can still refuse to recognise mixed-race marriages if they want to.
      “Michael, such things are also a choice. I note some lead their lives celibate. That is choice.”
      To have sex or not is a choice. But sexuality itself is not a choice.

    • iansand says:

      02:02pm | 05/07/10

      DD Ball - Liability for what?  What a ridiculous comment.

    • Alex says:

      02:26pm | 05/07/10

      DD Ball,

      How will a church be liable?  Under the givings of a church they are not required to give in to things against the faith.  Hence why a muslim temple doesn’t have to let a catholic couple get married in it just because they think its pretty.

      It would appear to me that you are opposed to gay marriage, and are scared by homosexuals, but attempt to play the moral high ground so you aren’t seen for what you are.

      The chuch has, and still is, attempting to force it’s opinions and doctrines on people for thousands of years, yet you happily accept that.

    • Alexandra says:

      05:07am | 06/07/10

      @Zaf - Why did I have to fill in so much more paperwork to get the OK to marry my catholic husband in an anglican church by my anglican aunty/godmother/priest? Now that I’m getting divorced, can I claim that my ‘devoutly catholic’ mother-in-law hexed me when she said she didn’t believe in female priests?!

    • Zaf says:

      02:03pm | 06/07/10

      Bummer, Alexandra.  Sorry to hear about your divorce.  Wrt paperwork to get the okay, the okay from WHOM?  The Govt?  The Roman Catholic Church?  The Anglican Church?  The answer would tell you who cares - and I suspect it isn’t the govt, because really you could have a civil wedding (no doubt filling out paperwork) and they would be okay with that too.

      Wrt inter-church marriages, wikipedia in its wisdom tells us:
      //
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_and_Christianity

      Inter-Church Marriages

      The Roman Catholic Church requires permission for mixed marriages, which it terms all unions between Catholics and baptized non-Catholics (Eastern Orthodox and many Protestants), but such marriages are valid, though illicit, without it: the pastor of the Catholic party has authority to grant such permission.

      The baptized non-Catholic partner does not have to convert. Historically, the baptized non-Catholic partner had to agree to raise the children Catholic, but under current rules only the Catholic spouse must promise to do so.
      //

      I am with you, however, in the thinking the MiL is most probably responsible for disastor.  Just because.

    • Mark says:

      07:39am | 05/07/10

      When I witness ‘gay’ intimacy I feel uncomfortable. I grew up in the sixties and seventies when we didn’t call them gay, but ‘queer’, or ‘bent’, or worse. Rationally, I can understand but not condone my own emotional reaction. Rationally, I think George Michael said it best. Puzzled why people were so interested in his sexuality, he asked, “do they think they will ever get to shag me?”.
      Irrespective of the reasons why some people might be gay and others not (and there is increasing evidence that ‘choice’ is not involved) I cannot see any reason to discriminate, in marriage or any other part of life. I think that those who do discriminate do so from the gut rather than from the mind.
      To any psychologists out there - does ‘homophobia’ have the same basis as racism?

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:44am | 05/07/10

      @ Mark
      I’m not a psychologist, but I’m married to one (I get to pick her brain) and I’m interested in the topic.  From what I understand the short (and admittedly over-simplified) answer is ‘yes’ - we are wired to reject anything we unconsciously our near-caveman brains perceive as a threat, be it another race coming to attack our tribe or the existence of homosexuality ending the propagation of our small tribe’s genetic material.  It’s all irrational, but at one point in our history these instincts were very helpful.  What really separates us from our caveman ancestors is our ability to weigh our gut reaction up against reality and decide on a rational course of action.

    • Rod Blaine says:

      11:36am | 05/07/10

      > “the existence of homosexuality ending the propagation of our small tribe’s genetic material”

      Quite plausible, from what little I know about evolutionary psychology.

      If it’s true, this would suggest that the sight of celibate Catholic priests and nuns would also stir a similarly irrational fear.

    • Rod Blaine says:

      11:36am | 05/07/10

      > “the existence of homosexuality ending the propagation of our small tribe’s genetic material”

      Quite plausible, from what little I know about evolutionary psychology.

      If it’s true, this would suggest that the sight of celibate Catholic priests and nuns would also stir a similarly irrational fear.

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:20pm | 05/07/10

      @ Rod Blaine

      “If it’s true, this would suggest that the sight of celibate Catholic priests and nuns would also stir a similarly irrational fear.”
      Celibate clergy are a relatively new invention in human history.  Given the churches’ arguments for the policy - that priests focus their time and energy on the church, which promotes the propagation of the religious group - I can understand how many don’t have an issue with it.
      But of course, many religions think that celibate clergy are just weird.

    • Robert Smissen Rural SA says:

      05:51pm | 05/07/10

      Inside every homophobe resides a latent gay person.

    • Gary Cox says:

      07:55am | 05/07/10

      Oh for God’s sake just let them get married so we can all have some peace and focus on more important issues.

      Its a bit like the apologising to the stolen generation issue. I was against it, but in the end I was like, ok just do it so everyone will shutup about it, and its been good, hardly heard anything about it since.

      Reply

    • Bob H says:

      08:25am | 05/07/10

      @Gary - fully agree let them in on a staggeringly awful ritual that has become a meaningless photo shoot.  Its about relationships not an expensive makeover day, love does not require church and govt approval, or a caterer.

    • Keryn says:

      03:32pm | 05/07/10

      most sensible comment made on this topic to date.

    • Chris says:

      03:18pm | 09/07/10

      Gary, what do you mean we have “hardly heard anything about it since”? Now that an apology has gone forward, all we hear in this area is about how an apology is all well and good, but when is the government going to pay compensation?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      08:12am | 05/07/10

      For once i agree with Gillard , marriage is between male and female , the intent is to procreate , otherwise is simply against the order of nature.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      09:02am | 05/07/10

      Ummm.  My spouse and I married late in life - beyond the child-bearing years.  Does this render our (Church) marriage invalid or “against the order of nature?”

    • Kelly says:

      10:15am | 05/07/10

      The whole idea of marriage is a fantasy, it’s against nature for humans to mate for life, similar to that of believing in God.

    • Lexi says:

      10:35am | 05/07/10

      Oh, Wayne - so many holes, so little space.

      As Marley says, many married couples CAN’T have children.  Many also CHOOSE not to, yet choose to be married.

      Many unmarried people have children - so you can have kids without being married. There are also married couples a la the Brady Bunch - Mr and Mrs Brady didn’t have children together, but they were married.

      And many gay people are parents - biological, step, adoptive and foster.  And you know, there are plenty of gay parents who do a fabulous job.

      Don’t let your ideological biase interfere with logic.

    • Rachel says:

      10:48am | 05/07/10

      Uh oh, I married my husband in a catholic church knowing he was infertile. Better ring him and tell him it’s off now…

    • Mark says:

      11:20am | 05/07/10

      Actually Wayne, I think that marriage is more about preserving social order. We don’t need marriage to procreate, clearly. However, in terms of pointing up ‘ownership’ (usually of the woman by the man) and preserving inheritances (position, land, cash) marriage was supremely useful. It would be interesting to know whether custom preceded religious practice, though I suspect they developed hand in hand…

    • Lucy says:

      12:18pm | 05/07/10

      Kelly - I agree with you! Marriage is for insecure folk who are scared they’re going to lose their partner if they don’t get married to hold onto them. It isn’t natural for humans to mate for life.

    • marley says:

      09:10pm | 05/07/10

      @kelly and lucy - well, you guys may not consider it natural to commit for life, but lots of people do. Straight and gay, lots of us are ready and willing to settle down and share our lives with a single person.  It seems to me it’s as natural as any other choice people make.  So, frankly, my dears, your comments are irrelevant to a discussion amongst people who believe in lifetime commitments and want equal rules to apply to those who share that belief.

    • Dawson says:

      10:20pm | 05/07/10

      ... Sorry I wasn’t aware that marriage was something of “nature”.

    • Seano says:

      08:18am | 05/07/10

      I support gay marriage and hope it becomes legal in the near future. But I don’t think that this is a hot button issue for the electorate. Most of whom either are ambivalent, supporting people’s right to live their life as they choose but drawing the line at marriage.

      Therefore I support the PM who has yet to lead the nation an election victory and who has only been in the job a week not taking on what for most is a non issue. Hopefully in a future term under PM Gillard this issue will be addressed, because we know it will never be addressed under Abbott.

      Reply

    • Dash says:

      09:37am | 05/07/10

      I agree with you Seano, this is a non issue. We should be focusing on the failures of this Labor government. We should focus on the policy decisions Gillard, Rudd, Swan and Tanner have made. The waste and rorting of taxpayers money. The incompetent management of the insulation scheme and the school halls program. The record foregin debt they have racked up. The non-delivery of core election promises like “more affordable housing”, the 200+ childcare facilities, grocery choices and border protection. The lie about not touching the private health rebate. The removeal of tax incentives for people to save for their retirement and now the revenue hole in Swans budget due to the profit tax backdown. Lets not forget Gillard’s significant contribution to all of these failures. These are much more important issues for us to be discussing and for the electorate to remember when they go to the voting booth later in the year. Can we afford another term of waste and incompetence?

    • Seano says:

      10:16am | 05/07/10

      Well ignoring the Liberal party propoganda about the state of the economy, what is the alternative? Abbott’s time as health minister, his lack of policies and constructive ideas demonstrate that he is not up to the task.

      As he as continually offended, scared and isolated large segments of the population, including women, non believers, casual workers, immigrants, anyone who doesn’t want a contract shoved in their face with the “choice” of sign or walk, people on the dole ahd homosexuals Abbott is completely unelectable. The Liberal party should get real and offer us a genuine alternative prime minister.

    • Tim says:

      10:47am | 05/07/10

      Seano,
      I know you hate Abbott but really on this issue his position is the same as Gillard’s at the moment.
      You can’t say that she may address this issue in the future because she hasn’t said she will.
      Sure she may change her mind but you can only base you views on what has been said currently not what you think might happen.
      I agree with you that it is a non-issue for the vast majority of the electorate.

    • Seano says:

      01:32pm | 05/07/10

      Tim, she made it clear that this issue would be back on the agenda when the community supports it. I don’t think the community is too far away from that support. Therefore she hasn’t closed the door on the issue, but Abbott has though. So there is a distinct difference.

    • God bless the gays says:

      09:32am | 05/07/10

      Where is Margaret Gray…....she usually has something to say on this issue.

      Reply

    • julie says:

      09:40am | 05/07/10

      you make such a good point there ... . ‘She’s never been inspired to make that commitment to someone….lot of people in Parliament who apparently have…’

      I too haven’t been inspired, yet, and as a heterosexual, I just believe in choice for all people, and I think legislation like this based on fear is so narrow minded. This also includes abortion, euthanasia etc etc. 
      When govt legislation removes obstacles on personal ethical choices so people can live their lives (that dont scare horses or impede anyone else’s lives)  will be a great day for the maturity of this country.

      Reply

    • Two Mummies says:

      10:00am | 05/07/10

      I was disappointed, but not surprised, with Julia’s statements around gay marriage. She has to pander to the same Christian power brokers that Rudd did and all members of government have too.

      I went to a straight wedding of a very dear friend a month or so ago. It was a secular affair but when the celebrant said ‘marriage is the union of a man and a woman’ it really hurt and took away from our enjoyment of the moment and cast a shadow on our joy for her and her partner.

      And now our 5 year old daughter is going through a ‘wedding obsession’ phase and it is both difficult and heartbreaking to have to explain to her why her mummies can’t get married or for that matter her Daddy and his partner.

      Reply

    • Skippy says:

      11:16am | 05/07/10

      Clearly your daughter is the one missing out here, by your choice (and it is a choice, try and convince me otherwise when so many people experiment with it), don’t blame the government - the age old has it in a nut shell, adam and eve, not adam and steve!
      I just hope your daughter isn’t taunted by the choices you and your lover make. Remember kids can be cruel, and having two mummies, your daughter is a sitting duck, I really feel for her

    • Paul says:

      11:41am | 05/07/10

      Skippy, you don’t feel for Two Mummies daughter.  You exult in your hatred for her mother.  And being homosexual is not a choice - as if I would choose to be the target of people as nasty as you.

    • Two Mummies says:

      12:10pm | 05/07/10

      Skippy my daughter has everything she needs, two loving primary care givers, a daddy, more than enough grand parents to spoil her rotten and not once in her life so far has the issue of her family come up in a negative way.

      The only reason it would is because people like you continue to preach hate and intolerance.

      Try educating yourself here… http://www.nllfs.org/

    • DJ says:

      12:19pm | 05/07/10

      Skippy, I have never heard my kid or my neice and nephew come home and say OMG little susie has 2 mummies what a freak! and believe me there are quite a number of same sex parents at the school, it’s more likely I get OMG little Susie is a Ranga mummy, Little Johnny has ears that stick out.

      While yes kids are cruel it is learned behaviour, and where do they learn the prejudices? from their parents. if their parents would act like it’s not a big deal then they wont think to use it for amunition.

    • Tim says:

      01:16pm | 05/07/10

      Sorry Two Mummies,
      but that’s a dodgy study if ever i’ve seen one.
      A small self selected group of children raised by lesbians rate higher on a number of factors that they’ve measured. Wow.

    • James1 says:

      01:16pm | 05/07/10

      Skippy, I can easily convince you that homosexuality is not a choice.  If it is a choice, then you are by definition a gay man (or woman) yourself.  Or at the very least, bisexual.  Thus, I would have thought as a gay person you would have some sympathy for your fellow homosexuals.

    • Jamie says:

      01:28pm | 05/07/10

      A news article recently featured stats that show kids of lesbian couples in US grow up as well adjusted as het couples (or interestingly, even better adjusted). My personal theory is that it takes a lot of commitment and work for a gay couple to raise a kid together. So usually, they go into it with eyes wide open and a lot of planning. Interestingly, compared to het couples, the recorded lesbian divorces also had a higher percentage of resulting in joint custody which helps kids greatly.

      Kids get picked on for all sorts of reason. What determines the outcome is how the parents and school handles it. From all the reports, being straight doesn’t mean their kids get a bully-and-problems-free card in school. You might as well say that parents better not give birth to ugly children for fear that they get bullied in school.

    • Skippy says:

      01:36pm | 05/07/10

      No I don’t preach hatred, and never will, translate as you will. And thanks two mummies but I don’t need educating on lesbian families, if you guys are so normal, what’s there to educate on, aren’t you like hetro-sexual couples? I just don’t get why gay people so insist on shouting from the roof tops their sexuality if they insist on being the same as hetrosexual people.  I have seen time and time again homosexual people use their sexuality as a platform. On so many occasions if someone is sacked from their job and they are gay, they cry it’s because they are gay, no maybe it’s because you weren’t doing your job properly. I have seen it time and time again, I worked with several gay people and witnessed it day to day, the whining about equal rights, in the mean time while they were straight, then turned gay, and now are straight again, you wonder why I have the views I do. I have seen this in Australia, the UK and the States, (oh and several celebrities to prove that it is across the board) The marriage issue, if it’s such a non-issue, why go on about it?

    • Jamie says:

      02:36pm | 05/07/10

      Skippy - How is marriage a non-issue? Gay people = Not allowed to get married. So it is an issue and people talk about it. What on earth are you going on about?

      And just because you have encountered a few either bisexuals or confused people doesn’t mean you should go around labelling entire groups of people with a narrow definition.

      Going back to the argument that children of gay people are bullied so they shouldn’t be allowed to get married and have kids: This is an incredibly silly argument. Based on this reasoning, I guess then that parents should strive to not have ugly kids, fat kids, overly skinny kids, quiet kids, dorky kids, disabled kids, socially awkward kids, kids with glasses and skin problems, redheads?

      Bullying is a symptom of a problem (hint: intolerence). The children are the victims. What we should do is work towards wiping out the issue (hinthint: intolerence), not wiping out the victims (the children and their parents).

    • Alex says:

      02:56pm | 05/07/10

      Skippy, they shout from the roof tops because they are not afforded the same rights under the law as hetero couples.

      So if they are the same, as you allude to admitting, then why should they not be afforded the same rights?

    • Skippy says:

      03:20pm | 05/07/10

      Jamie you missed my point. I was refering to people saying that gay marriage should be a non issue, meaning that who cares if they marry or not, not saying marriage doesn’t matter to gays, my apologies to confuse you.
      Come across a few confused people? It’s so much more than that Jamie, we should just agree to disagree.
      On the issue of ch’n and gay couples, I never said they shouldn’t be allowed to get married cause they get bullied, I just think that ch’n are very aware when they are different, and you can say what you like but if you have two mummies kids will say stuff, I have heard it myself. Like any situation, whether it’s abuse, gay relationship, or divorce, kids don’t get a say and you have to admit to have two mums or dads is different and making a statement.
      Marriage is and should always be between a man and a woman, as some have said, if you don’t like it, get your own legally binding arrangement, but leave this one alone!

    • Jamie says:

      03:37pm | 07/07/10

      Skippy, it’s really hard to understand what you’re saying. So if it’s a non-issue, why not go ahead? Well, clearly it’s a big issue for some people, like the Church and the Government (who gets a lot of funds and support from the Church). So they won’t allow gay marriage. It’s a big issue to them. We’re not saying everyone thinks it’s a non-issue. We’re saying that religion should be separate from the Government, but this is not the case so they make it into this big issue.

      We have to agree to disagree since I know plenty of people who grew up knowing they were gay and has not changed since.

      My reasoning still stands which you did not address. If gay couples should not have kids because their kids will be bullied for being ‘different’, then a lot of straight couples should not have kids. Kids who are in any way different shouldn’t go to school.

      Again, going by your point, we should further victimise the victims instead of trying to eradicate intolerence and bullying. There is something really wrong with that thinking.

      The original legal marriage was only between white men and white women and women were given away like property in marriage and people of different races couldn’t get married. THAT is your original definition of marriage. Times have changed it to be better and less intolerent. There is no reason it should not change again now.

      Just because your religion defines it as between a man and a woman doesn’t mean it should apply to everyone in the country, especially in a secular country, especially when we’re talking about legal marriage instead of your traditional marriage in a church. If your church doesn’t allow gay marriage ceremonies, fine. But don’t apply it to legal marriage.

    • Mark says:

      10:21am | 05/07/10

      She’s just playing weak politics, she doesn’t believe in God, BUT to keep the Christians happy, I don’t believe in same sex marriage. It’s called weak, no real opinion.

      Reply

    • Wirewolf says:

      10:29am | 05/07/10

      I don’t think that its a matter of Gillard “not getting it”; its simply that there is no (or not enough) political incentive to do anything about it. For most people its a nothing issue.

      Reply

    • Reg says:

      05:27pm | 07/07/10

      But Christians are doing their best to beat it up into a political issue that will feed the flames of hatred.

      One for Skippy.

      Children may be cruel, but it is usually the parents who have set their children on the path to such cruelty. If you’re fat ,thin, black, gay or an unbeliever, you stand out from the crowd and parents who fail to take steps to steer their children away from such excess cruelty, are guilty as hell.

    • Doh says:

      10:34am | 05/07/10

      Marriage as an institution has always been and should always be an expression of commitment between a man and a woman.

      Same sex couple should get their own institution.

      Simple.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:50am | 05/07/10

      @ Doh

      “Same sex couple should get their own institution.”
      Like women and black people respected the tradition of white, male voting?  The churches can keep their ceremonies.  The government has to act according to what’s fair and equitable.

    • DJ says:

      12:22pm | 05/07/10

      Why do they need to call it Marriage when that was introduced by the church? of course it has it’s basis in religion and will never change, why not call it a civil union or some other name that gives them the same rights?

    • Steely Dan says:

      01:17pm | 05/07/10

      @ DJ

      “Why do they need to call it Marriage when that was introduced by the church?”
      If marriage was introduced by a church, it wasn’t one that is alive today.  It’s a concept that goes back a lot further than Judaism.  Churches can use the term how they want to, but they don’t own it.  If they did own it, the government would have no right to use the term when formally recognising unions.

      “why not call it a civil union or some other name that gives them the same rights?”
      For the same reason women and aborigines were given the ‘vote’ and not some other word for it.

    • Cathz0r says:

      01:26pm | 05/07/10

      Doh, Marriage is simply a legally binding ceremony of commitment to one another. Your arguement doesn’t stand because there are many laws that have been adjusted to better suit our changing society. Take voting for example. Women and blacks were not allowed to vote until the ‘60s. Then the law was changed so that they could. All gay people want is to have the same legally binding agreement with one another that hetero’s enjoy. As part of destroying prejudice and discrimination, human rights people believe the laws should be changed to reflect this.

    • DJ says:

      12:13pm | 06/07/10

      @Dan - I don’t mind giving up the right to vote, really, it’s very hard waking up super early just to go to the polls as I dont care who is in as long as it doesn’t affect me directly and as I am not a minority it’s not a problem

    • CJ says:

      11:00am | 05/07/10

      Marriage should be between two people. And no-one else should give a damn about who those two people are. Marriage is no longer about the church - you can get married in a drivethrough in Vegas after all.

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      11:22am | 05/07/10

      Yet another gay marriage article on The Punch web site.

      Im starting to feel that the site has been high jacked by the gay lobbists.

      Reply

    • Dawson says:

      10:33pm | 05/07/10

      mm yes…

      OR, maybe, the writers of The Punch too have opinions… pro-equality opinions.

    • Rosie says:

      11:30am | 05/07/10

      Marriage in the dictionary: the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children. This is not for Gillard!

      Marriage - an act or ceremoney establishing this union. Again not for Gillard!

      Then it goes on. It does not mention religion, just legality!

      Gillard don’t be a hypocrite, be honest with yourself and legalise “gay marriages” You are brave enough to enter the Lodge with your boyfriend and declare yourself a non believer in God why not put your stamp on “gay marriages?” Maybe it will be not in favour with the “Polling Results”

      Reply

    • thatcherschild says:

      11:36am | 05/07/10

      Well here we go again with the gay marriage debate, held frequently on forums but never discussed in parliament.
      For those who dont “believe” in marriage equality I just ask you to consider this.
      When watching the Sydney Mardi Gras, if you look beyond the froth, frivolity and feather boas, you will see groups of Aussies, proudly gay, who are putting their lives on the line every day for you, yes, gay members of our armed forces, undertaking tours of duty in foriegn hell holes to protect us, yet some sections of our society seek to deny them equality under the law.
      Look further at those groups marching in Gay Pride marches, yes, police, ambos, medics, fire-service, every day gay people out and about doing their jobs, clearing up the detrius of this heterosexual society.
      In Melbourne we have a huge problem with binge-drinking and violence in the city, is it groups of gay people getting blind drunk and assaulting people?
      No, its packs of straight boys and girls terrorising the rest of us, yet when we send the police and medics in to clear up the mess we do it knowing that a percentage of these people doing these jobs are denied equality under the law.
      Please try and look beyond your personal bigotry - the gay community isnt a small autonomous group that live in a gay enclave somewhere in Oz, gay people form part of the fabric of this society whether theyre fighting our wars, policing our laws or wiping our arses in hospitals, the least we can give in return is equality under the law…not so people can run around shrieking “look at me Im gay married”, but to give gay relationships the protections offered to everyone else.
      Maybe when the first body-bag comes back from war containing a gay soldier the bigots will get the message.

      Reply

    • DJ says:

      12:24pm | 05/07/10

      so those of us that don’t watch the Mardi Gras don’t have to worry about it, sweet!

    • thatcherschild says:

      05:24pm | 05/07/10

      Yes, there are gays serving in our defence forces, there always have been, but in Oz, the UK and other countries gay people can serve openly, it is the USA that has the Dont Ask Dont Tell Policy.
      This why I suggest some contributors should take a close look at the groups taking part in Mardi Gras and Pride, the army, the police etc with out and proud serving members, and ask themselves why we are denying them equality under the law.
      This issue has nothing to do with religion, we are not governed by the bible, the fact is some people seem to use the bible as a rule book to be applied to everyone else.
      And before anyone goes all Leviticusy on me, yes, I know, homosexuality is described as an abomination, equal to the eating of shellfish and wearing of mixed fibres, so if youve ever eaten a prawn cocktail or worn Polyester then youre headed for hell with all the gays.
      I would also like to recommend a recent edition of ABCs Compass, a wonderful doco called For the Bible Tells Me So, made by christians for christians, which will hopefully provide further enlightenment on the whole Leviticus thing.
      Like I say, when the body of the first gay soldier is sent back maybe you should ask yourselves why gay people are fighting on foreign soil to ensure you have the freedom and protection to follow your chosen religion, yet you refuse to recognise them as full citizens under the law.

    • iansand says:

      11:39am | 05/07/10

      Some people believe marriage is about procreation - Against same sex union
      Some people believe marriage is about two people loving each other regardless of gender - For same sex union.
      Some people think that a child needs 2 parents of different genders - Against same sex union.
      Some people believe that there should be no discrimination on grounds of sexual proclivity - For same sex union.
      Some people think the whole thing is “just icky” without ttrying to intellectualise things - Against same sex union
      Believe that there is no reason to lead the community on the issue - Against same sex union
      Believe that the issue is not sufficiently compelling to divide the community - Against same sex union

      There are probably other positions.  Some of the above may not be rational or even properly considered.  For an against positions are not necessarily aligned with religion.

      Reply

    • marley says:

      09:19pm | 05/07/10

      I just reckon “marriage” should be in the purview of whatever religion you happen to belong to, but only a civil union should be legally binding, and that should be open to both hetero and same sex couples.  In other words, the State should be open to gay unions, the religious institutions do their own thing.

    • Alexandra says:

      05:15am | 06/07/10

      Correct me if I’m wrong here: doesn’t the nominated beneficiary to one’s superannuation fund override what is written in one’s will (irrespective of gay status)? Or is that just how it is administered IF the beneficiary is one’s opposite sex spouse OR same sex partner or dependent child? Who wins when will beneficiaries challenge superannuation nominees?

    • centurion48 says:

      11:54am | 05/07/10

      I don’t care who marries who and also don’t see why you cannot just go to Births, Deaths & Marriages and have the marriage registered by paying a fee. What is it with the ceremony thing?
      However, both boys and girls need the constant influence of both men and women. I don’t know how you ensure that in gay relationships.

      Reply

    • James says:

      01:11pm | 05/07/10

      Kevin Rudd’s father passed away when he was a boy - just 11 years old. If he was good enough to be voted in as PM, with a clear lack of a constant influence of a “father” (in the strictest sense of the word), then why isn’t it good enough for same sex parents to raise a child too? The point I’m making is that children look to all types of people for learning and guidance as they grow up, and prove time and again that they can live fantastic lives without a blood father or mother. They can even manage to be PM.

    • Cathz0r says:

      01:30pm | 05/07/10

      the same way they get it when in single parent families.

    • JJ says:

      02:29pm | 05/07/10

      Surely, in a ideal world we would want every boy and girl to have loving parents, a healthy example of femininity from mum and masculinity from dad. Any talk of rights has to acknowledge the rights of the kids as well.

    • Jamie says:

      09:04am | 06/07/10

      No, in an ideal world, you would want rational parents who know what they’re doing to love, protect and raise their kids. In an ideal world, you will have several masculine and feminine figures (relatives, teachers) to learn from as you grow up.

      If we are to function in ideal terms only though, more than half the existing parents in the world right now would probably be disqualified for various reasons.

    • Ross says:

      11:59am | 05/07/10

      If you and someone who feels as you do, wish to partner up let them. Call it what you like. Marriage sounds reasonable to me. Most people know what it means. I know how hard it is to go through life without a partner because of a birth defect; it is not that good so life is too short to worry about what others do behind closed doors.

      Reply

    • Robert says:

      12:53pm | 05/07/10

      Queen Victoria didn’t say that quote.  It was Mrs Patrick Campbell.

      Reply

    • Darren says:

      12:53pm | 05/07/10

      I always find it amusing when tony the tory and his ilk slag off @ gays for denigrating marriage - yet he and his cohorts are always silent when straight people have 5, 6 or 7 marriages - I would have thought that that was more disrespectful of the ‘institution of marriage’.

      Reply

    • Bitten says:

      05:10pm | 06/07/10

      Um, Darren, that would be the elephant in the room.

    • JJ says:

      12:56pm | 05/07/10

      ‘I don’t understand how they could do it, particularly when they say they are Christians.’
      I can. Might they believe a gay lifestyle is destructive? Might they believe what it says in the Bible about the issue?  Why would they encourage people set this lifestyle in stone, when they feel in their heart of hearts it’s destructive?

      Reply

    • Matt Holden says:

      01:13pm | 05/07/10

      Gays and lesbians have expended a lot of energy fighting sexually oppressive laws and practices over the past 50 years or so… and now all that energy is going into fighting for access to an institution that has been at the core of gender and sexual discrimination in our society. Forgive me, as a heterosexual person in a very long-term relationship where we have rejected marriage, if I don’t totally get it…

      Reply

    • Jamie says:

      02:21pm | 05/07/10

      Let me put it simply: You have the choice to reject it. Gay people don’t.

      Studies show that kids and teens still feel like being gay is unaccepted in society and one of the reasons is that gay marriage is not legal. Consenting adults can get married…unless you’re gay. That’s the image children grow up with. Think on that.

    • Hannah says:

      02:54pm | 05/07/10

      The option is open to you. You rejected marriage, you were not rejected from marriage.

      It’s about choice. It is about a homosexual couple having the same choices as a heterosexual couple.

    • Matt Holden says:

      01:14pm | 05/07/10

      Gays and lesbians have expended a lot of energy fighting sexually oppressive laws and practices over the past 50 years or so… and now all that energy is going into fighting for access to an institution that has been at the core of gender and sexual discrimination in our society. Forgive me, as a heterosexual person in a very long-term relationship where we have rejected marriage, if I don’t totally get it…

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      02:40pm | 05/07/10

      With all this clamor from the gay rights people, I’m starting to get scared.

      I’m thinking about getting the F out of Oz before they make being gay mandatory.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      02:55pm | 05/07/10

      “I’m thinking about getting the F out of Oz before they make being gay mandatory.”

      You’re paranoid delusional, Badger.

      But I won’t stop you.  You can rent a flat in London with Pauline Hanson.

    • Benji says:

      03:50pm | 05/07/10

      Oh dear, I think the jig is up with this one.  Damn! And here I thought the mandatory gay-ing of the entire population was such a well kept secret. (We have to find the person who leaked this information and give him an extreme makover in 17 shades of pink)

      Better put your thinking into action then, Badger.  Be very scared. We won’t rest until every hetero is turned gay. And do it sooner rather than later, please… it will mean less public opposition to the jeweled bedazzling of the opera house to make it even gay’er than it is, followed hot on the heels by government issued, fuscia embroidered waiscoasts to all defence force personnel. (...guns to be replaced with glo-sticks)

      Try and get very far away from Oz cause surrounding countries are gonna fall like domino’s after Oz is completely gay’ed.

      Yup, world domination will not be far off… there’s no place to hide really. You may as well just get it over with and just bend over now…

    • Kordez says:

      03:56pm | 05/07/10

      That’d be a bitch ae, at least the “it’s a choice” argument would be dead.

    • Peter says:

      02:58pm | 05/07/10

      I have a deep admiration for my cat. I would love to marry my cat but today’s tyrannical laws prevent this. I contacted my local catholic church and they refused to do it. Being an orthodox, i decided to contact my local church and they wouldn’t have a bar off it..

      Gillard, I want to marry my cat! What are you doing about this? My rights are being trampled on and no one seems to care? Why does the majority always have to step on the rights on the minorities?

      Gillard? Please help me!!

      Reply

    • Kordez says:

      04:51pm | 05/07/10

      There’s alot of words to describe what you are, but I’ve decided to go with nincompoop! I’d suggest you fight for the removal of beastiality laws before you consider popping the question to your pussy.
      Personally I’m not a pussy kinda guy.

    • bec says:

      04:55pm | 05/07/10

      Yes, because cats are allowed to buy property and sign contracts. Cats are entitled to the full gamut of human rights. More to the point, having sex with cats is totally legal and isn’t acknowledged as being psychologically unhealthy in the slightest by most medical, psychiatric and legal organisations.

      Awesome analogy, dude. I give it A+++++++, fifteen out of ten, and a thousand gold stars!

    • Jamie says:

      05:17pm | 05/07/10

      The comparison of homosexuality to beastiality is a sure sign of either homophobia or stupidity. Take your pick.

    • Bear says:

      05:34pm | 05/07/10

      yes, very funny and insightful. because a human’s one-way, hopefully platonic and unverifiable whether reciprocted/definitely non-consensual love for an animal is the same as a relationship between two consenting adults.

    • Tim says:

      11:27am | 06/07/10

      Obviously you guys didn’t watch QandA the other week to hear Peter Singer describe acts of beastiality that were totally consensual.
      Freaky i’ll agree, but totally consensual.
      Bec,
      you’ll also note that until extremely recently being homosexual was also illegal and was recognised as being psychologically unhealthy by most medical, psychiatric and legal organisations.

      Hey it’s not my thing but why are you bigots so discriminatory to cat “lovers” like Peter?
      Marriage rights for all hey?

    • Kordez says:

      03:29pm | 05/07/10

      The Howard Government’s stunt was disgraceful, discriminatory and contributed to the destruction of non for profit organisations efforts to increase Australians awareness of gay culture and acceptance of it. Amendment of the Marriage act added at least another 10 years to the gay marriage debate from 2004.  It is complete bull shit that a government be allowed to openly express a discriminatory opinion and outlaw access to legislation from an entire culture of Australian citizens with the promise that recognition be developed outside of the Marriage Act (Civil Union.) All this promise has amounted to is 6 year old verbal diarrhoea, from our trusted leaders.

      Despite being against dry zones in NT I understand and accept why they exist even though it is discriminative law, there has been positive outcomes within these isolated communities for some time now. What I don’t see, is any legitimate argument with evidence to suggest why gay marriage shouldn’t be recognised legally in Australia. Religious, Australian/family beliefs and values would not be tarnished and politically the same tactic as Kevie used to say sorry to stolen generations could make it happen; quickly after being elected. I hope one day in the near future this argument will turn into the acceptance other countries have had for up to 10 years now.

      Reply

    • emmgee says:

      03:52pm | 05/07/10

      Interesting,  Julia gets off scott free. Truly Teflon coated.

      Reply

    • hot tub political machine says:

      04:05pm | 05/07/10

      Rather than name calling, could those passionately for Gay marriage let me know their honest feedback on my folliwng views.

      Taking the moral arguments out of it - and also any questions about child raising - lets keep it purely legal for now.

      Marriage as a legal institution was put into law with heteosexual unions in mind - so to me it sees strange to alter a law made specifically for heterosexual couples for the sake of homosexual couples. Rather than altering a law against its original legislative intent, would it not make more sense to begin an entirely new legislative process?

      To use an analogy, isn’t altering a heterosexual coupling law for homosexual couples a bit like alterening the fisheries act instead of creatjng an argiculture act?

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      05:21pm | 05/07/10

      If you fish, you don’t necessarily reap.

    • Bear says:

      05:31pm | 05/07/10

      No, because gay people are not a different species. Marriage is about two people who love each other - and that applies irrespective of whether they are straight or gay.

    • Jamie says:

      05:42pm | 05/07/10

      This is an apples and oranges comparison.

      The fisheries act covers fishing and fishes and whatever else to do with things in the sea or rivers or whatever (I really know nothing about fishing). Agriculture act covers soil and crops and livestocks. These acts cover totally different species and areas and industries.

      Marriage covers consenting adults (note, of the same species, on the same land). Consenting adults consist of white people, black people, old people, people of different nationalities and races, and yes, gay people. By asking to create a new ‘word’ for them, are you saying they’re not consenting adults? Not people? Or they’re people, they just don’t deserve the same rights?

      (Note also that currently, a lot of rights and legalities that apply automatically with married couples are not as available for gay couples. So this isn’t just a ‘name’ issue.)

      The comparison would be more logical if you compared the original voting laws. Which was created for white people and men. So why didn’t they create a whole new law and word for coloured people and women? Why did they just amend the law to allow black people and women to vote? The same logic applies.

      Better yet, you can make the comparison to the times when white people could not marry black people legally. Why didn’t they create a whole new law for that and name it something other than ‘marriage’?


      As for name-calling: some of these points have been explained politely earlier on. Have a read through again.

    • Dylan says:

      07:16pm | 05/07/10

      Simply put: Because until Howard altered it, the definition of marriage under the law was gender-vague - it had always been interpreted as man and woman, but the actual act did not specify.  (I believe)  Howard “clarified” it so as to be a discriminatory law, by adding the phrase “Between a man and a woman”  There was a big to-do about it at the time.

      Make it civil unions for everyone. Convert all existing marriages to civil unions, and leave “marriage” the word as a purely religious stunt.  The clergy could even be empowered to a degree that marrying someone enacted a civil union (being a ceremony which, including certain words and phrases, enacted the civil union as opposed to a legal thing)!

      The important thing is that all consenting adults have access to the *exact* same rights and shoulder the exact same responsibilities as everyone else.  You could call it the legal state of NingNong and as long as everyone had the same access to it and it granted all the same rights *and* there was not another legal institution that offered similar rights but was discriminatory (ie not available to everyone).

      Even if you accept the current wording as “original intent” cast your mind back to our Federation in 1901.  How many publicly gay couples were there?  The original intent was still to provide couples rights and privileges that they would reasonably expect.  (ie inheritance of possessions, etc)  It was simply that the only marriage-like relationships that existed in the minds of the original writers were between men and women.  Not that they would have wanted to exclude people in healthy relationships from the protections and responsibilities of being married.

    • stephen says:

      04:11pm | 05/07/10

      Gay marriage is not unnatural, but simply unusual, and I don’t know why suddenly every blokes’ in love with his best mate. Are we so in love with celebrity, or standing out in a crowd, or just wanting to be noticed (or closet rebels, mind you), that 2 blokes or sheilas wanna march down the aisle showing the world that they don’t give a fig what their parents think ?
      Iconoclast, indeed, and i don’t think it’s genuine. (Love, that is.)
      Just hocus pocus, look at me, I don’t have a European car but but i am, nevertheless, modern.

      Reply

    • Dawson says:

      10:51pm | 05/07/10

      I think it’s interesting that on the end of your comment you jump to the defensive. “I don’t have a European car but but i am, nevertheless, modern.” It’s like saying “I’m not racist but… ... ...” — it isn’t really the best way to conclude an argument, either. It seems to suggest that you recognise that your views are old, and very politically incorrect. I’m not going to condemn you for your opinions, as it seems that you’re quite capable of doing that yourself.

    • Peter says:

      04:26pm | 05/07/10

      Once Gillard can get a change in the laws of physics through the senate, then i’ll support a change of marriage laws…

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      04:49pm | 05/07/10

      Who cares. Let them marry if they want. It wont last long, After all, they all change after marriage, so the gays and lesbians can be as miserable as the rest of us.

      On a serious note, I had a discussion on this topic with the pastor of the church I attend. He like others is concerned with gay marriage. I mentioned that I personally dont care what they do.

      What I do have issues with is not gay marriage,but the continual decline in morals which our pollies bring upon us. I may be in the minority here, and really dont care what others think. On this I dont mean Joolya being unwedded, but the injection rooms, going easy on drugs, underage sex, lowering the age of consent, both gay and straight.

      Reply

    • iansand says:

      06:40pm | 05/07/10

      What is the connection between gay mariage and morals?

    • Fred De Nile says:

      06:51pm | 05/07/10

      Sorry Phil,
      but your opinion must be considered in the context of ‘I had a discussion of this topic with the pastor of the church I attend.’ So, someone who believes in ‘900-odd-year-old peolpe’, ‘immaculate conception’, ‘turning water into wine’, ‘loaves & fishes’ ‘resurrection’ etc, etc, etc also believes in a ‘continual decline in morals which our pollies bring upon us’ ? Pardon me while I laugh up my sleeve.

    • Chris L says:

      07:10pm | 05/07/10

      I would point out Sweden and Holland as two countries very liberal in regards to sexuality and drug use. Both have next to no violent crime, especially compared to “morally” focused countries like Australia and America.

      I would suggest that it is our oppressive attitude and refusal to openly discuss some subjects without prejudice and judgement that leads drugs and sex to become linked with criminality. It seems to me from personal observation (which in my case is not such a great resource) that removing the stigma from forbidden fruit tends to reduce the allure. Not to mention that people entering into sexuality or use of drugs with knowledge and without feeling the irrational dissapproval of society would be better equipped to understand the experience.

    • Phil says:

      07:53am | 06/07/10

      Ian, Fred and Chris.

      My opinion is exactly that my opinion. It does not make it right nor wrong. I personally have no issue with gay marriage.

      As for gays and morals, again I have not connected the two you have.

      The issue is that our pollies work towards harm minimisation, softly softly on crime, smacks on the wrist and the lawlessness that follows worries me. I would personally go tougher with zero tollerance, but again that is only my opinion and it matters little as I am neither a member of a political party, nor considering running for office.

      I have nothing against gays and lesbians, although I only know a few.

      I dont like the way some gay men troll for sex in toilets, etc, but not all of then go about this type of lifestyle. Many find a partner and are happy with one. It has been said that some gays are more liberal with sex but again I cannot prove this given that I am straight, though a good friend worked on the door of a gay nightclub in Sydney and the sex on premises was rife. Sure it happens with some hetro men and women but to a far lesser degree. They would normally pick up and go home to have it rather than simply get it on in the loos.

    • Ants Inc. says:

      06:06pm | 05/07/10

      Oh dear, dear, dear Julia! What a pity the person who makes you ‘whole’ doesn’t seem to have been in possession of the missing half of your brain! Exactly what did you want the conservatives to ‘understand’ about christians? That the more extreme (and correspondingly ‘un-christian) the ‘christians’ got, the more extreme conservative rhetoric and practise would need to be, in order to keep their votes? And where do you derive the authority to deem the only ‘meaningful’ relationships those sanctioned by the church and/or state: ‘I don’t think until you’ve really loved and wanted to commit to someone for the rest of your days…’ So those of us who choose not to marry aren’t ‘really’ in love, according to you? I would have thought the ‘ultimate commitment’ would be to give your own life for that of a loved one, not entering into a contract with them. Just where does divorce fit into this deluded fantasy world of yours?
      You’d best get back to your pea-shelling and iconoclasting

      Reply

    • Dylan says:

      07:21pm | 05/07/10

      I think the point was that you don’t understand how important being able to get *married* is unless you have or have had the desire to get married in the past.  The fact that she said “really loved *and* wanted to commit” implies that she believes that one does not necessarily require or incite the other.

    • Ants Inc. says:

      11:04pm | 05/07/10

      @Dylan,

      actually, when I was very young I got married and subsequently divorced some years later. I don’t think the ‘desire to get married’ is anything other than the precieved pressure from traditional families and cultures, or a distorted ‘Mills & Boone’ conception of romantic ‘love’. The divorce rate indicates how many people realise they are ‘mistaken’ in their ‘desire to commit to someone for the rest of their days’.

    • Julia Thornton says:

      01:24pm | 06/07/10

      Ants Inc : I see your point. And I’m sorry that your marriage didn’t work. But you at least had the chance and choice to marry - whether you take it up (again) is a matter for you.

      The point is there are people who love and can’t marry because they have no legal right to it in Australia. If I hadn’t been allowed under law to marry my husband, I would feel angry too.

    • Shockadelic says:

      07:08pm | 05/07/10

      The reason people don’t ‘get’ gay marriage is because marriage isn’t about sex. It is a SYMBOL of the union of opposites, the wedding ceremony a public celebration of this core meme.
      Everyone keeps parroting ‘gay, gay, gay’ as if that’s the only issue. The issue is RELATIONSHIP recognition and that goes far beyond monogamous couples of any gender.
      What if two straight guys want to visit each other in hospital and inherit each other’s assets? What if a nun wants the other sisters to visit her in hospital and inherit her property? What if two flatmates, etc.
      Legal marriage itself is an antiquated relic dating from a time when:
      1. Women had no education or employment.
      2. There was no welfare assistance for spouses abandoned, widowed or divorced.
      That world is long gone. We don’t need to just add a ‘gay update’ to the marriage meme. We need a whole new ‘relationship (sexual or not) recognition’ system, weddings having nothing to do with it.

      Reply

    • Dawson says:

      11:09pm | 05/07/10

      I disagree. Marriage is no longer about one person controlling another. It has changed a lot since the days when it was used to belittle and demean women. It seems to be more of an issue of equality now, and now comes with civil responsibilities.
          I don’t think that what is needed is a rehaul of the recognition system, because it has changed with those changes in society.

    • Jean Jacques Rousaeu says:

      10:40pm | 05/07/10

      Once a person uses the term gay, they need to realise that the biblical categories cannot apply here any more.  Gay like the terms atheist or Christian belong to a time when categories mattered. Why these losers want to emulate a Christian tradition when they openly reject the ideology attached to it, is beyond kindergarten thinking. Gay is dead today like truth about anything, Why Australia is so far behind the rest of the world on contexts’ is a joke.

      Reply

    • Brewster says:

      06:01am | 06/07/10

      I could care, and I suspect a lot of christians could care less if Gays get married, what I don’t agree to is calling a same sex union “marriage” call it a civil union, call it whatever you like but it isn’t a union between a man and a woman so it’s not marriage. Call it “Gayrriage” (pron garage) for all I care.

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      11:13am | 06/07/10

      Agree Brewster, they can do what they like. But if the ultimate agenda is to force christian institutions to marry them, then absolutely no way..

    • Anthony says:

      08:06am | 06/07/10

      It doesn’t matter if you agree with the premise or not.  If someone else wants to do something (providing of course it isn’t a heinous crime), then it is not our place to tell them otherwise.  This is an issue of rights, as opposed to beliefs.

      Reply

    • Moose says:

      09:40am | 06/07/10

      Why must we insist on calling it Marriage? I don’t want to get gay married. However I do want my choice of life partner recognised in law. I couldn’t give a rats if the church approves or not, I’m not looking for approval from them, nor do I expect or even want to have the ceremony in the church. What I’m saying is, regardless of the religious groups (BTW, Marriage is not just a catholic thing) we should be able to have our unions recognised by the state. If I or my partner were to fall sick, the other would have no say in anything, or even be allowed to sit in the room because technically we’re not next of kin, which is rubbish, I don’t want to have that issue. So let them have Marriage, we’ll have something else, call it Civil Union (Highly unoriginal I know, but you get the point), but just let the relationship have some merit.

      Reply

    • Skipper says:

      10:44pm | 21/07/10

      Amending the Marriage Act is fine by me. Even better, amend the Telecommunications Act to exclude such soap box rubbish as this article…..dear oh dear, we are casting far and wide for someone to say something, aren’t we?

      Reply

    • Ethanael says:

      09:14am | 21/11/11

      Son of a gun, this is so hlpfeul!

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:27PM

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:11PM

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 09:00PM

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 08:57PM

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

41

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

60

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

39

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

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