Prev
Next

The handful of seats dictating the political agenda

Tory Maguire

by Tory Maguire

01 Dec 06:00am

Must Reads

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

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

16

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

51

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

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

123

Filed under: David Bradbury, Gay Marriage, Labor Party, Politics, Western Sydney

157 comments

It’s not entirely clear when the political momentum to consider allowing gay marriage in Australia suddenly became so noticeable. The Greens certainly helped pushed it along in Canberra with its Bill to compel MPs to consult their constituents on the topic over the summer break.

There, on the horizon, boats of floats headed for Mardi Gras! Cartoon: Peter Nicholson

But for an issue that really doesn’t have the slightest impact on the vast majority of the population, the tide does seem to be heading in a direction that could leave the two major political parties stuck on a sandbar somewhere wondering how to get off. Maybe its a sign things are travelling better than we thought, what with everyone having time to think about a social issue beyond their hip pockets.

According to a huge poll reported on News.com.au this morning, two thirds of Australians have no problem with gay marriage. Of the 150,000 people who took part nationally, 46 per cent were in favour, 35 per cent were opposed and 19 per cent couldn’t care either way. This is good news for the gay marriage lobby, but there’s a big catch.

Remember just before the election when Julia Gillard took David Bradbury, the Member for Lindsay - a landlocked electorate in Western Sydney - to Darwin to play around on patrol boats?

For the purposes of that photo shoot those boats were doing their bit to keep the good people of Lindsay, 3000 kms away, safe from illegal immigrants arriving on rust buckets from Indonesia.

It was a bizarre political spectacle that signaled in no-uncertain terms exactly where the election was going to be fought - and the only reason the Gillard team was in a position to negotiate its way into minority government was because it won the trench war that took place in a belt of seats in Western Sydney, with First Officer Bradbury as the standard bearer.

Now back to gay marriage

Julia Gillard shocked quite a few lefties when one of the first things out of her mouth after she became Prime Minister was that she was of the view marriage was “between a man and a woman” and there was no likelihood of the ALP shifting from this position any time soon.

It seemed an odd thing for someone to say when virtually her first pronouncement on becoming PM was to declare her atheism. The “man and woman” marriage argument is most often rooted in religion.

One of her most senior Minister Penny Wong even felt compelled to stick to that line for quite some time, securing the defense at one stage of Graham Richardson, who pointed out on Q and A that as part of the Labor Caucus Wong had no choice but to toe the line.

But in recent weeks, after “faceless man” and NSW Right Senator Mark Arbib decided to speak out in favour of gay marriage, Wong too has said she would work in the Party to alter its policy.

Gillard maintains the policy decided at the last ALP National Conference was to oppose any change, but has agreed to bring the next conference forward to the end of next year so another vote can be held on the floor well before she has to fight another election campaign.

And when that happens the hard heads in the ALP will be looking beyond any national figures on the issue and will be more likely to take notice of findings such as this from this morning’s News.com.au survey report:

Out of a nationwide survey, 10 of the 15 federal seats with the highest opposition to gay marriage form a wall of resistance around Sydney, with more than 45 per cent saying they do not support same-sex marriages.

And:

Anti-gay sentiment is most obvious in a band of neighbouring western and southern Sydney seats made up of Werriwa, Blaxland, Watson, Chifley, Greenway, Fowler, Lindsay, Mitchell, Macarthur, McMahon and Hughes.

Some of those seats are safe as houses for one side or the other, and you can imagine the Greens-ordered consultation on gay marriage, will be cursory at best.

But when Labor MPs such as Bradbury, and Michelle Rowland in Greenway, start reporting back you can bet the Gillard re-election team will be ready with the patrol boats, and there’ll be no rousing renditions of In the Navy.

Lindsay and Greenway were among the seats the Liberal Party considers it really should have won. Without them there’s no way Gillard could have formed government.

So those looking for an explanation for her somewhat contradictory or timid approach on gay marriage need look no further than these two seats. The rest of the country might be swinging towards liberalising the marriage act, but in this debate the rest of the country doesn’t really count.

Most commented

430Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
335Animal 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...
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

157 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • dead to me says:

      05:44am | 01/12/10

      Gay marriage? Today’s talk on nuclear energy? Gillard is all over the place man. Coming up with new issues everyweek, multi-tasking is good but my dear Miss lady coming up solutions instaed of talking about problems is the key to being a halfway decent politician. Six months as PM and zero achievements; the 1st 100 days was the greatest do nothing period in Australian political history. Queensland health goes on strike today, I though Gillard and Roxon sorted out health care, remember that issue from 2007? Hopeless, useless and pointless is the basic description of Gillard’s job performance to date.

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      06:50am | 01/12/10

      Just jumped on the telegraph to find out what you meant about Nuclear energy.

      Wow. I need to find out who the MP’s in favor of this are. They’re clearly the cream of the Labor party crop. Finally a half decent policy coming from the Labor camp.

      I can only hope it becomes official policy. Nuclear is the way forward.

    • Phil says:

      09:55am | 01/12/10

      Tim you are so right. Maybe, just maybe someone in labor with half a brain thought if we are all against carbon, then nuclear is a much cleaner method of power generation which many countries across the world are using. We should look into this rather than saying we need to tackle global warming…oops the planets cooling,  what was it called, oh thats right climate change.

      Really who cares about gay marriage.

    • isis says:

      12:18pm | 01/12/10

      Nuclear power is cheap, safe and clean. I sure don’t care about marriage - gay or otherwise. As I told the Greens today, I don’t remember voting 1 for Gay Party.

    • Josh Q says:

      12:26pm | 01/12/10

      Even if nuclear energy is the way to go don’t expect the ALP to get it right.

    • TChong says:

      12:39pm | 01/12/10

      Well isis,  I bet that absolutely floored them ( the Greens).
      BTW ,When are you returning your Koala suit?

    • Reg says:

      04:01am | 03/12/10

      Do my eyes deceive me? All these supposedly rational faux liberals going off on a tangent about nuclear power when the subject is gay marriage. What can it be about gay love that stirs their loins into consideration of powerful nuclear conjunction?

    • Jeremy says:

      06:11am | 01/12/10

      That’s what you get with single-member local electorates: some people’s votes count more than others’.

      Hardly democratic.

      Of course, if we actually had one vote, one value in the lower house - some kind of proportional representation, not distorted by States like in the Senate - this would be a non-problem. There would be no “marginal electorates” to monopolise the attention. There’d be no “safe seats” to be ignored.

      And, of course, the parliament would actually reflect how people voted, rather than a vague approximation in the favour of the big two parties.

      Reply

    • TimB says:

      07:43am | 01/12/10

      And then the parliament would become unworkable. There’s a few other major issues with your idea, but I’ll just run with this one.

      Going by the 1st preference percentages, and a bit of rough Excel calculations a proportional result in the 150 seat House of Reps would look something like this:

      Coalition 68 seats
      Labor 59 Seats
      Greens 19 Seats
      Independents 4 Seats.

      Now a few basic assumptions have been made here, mostly by rounding in place of preference flows, and by counting the independents as a party block in their own right, so like I said the figures are a little rough. But I think they’re a pretty accurate picture of what the Parliament would look like.

      Now considering we’re having enough trouble with a minority government as it is, imagine either of the big two trying to form a minority government with the numbers they have there. It’d be nigh-on impossible. Nothing would get done.

    • persephone says:

      09:02am | 01/12/10

      Or how about voters simply taking their duties in a democracy seriously, and voting for the candidate who they think will best represent them, rather than just blindly voting for a particular party or its leader?

      If they did this, there would be no safe seats, because each candidate would be judged on their merits at each election.

      And there’d be no parachuting in of candidates, or giving them a seat as a reward for services rendered.

      If voters are too lazy to compare the credentials of half a dozen people, ask some informed questions and make an intelligent, informed source, don’t blame political parties for the outcomes.

      Of course, the fact that voters don’t feel the need to even go to that minor effort suggests they like the system the way it is, despite their whinging.

    • Drew (Darlinghurst) says:

      06:36am | 01/12/10

      As a Gay Man I dont need some Heterosexuals telling me whats Right and Wrong.

      Same Sex Marriage is a basic Civil Right. As Marriage itself by the vast majority of Australians is a Civil Ceremony.  Only a small minority today get married by a member of the clergy.

      Bulid a Bridge people.

      Reply

    • Tombowler says:

      08:57am | 01/12/10

      As a straight man I don’t need some homosexual telling me what basic civil rights are.

      After spending the past 30 odd years asserting both your locale and clarity (apparently that you are both ‘here’ and ‘clear’ are the two main points for consideration) the attention-seeking has leaped to attaching the status of ‘basic civil rights’ to things that are neither ‘basic’ nor ‘rights’.

      I really couldn’t give a s#$% whether you and your boyfriend get married, divorced or whatever but I seriously resent this vile harping about ‘civil rights’.

      The issue ain’t civil rights; your rights aren’t being impinged on. Nobody has the right to marry someone of the same sex or a different species etc. You are offered the same right as everyone else which is to marry someone of a different sex. You choose not to because you aren’t attracted to anyone of the opposite sex. I choose not to because I spend too much time fishing.

      I am not allowed to marry the concept of fishing in the abstract.

      This is not a denial of civil rights; this is me choosing not to exercise a right because I am not particularly interested in the peripheral requirements of the right.

      What should, however, be a basic civil right is protection from the sort of capitalization you have used. I shall immediately lobby the UN to amend the ICCPR forthwith…

    • MarK says:

      09:06am | 01/12/10

      Drew I am on your side in this issue.

      Without any passion whatsoever

      Pro tip

      You start talking like that and you will find your support slipping to single digit num,bers. Don’t be so precious. Grow up.

      Marriage is not “a right”

      All you are doing is confirming you don’t really want the ability to marry you just want something because you don’t have it and are crying like a 5 year old denied their ice cream.

      Shhh. Let the grown ups talk about it

    • Dann da Man says:

      09:17am | 01/12/10

      Hey Drew!  a gay mariage is NOT normal. Mariage has always been between a MAN and a WOMAN .
      Plus it is NOT a Basic Civil Rights issue-wake up you one eyed typical gay person. You should only be Legally reckonized as a couple without a doubt. No offense meant.

    • StefanR says:

      09:22am | 01/12/10

      @Tombowler Marriage confers legal rights on a relationship. Access to legal institutions is a civil right.

    • TChong says:

      09:34am | 01/12/10

      Tom, “with a different species” I hope thats a miss type.  Are you really equating a gay relationship with beastiality ?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      10:04am | 01/12/10

      Drew :  ” Same sex marriage is a basic civil right. ”  No it is not.
      Hetrosexual marriage is the only legal status that is a basic civil right.
      The Gay intent is to put a legal cloak over gay marriage and respectability on to an act against the order of nature.

    • Tripper Smurf says:

      10:13am | 01/12/10

      @StefanR.  So does defacto relationships these days.  Getting married does not confer any special legal abilities that a living will or other arrangements cannot also provide

    • Sven Gali says:

      10:20am | 01/12/10

      I think you might enjoy this, TChong.

    • Tombowler says:

      10:47am | 01/12/10

      @TChong

      No it’s hardly the same thing but when you consider it objectively:

      1. Aside from issues of ‘consent’ it is essentially an alternative form of relationship. Some of us might not be into it but then again- the majority of us are heterosexual and aren’t attracted to members of the opposite sex

      2. It’s illegal but legality and morality are rightly divorced. Homosexuality was once illegal and deemed morally wrong- the same case with bestiality at the moment. Social attitudes were rightly changed by the homosexual movement.

      3. How is it logically correct to argue that marriage should be abrogated for one particular type of alternative relationship whilst casting moral judgement on another simultaneously… a tad hypocritical perhaps?

      @StefanR: Homosexuals are granted access to the legal institution provided they follow the requirements and do so with a partner of the opposite sex; similar to my inability to bring an action against a defendant in the abstract. (You cannot litigate against cold weather for example)

    • StefanR says:

      10:54am | 01/12/10

      @TripperSmurf actually, power of attourney, hospital visitation and the like are not coferred by defacto relationships but are by marriage. These are things that affect people’s lives.

      You might claim that these things can be obtained separately, but forcing one section of society to jump through hoops to get the same legal rights that another group can get for free is quite unjust.

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:37am | 01/12/10

      @ MarK

      “Marriage is not “a right””
      But equal treatment under the law is.  Technically, owning a car is not a civil right.  But if the govt decided to take cars off a minority - lets say Hindus - would you be wagging your finger at the Hindu community and telling them that car ownership is ‘not a civil right’?

      @ Damn da Man
      “Hey Drew!  a gay mariage is NOT normal.”
      Inter-racial marriages are not normal.  They’re definitely in the minority. 

      “Mariage has always been between a MAN and a WOMAN”
      True!  But we can change that.  Voting used to be for white men only.  Then we changed it.

    • andy says:

      12:04pm | 01/12/10

      @TomBowler Bestiality? Seriously? When an animal can consent let me know, then you will have a point. In the meantime, stop peddling out the most moronic comparison imaginable.

    • Joan says:

      12:07pm | 01/12/10

      Drew ; No it`s a hetero rite…. so hands-off. Do what you like- but hands-off hetero marriage rite…. it is hetero right to keep it that way

    • TChong says:

      12:08pm | 01/12/10

      Sven , yes, the olde shacking up with a baboon joke, an oldey, but still a good’un

    • Matt Chandler says:

      12:09pm | 01/12/10

      @Tombowler. You obviously havent been listening very well . We are “here” and we are “queer” you moron. Now you juast toddle off back under your rock and let the real people get on with it. And look I apologise for calling you a moron, but you clearly are.

    • Alice says:

      12:26pm | 01/12/10

      @ Dann da Man: Who are YOU to decide what’s normal and what isn’t? Being homosexual may not be as common as being hetereosexual, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t “normal”.

      @ Wayne Fehlhaber: Re: Gay marriage being an act against the order of nature: you’re aware that many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour, aren’t you?

      @ Tombowler: To address one of your (numerous) red herrings: a homosexual only being able to marry someone of the opposing sex is like a heterosexual only being able to marry someone of the same sex. Legalising gay marriage is about an additional right, not saying, “everyone conform to the right we already have.” If you’re so obsessed with fishing, why do you even care if gay people can marry? How does it affect you?

    • Wayn e Fehlhaber says:

      12:59pm | 01/12/10

      Alice :  We are human beings not animals. If you believe that gays should act like animals then perhaps they should be locked in cages somewhere appropriate.

    • Alice says:

      02:01pm | 01/12/10

      @ Wayne Fehlhaber: Seriously, Wayne? I merely pointed out that homosexual behaviour clearly is NOT against the order of nature, given that both humans and animals engage in it.

    • Steve says:

      02:24pm | 01/12/10

      @Alice just because something occurs in nature doesn’t mean it’s ‘natural’ or what nature intended. A lot of things occur in nature that are not especially good for the species. From a biological point of view physical attraction is for the purpose of procreation - something which is not naturally possible with a same sex couple in any mammal species that I’m aware of. So I really don’t buy the whole argument that it’s natural just because it happens in nature.
      In any case, none of the gay people I know are religious and marriage is a religious rite. Some people who are non religious get married because of tradition much as many non religious people give easter eggs, but as long as they’re not actually forcing changes on the religious practice there is no cause for complaint from religious people. If the issue about equal rights then give gay couples the same legal recognition as married couples without them having to be married. Do the same for defacto hetero couples for that matter. I see no reason for non religious people to hijack and change a religious practice. Legal regognition of any couple without regard to sexuality and without the need for marriage should be sufficient.

    • Steely Dan says:

      03:35pm | 01/12/10

      @ Steve

      “just because something occurs in nature doesn’t mean it’s ‘natural’”
      Actually, that’s exactly what ‘natural’ means.

      “... or what nature intended.”
      Who is this nature, and what is their intention?  Unless you’re trying to claim proof of a god, you might want to steer clear of ascribing intention to natural processes.

      “From a biological point of view physical attraction is for the purpose of procreation”
      Does it hurt others to have non-procreative sex?  Or to get married without the ability or intention to procreate?  Of course not.

      “In any case, none of the gay people I know are religious and marriage is a religious rite.”
      It’s both a religious and a secular rite.  If it were solely a religious rite the government would have no say in marriage at all.

      “but as long as they’re not actually forcing changes on the religious practice there is no cause for complaint from religious people.’
      Well there you go, you’re not anti-gay marriage after all.  The state does not (and cannot) force churches to officiate or recognise gay marriages.  Just as the state cannot force churches to officiate or recognise mixed-race marriages, inter-faith marriages or wacky themed costume marriages.

    • Jack says:

      06:24pm | 01/12/10

      I agree with Steve. People should be forced to do what is best for the biological survival of the species. No more condoms or contraception pills and rape to be legalised!

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      06:29pm | 01/12/10

      Steely Dan :  I note from your various posts that you oppose Christianity and back Gay marriage. Curious…...

    • Mox says:

      07:19pm | 01/12/10

      We have a bridge, can you build one that doesnt offend people.  Why do we always have to please people that complain about everything.

    • PaulB says:

      09:58pm | 01/12/10

      Wayne you really are a nasty piece of work.  You are actually crossing the (real) homophobia line with some of your ranting.  Something you’d like to tell us dearie?

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:09am | 02/12/10

      @ Wayne

      “I note from your various posts that you oppose Christianity and back Gay marriage.”
      I do oppose Christianity.  And all other religions for that matter.  However, I’m one of those hippy weirdos who respects personal freedoms and the Constitution.  So I would never force my non-religious views on others.  And in an ideal world, the religious would never force their religious views on others.

      “Curious…”
      Weird, huh?  It’s almost as if there were no secular reasons to oppose gay marriage.

    • Nathan says:

      01:36pm | 02/12/10

      I agree with you Steely Dan.  The Constitution of Australia says you can practice religion freely - it does not say you can seek to shove it down other people throats.  How stupid is saying that being gay is against the law of nature! That is just a totally stupid thing to say.  If Christianity teaches hate against gay men and women - then Im against it also and I want the Goverment to bring on some decent social reform - like marriage for all… not just the breeders of this world…

    • I wish my brother George was here says:

      01:43pm | 02/12/10

      Tombowler

      You keep saying “you choose” not to marry a person of the opposite sex and “you choose” not to be attracted etc.

      Its not a choise - thats the point.  Gay people don’t choose to be gay just as Hetro’ people don’t choose to be hetro.

      Just because most people are hetro does not mean its normal.  It is a state of being and the way that god made them.  Just as god may gay people gay (god is a clever lady like that)....

    • Anne says:

      08:26pm | 03/03/11

      Wrong Drew, we all need GOD to tell us what’s right and wrong.  God says all illicit sexual activity is wrong.  “Nothing unclean shall enter Heaven, neither adulterers, fornicators or other unclean persons.”  His commandments are all for OUR good.

    • David says:

      06:44am | 01/12/10

      What a waste of time listening to the bullshit on gay marriage . WHO EFFING CARES anyway . Methinks it is a distraction to get the focus off important stuff like nuclear power , building damns , safe roads , very fast trains etc etc .
      The way things are going in this country we will all be gay in a 100 years or so and providing cheap labour for our conquerers from the near east .
      Australia is becoming a very weak country with no border protection .
      Our ‘’ friends ‘’ are licking their lips .
      WAKE UP YOU QUASI INTELLECTUAL TWITS BEFORE YOUR LATTE GETS COLD !!!!!!

      Reply

    • Cloud Strife says:

      09:10am | 01/12/10

      David - a lot of people DO care about the inequality of marriage.

      As for the rest of your post, it’s so xenophobic, it doesn’t bear commenting on.

    • Too hot to stop says:

      12:18pm | 01/12/10

      David, dont you get it? We invaded this land and stole that which is rightfully Chinese…

      But gay marriage will strengthen our society - gays will transform events like mardi gras into something more like a church picnic of the 1950’s, and will dedicate their lives to one partner - atleast that’s their promise.

    • Joan says:

      06:47am | 01/12/10

      Victoria Labor lost ... after Bronwyn`s Pike passionate address at the pro Gay Marriage seen on Channel 7 night news 20th November. Pike passionately, loudly, directed support of gay marriage and said she would do everything to make it happen if she and Labor were elected. Pikes presentation style, strident., loud . made it quite clear and made it the item of the day on the news that night.  Pike`s addrress turned the tide in Carrum, Frankston, Mt Waverley, Bentleigh to the Liberals.

      Reply

    • StefanR says:

      09:29am | 01/12/10

      Evidence?

      I’d wager that anyone (i) opposed to gay marriage and (ii) so opposed that they vote based entirely on the party’s gay marriage platform would not be preferencing ALP above the coalition under most circumstances.

    • Beau says:

      09:41am | 01/12/10

      Somehow I think that had to do with much more mundane issues like roads, railways and power prices than anything to do with the gays. The anti-gay type people, as Stefan highlighted, would already be voting for one of those activist minority parties like the Family First Party or the DLP (given that even the Victorian Liberals aren’t anti-gay).

    • Joan says:

      12:22pm | 01/12/10

      Bronwyns rant was the final push that pushed people to Liberals, not the sole reason ..... parties lose when MPs put on such raging rant as Pike did -it scares people into action.
      As for evidence ....the Liberals won…the cards tumbled in the last week for Labor…. everyone was amazed ... the only thing that happened was the Pike raging rant.

    • Reg says:

      04:25am | 03/12/10

      I cannot help noticing the irony of a party that regards itself as liberal, seeking to restrain those of liberal aspirations.

    • persephone says:

      06:59am | 01/12/10

      Tory

      alternatively, if the figures supporting gay marriage are so high, you could claim that it’s voters determining the political agenda, and politicians merely doing their job and responding to this.

      Which is what democracy is meant to be about, you know.

      Reply

    • CaptainCrunch says:

      09:05am | 01/12/10

      Y’know figures supporting more money for at home disability carers is so high you would think that this would be a determining factor in the political agenda.


      But is not. This is blatant pandering to the Greens. There are so many more issues to be debated of far higher importance.

      You know this.

    • MarK says:

      09:07am | 01/12/10

      No

      one

      really

      cares

    • Beau says:

      09:43am | 01/12/10

      i’m gay myself and i’m actually agreeing with mark here. its a non issue for most of the population (and even most gay people who find the activist fringe somewhat embarrassing)

    • Ask a stupid question says:

      10:29am | 01/12/10

      Apparently the voters in Lindsay and Greenway care, as those of you who’ve read the article will have noticed.

    • Joel says:

      12:02pm | 01/12/10

      I’m gay and not into any inner city scene or gay club. I live in rural NSW and find these city gay people who run around with their hands in the air screaming at the tops of their lungs about gay marriage an embarrassment It gives unpretentious, non gay flag waving gays a bad name. Not all gays are pro gay marriage (me included). And not all gays are screaming queens looking for attention. Most people I meet aren’t aware I’m gay, I’m not ashamed to tell anyone I’m gay but these precious queens that would rather run around in a tu tu and scream about rights give me the shits and give other unpretentious, not so obvious gays a bad name. Stick to your drag shows drama queens. Marriage is for mummy’s and daddy’s.

    • HT says:

      02:38pm | 01/12/10

      You’re right everyone. It shouldn’t be an issue, it isn’t an issue, why not just let gays get married? i cannot see any rational reason (outside of the Churches claim that marriage is a religious institution which can be easily refuted in so many ways) that gays should not be allowed to marry each other. The only reason it continues to get so much airtime, why people continue to discuss it, is because it isn’t legal. Let them get married and we’ll all move on.

    • Gavin says:

      03:15pm | 01/12/10

      Joel, I pity you for your self-loathing.  You’re ok with the fact that your government would deny the same level of recognition of your relationship to which it would grant to a heterosexual relationship.

    • Steely Dan says:

      03:39pm | 01/12/10

      @ MarK

      So you’ve posted a response to a comment to register your indifference.  Is there really nothing else you could be doing instead?  Have you changed your smoke alarm batteries recently?

      Methinks you declare your apathy too much…

    • Chris says:

      04:37pm | 01/12/10

      Joel:

      Am I to take it that any gays that support gay marriage are tu tu wearing screaming activists? I am also gay and from rural area and do NOT consider myself part of the gay scene. But guess what, I still stand up for equality and the idea that two consenting adults who love each other and want to enter into a relationship for life should be legally to marry if they so choose. The majority of the community feels the same way but their elected officials are too scared to do anything. I agree that this really is a waste of time and a complete NON issue. Just legalise it already and stop wasting peoples time and money.

    • Fred says:

      07:01am | 01/12/10

      People don’t like the Christian lobby influencing public matters and politicians. Maybe after this is over, thanks to a very effective gay lobby (btw, 1% of people are gay, not 10%,  says The Guardian in a recent survey), we can all get along a bit better.

      Reply

    • Beau says:

      09:57am | 01/12/10

      it’s actually about 7%-8% in reliable surveys. thats fairly consistent with my observations through the state high schools i went to, out of a year cohort of about 220 that would be about 15.

    • Fiddlesticks says:

      04:48pm | 01/12/10

      Errr…no.

      Something under 3% identified as non-heterosexual in Australian surveys in 2002 and 2006.

    • Tom says:

      04:54pm | 01/12/10

      As a Raiders supporter I don’t agree with St George winning the NRL. It does not go away because I don’t like it though.

      As a Christian, I don’t agree with homosexuality and I actually believe being gay is the punishment not the crime. It does not go away because I don’t like it though.

      If homosexuals “marry” in the eyes of the law, it may reduce aids.

      Gays being “married” in the eyes of the law of the land is not going to harm anyone as far as I can see?

      The church I go to would not recognise homosexual marriage and nor would dozens of other religious institutions (including Muslims).

      I believe gays want to be banned as it gives them victim status and unwarranted attention. My experience is that heterosexual people are not as in your face when it comes to announcing their preferences.

    • AJ says:

      07:05am | 01/12/10

      I think the main reason same-sex marriage is getting so much press is because the issue generates “passionate” discussion from both sides of the debate.

      And possibly also because it is the one issue currently in the press for which there is an “easy fix” since all it would take is a minor amendment to the Marriage Act to legalise same-sex marriage. The nonsense about passing a motion to tell MPs to do their jobs (that is, talk to their constituents) was highly comical, but at least it got the community talking.

      I think it’s also fair to say that everyone understands that it will come down to the self-interest of the politicians and that if Labor can’t comfortably allow a conscience vote on legalising same-sex marriage and guarantee they won’t lose any seats, then it will not happen.

      Reply

    • Red Ted says:

      07:20am | 01/12/10

      Its no surprise gay marriage supported by the majority. Marriage is a conformist institution whose main function is the preservation of the status quo. Property rights, access to superannuation and Centrelink benefits are the reasons behind this “push”. The bizarre thing is that it is seen as “progressive”, and the thing the Greens considered most important of all as soon as they gained some power

      Though since the Greens at the local level seem to confine themselves to Nimby-ish property rights issues, maybe that’s not so strange at all.

      Reply

    • Mox says:

      07:34pm | 01/12/10

      Gay people can recieve centrelink payments.

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      07:38am | 01/12/10

      Put it on a referendum ticket and let the public decide rather than the politicians. The Greens can pay for the lobbying on this themselves rather than using the Australian taxpayers to fund it by directing our politicians to pro-actively seek advice from individual their electorate constituents about it.

      Reply

    • Beau says:

      09:49am | 01/12/10

      the trouble is the AEC would probably go broke on the postal budget trying to fine all the millions of australians who didn’t bother to vote if you did that.

    • grumpy old man says:

      07:55am | 01/12/10

      well, its a useful side bar that will distract people away from the real issues such as the ever increasing cost of living, poor state of health care , public law and order, failing States, the apparently unstoppable decline into serfdom for the majority of the population.

      Reply

    • Holly says:

      08:07am | 01/12/10

      Proportional representation is the answer, then you would not get the outcome we have in Victoria with the Nationals gaining 10 seats in parliament with less than 7% of vote statewide while greens with more than 10% get no seats.  Greens really should have far more seats federally to truly represent those who voted for them.  I say this though I am not a greens supporter but I have no problem with a party being in coalition with the greens - after all that is what Victorian liberals would have been prepared to do and sure as fate if it came to the push Liberals would do that at Federal level if it meant being in office.  There seems to be an element of adjustment disorder Tory.  I mean to say if public opinion is in favour why bother mount this spurious argument.

      Reply

    • libertarian vegetarian says:

      09:32am | 01/12/10

      This is the same crud pedalled after the federal election.  The greens stood a canditate in vitually every seat. The Nats only stood a candidate in a small number of seats. Therefore on a per candidate/per seat contested basis the Nats got about 3 times as many votes. One could also say that when given the option to vote National, around 30% of people did. When given the option to vote green, only 10% of people did.
      After the federal election, the same misinformation was put around about the Libs/Nationals vote dropping etc.  Was it stupidity or dishonesty that neglected to factor in that the LP and the NP are now combined as the LNP in Qld and therefore neither the LP or NP stood candidates in QLD?

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:41am | 01/12/10

      @ libertarian vegetarian

      “The Nats only stood a candidate in a small number of seats.”
      Because of deals struck with the Libs.  Do you really think the Country Party - sorry - the National Party would have captured anything more than 1% in the inner city seats?

    • Cat says:

      08:16am | 01/12/10

      I would be far more impressed if we had this level of debate about an issue which actually mattered - such as the rights of the disadvantaged and disabled in our society.
      I have no problems with the idea of legal civil union for same-sex couple but there are far more imortant things we need to worry about and the time and space given to this and other “gay rights” issues is just a way of avoiding the far more important and difficult issues.

      Reply

    • Hamlyn says:

      09:49pm | 01/12/10

      The problem is that if gay marriage wasnt an issue right now, more important things still wouldnt be debated or solved. We’ve already heard all about the problems with the river Murray - no solution. Not being gay myself I cant understand the opposition. It wont affect me. Just let them get married and save a lot of time and money.

    • Scott says:

      08:17am | 01/12/10

      Issues like this are generally given high publicity priority when real issues that tend to impact negatively on the country are being decided in the backrooms. One has to wonder what is going to be announced within the next couple of months.

      Reply

    • Drunk Guy says:

      08:19am | 01/12/10

      The Gay marriage debate is a smokescreen, one in which Bob Brown is now claiming no ownership by declareing that he may not even “marry” his life partner, what the. . . .

      People do not understand the whole issue of Gay marriage, they don’t understand exactly what the gays like Bob Brown actually want and what they will be forcing on the chruches or attempting to by changing the marriage act or that a raft of laws relating to the union of marriage are not geared to same sex couples, or that Gays percieve that there are so many benefits to be had by being married rather than having a civil union and using their lawyer to acheive the same result of the committment of marriage.

      I think if people were really told exactly why gays want, specificly “marriage” to be redefined in the act, and what they actually want (not just same as everyone else because they have civil unions right now , same as everyone else) by trying to force mostly religeous celebrants to have to go against dogma and perform a ceremony of marriage for two husbands or two wives.

      I also fear that the intent of the change to the marriage act is to ensure automatic right to adopt children into gay relationships, something which i am adamantly against because to my mind it doesn’t give the child a reasonable chance at a natural life experience nor does it allow for freedom of choice for the child who will in effect be brought up in an alternative lifestyle. Scary.

      Reply

    • Cloud Strife says:

      09:24am | 01/12/10

      @Drunk Guy
      You would have to be well sloshed to think that a non-het couple raising a kid “doesn’t give the child a reasonable chance at a natural life experience nor does it allow for freedom of choice for the child who will in effect be brought up in an alternative lifestyle. Scary.”

      I find these opinions to be incredibly scary!! If you think being raised by two loving parents who happen to be the same gender is going to not give a child a “natural life” or not allow for “freedom of choice”, you must then, by your line of thinking, also be against single parents, or any sort of adoption at all. If your partner dies or you split up, too bad. Take that kid off them and make it a ward of the state! We don’t want them to have unnatural life experiences, after all.

    • Fred says:

      10:34am | 01/12/10

      @ Drunk Guy - Majority of weddings in Australia are secular (last I checked it was 60-something-percent) also I don’t think a change in the marriage act would force priests into marrying same-sex couples, I’m pretty sure if it’s a religious ceremony, the priest or whatever can dictate how it all happens. 

      Also married or not, it does not effect adoption rights of gay people

    • William says:

      10:34am | 01/12/10

      Hey I was raised by a dad and a mother in a hetrosexual marriage and guess what, I ended up being gay. Why is it that a gay couple with a child can’t raise a hetrosexual child?

    • AJ says:

      10:59am | 01/12/10

      I think it’s far to say that any amendment to the Marriage Act to legalise same-sex marriage will be passed at the same time as amendments to the Anti-Discrimination legislation which will ensure that religious bodies can freely refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies and also prohibit same-sex couples from using their places of worship to hold marriage ceremonies. At no point has Bob Brown or any other politician in favour of legalising same-sex marriage indicated that same-sex couples could force churches to perform their marriage ceremonies.

      Same-sex couples are already permitted to adopt in NSW, ACT and WA. Same-sex couples are actively sought as foster parents in most, if not all, States and Territories throughout Australia. Same-sex couples are already parenting, whether those children were created from a prior heterosexual relationships, IVF or surrogacy.

      Even if same-sex couples could adopt in ALL States and Territories throughout Australia, the number of unknown adoptions would be minimal. And being gay or lesbian would automatically exclude same-sex couples from most, if not all, intercountry adoption options, so they wouldn’t have that option either. The vast majority of adoptions by same-sex couples would be for step-children or similarly “known” adoptions where the adoptive parents are already living as a family with the children.

    • interloper says:

      01:11pm | 01/12/10

      I think there’s a distinction between whether gay couples are allowed to adpot and whether the gender imbalance can be considered an issue. I am stongly supportive of gay couples being able to adpot when this is in a child’s best interests (for instance, where one is a parent of the child or has a strong existing relationship with the child). At the same time, I think the ideal is for a child to be brought up by loving parents of each gender, so I think it’s fair enough that this be one of the many factors considered when adoption is being decided.
      This issue aside, it’s an argument about language. No rational person thinks that homosexual couples should have any fewer rights in their relationship than heterosexual couples, or platonic ones for that matter. What does the word ‘marriage’ mean, though?

    • nosthow says:

      08:20am | 01/12/10

      Gay marriage is another issue Tones Abbott has an issue with. I remember him being interviewed some time back and struggling to even say one good word about gay people. Never in the history of the Liberal Party has there been a more out of touch with the community leader than Abbott. Climate Change is crap also he said ! How then does this man ever hope to win in electorates where say gay people predominately live - e.g. say the Newtown area of Sydney. To win government in Australia you have to engage with ALL the voting public and reflect their concerns. As the survey you mention Tors says two thirds of Australians have no problem with gay marriage - sadly Tones Abbott is in the other third that puts their own shoddy Catholic religion, where the Pope is worshiped, above everyone else. My advice to Abbott is to cut and run while the going is good - open “Tones Budgie Smugglers Shop” at Queenscliff - maybe nosthow will come and model the latest skimpy “budgies” for the ladies Tones - you and me in partnership fella! hahahhhhhhhhh

      Reply

    • Ben C says:

      11:35am | 01/12/10

      Christ nosthow, you really have it in for Abbott, don’t you?

      To quote you: “To win government in Australia you have to engage with ALL the voting public and reflect their concerns.” Definitely did not see your beloved ALP doing that either. How many seats did they drop at the last election?

    • Kelly says:

      12:06pm | 01/12/10

      Wasn’t the first thing Julia Gillard said as “Prime Minister” the Labor government does not support same sex marriage?

      I’m confused how this is different to Tony Abbott not supporting gay marriage. Care to explain?

    • randomscrub says:

      02:53pm | 01/12/10

      to win government you only need to engage 51% of people, whatever ‘engage’ actually amounts to ... less if you campaign strategically in the marginals and the electoral boundaries are working in your favour ...

      anyone for a gerrymander?

    • PaulB says:

      08:23am | 01/12/10

      Gay marriage remains a classic distraction issue.  There is always lots of chatter from people for whom it is ultimately irrelevant except as a means of displaying loud and often ignorant opinions, but it is not of any consequence to the majority who have other, closer-to-home concerns.  It also must never be resolved in the affirmative because that would ruin it as a distraction/media issue.  Were it to be resolved in the affirmative it would then cease to be of much interest, and would revert to just being the business of those doing the marrying, and the occaisional outburst from the overly religious.

      Reply

    • Warwick says:

      08:25am | 01/12/10

      Tory, this is a very obscure column. What is your point? What is the connection between boat people, married gays, and the electoral seats of Western Sydney? Are you saying that Gillard is becoming more friendly to the idea of gay marriage so that the folk of Western Sydney will see that the new housing estates in their localities will be filled with married blokes from Darlinghurst instead of heterosexual Afghanis?

      Are you saying that, although her own private leaning is to give the gay community everything it wants, she is restraining herself because she thinks that if she were seen to be pandering to the gays she would alienate the knuckle dragging neanderthals of Western Sydney? Which is probably true, but what does that have to do with the navy’s patrol boats?

      You haven’t simply padded out your column with waffle, have you?

      Reply

    • AdamC says:

      08:31am | 01/12/10

      Gay marriage has simply become one of those left-wing totem issues. There have been heaps of them in recent years: apologising to the ‘stolen generations’, asylum-seekers and logging ‘old growth’ forests being the most prominent (aside from gay marriage, of course).

      It would be interesting for someone to do a serious study about why these seemingly peripheral issues loom so large. I suspect it has something to do with their binary, aye or nay character: they aren’t especially complex or nuanced and therefore lend themselves to rabble-rousing.

      They also speak to fairly strong and basic emotions.

      As to the whole westminster, constituency-based election approcah, there are way more goods than bads about it. And, realistically, the power of marginal electorates is overstated - they are simply where the swing voters tend to congregate.

      Reply

    • Fred says:

      10:42am | 01/12/10

      AdamC, if you even had the ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes, say, those on the receiving end of the apology, or an asylum seeker, or any other minority group which you lack any empathy for, maybe then you would understand why these ‘totem issues’ actually are important to some people.  A minority of people, definitely, but still no less important.

    • AdamC says:

      12:13pm | 01/12/10

      Fred, you are demonstrating my point. I am actually quite able to empathise with others despite not buying into simplistic left-wing ideas about indigenous reconciliation or boat people.

      You can’t outsource your own character to government policy-makers, Fred. Political correctness and personal virtue are quite different things.

    • Nathan says:

      03:20pm | 01/12/10

      Adam C - I’ve voted for the Liberal Party all my life and I’ve been a member for almost 30 years.  I beleive in same sex marriage, I beleive in helping asylum seekers, I beleive in a woman’s right to choose about her own body, I beleive we should have said sorry to the stolen generation years ago and we should not, by the way, be logging old growth forrests.  I also beleive its a crying shame that my party has gone to the right of Gengis Khan - but that does not mean Im taking my bat and ball and going home!

    • Nathan says:

      03:49pm | 01/12/10

      grin I also can’t spell beleive - opps!

    • AdamC says:

      04:04pm | 01/12/10

      Nathan, I don’t think the Liberal Party has gone to the right of any of the Mongol rulers. Many of these totem issues weren’t even on the radar thirty years ago, when you joined the Liberal Party, especially not the gay marriage and indigenous apology ones, which are the most peripheral and, oddly, also the most energetically-pursued.

    • Rosie says:

      08:37am | 01/12/10

      Tory, this has been my point all along and thanks for pointing it out 6 months after Julia Gillard, overnight under controversial circumstances became our first atheist, unwed, childless female PM.

      “It seemed an odd thing for someone to say when virtually her first pronouncement on becoming PM was to declare her atheism. The “man and woman” marriage argument is most often rooted in religion.

      One of her most senior Minister Penny Wong even felt compelled to stick to that line for quite some time, securing the defense at one stage of Graham Richardson, who pointed out on Q and A that as part of the Labor Caucus Wong had no choice but to toe the line.”

      Yes it seems odd for a PM that doesn’t believe in God, in marriage and is childless could make “gay marriage” a dominating social issue over health and education, which concerns all Australians.

      If the PM was really comfortable in her own skin, she would fight for “gay marriage” without any hesitation, not waste time waiting for another consensus from the people before taking action.

      Why is she in a dither when all Australians know that she is the PM in alliance with the Greens trying to govern with a minority Govt and to remain in power will have to please the Greens.

      Please can Grahame Richardson apologise to that innocent lady on Tony Jones’s ABC Q&A for rudely interruptlng in defence of Penny Wong because in the Labor caucus “marriage is between a man and a woman.”

      Reply

    • Sven Gali says:

      10:39am | 01/12/10

      Congratulations on yet again managing to link any topic whatsoever to your unhealthy obsession, Rosie.

      By the way, I know I’ve asked before, but as you haven’t replied, I’ll ask again.

      How do you feel about “unwed”, “childless”, “living in sin” Deputy of the Liberal Party Julie Bishop ?

    • Rosie says:

      11:00am | 01/12/10

      Answer to your question Sven Gali!

      Don’t know & don’t care because she is not the PM of Australia, representing all Australians here at home and abroad!

    • Sven Gali says:

      11:44am | 01/12/10

      Just as I thought. Nothing to do with her being Deputy of the Liberal Party then.

    • chungo Mung says:

      08:39am | 01/12/10

      And if we went past a two party preferred game, then perhaps a broader outlook and approach to issues could eventuate. At the moment you either have to like ‘chocolate’ or ‘strawberry’ for your political flavors which cannot represent or express the diversty of ideas in this country because all politicians have to toe the line. Much about our central systems could change, perhaps a bit of continental in our legal system? But too often frightenend conservativism holds back progress, and change is seen as radical. Change is a true constant, but many peoples natural response is to repel change.

      Reply

    • Simon says:

      08:47am | 01/12/10

      “But for an issue that really doesn’t have the slightest impact on the vast majority of the population”

      You are kidding right?

      if you beleive that altering the definition of marriage won’t have an impact on the rest of the population you must be asleep.

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      09:37am | 01/12/10

      What impact, exactly?  How will it affect you?  Is your current marriage so tenuous that gays getting married will force you to act on some underlying homosexual tendency?  Outside that, I find your comment hard to understand.

    • Davida says:

      09:41am | 01/12/10

      Some married people cheat ( forsake all others?), some separate/divorce/remarry ( ‘til death do us part?) and yet this in no way impacts on the vows I took, the validity of my marriage or marriage as an institution.  How will altering the definition of marriage “impact” on the rest of the population exactly?

    • Macka says:

      09:49am | 01/12/10

      @Simon

      You seriously think that ‘altering the definition of marriage’ will have an impact on the population…seriously?

      The only people ‘impacted’ are marriage celebrants, because as soon as it is passed, every gay man, woman and dog will be at the alter saying ‘look at me, I’m gay and getting married’ - whoop de doo. 

      I’m pretty sure that the population would rather focus on major social issues, (i.e. health, infrastructure, energy, water, inflation and interest rates) rather than worrying about whether Simon can marry Dave.

      We can move a motion to pass gay marriage once every other major social issue is sorted out, and we have a Government who knows what ‘budget’ means. Move to California if you’re not happy…oops they overturned it there didn’t they!?

    • CaptainCrunch says:

      09:00am | 01/12/10

      It seems to me to be all about a “word”. This “word” is marriage. It is defined as a union between a “man and a woman”.

      Why do the gay lobby want a heterosexual word for a union? I would have thought with all the creative genius in the “gay” world that someone would have come up with a new word for a gay union. Then you could say that “Bobby and Danny” are getting “_________” .

      The term “gay Marriage” just seems so boring.

      But I suspect it is not about the rights of gay& lesbians, but more about trying to destroy mainstreams traditions and customs just for the sake of it by a bunch of cynical anti - religion activists.

      Make up a new word people! Sort it out quickly and get back to more important things like, the economy and at home carers.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:17am | 02/12/10

      @ Captain Crunch

      “It seems to me to be all about a “word”. This “word” is marriage. It is defined as a union between a “man and a woman”.”
      So we change the definition.  Just like we changed the legal definition of ‘voter’ to include women and aborigines.  No more problems!

      “Why do the gay lobby want a heterosexual word for a union?”
      Why did women want a masculine word for picking their elected representatives?

      “...but more about trying to destroy mainstreams traditions and customs just for the sake of it by a bunch of cynical anti - religion activists.”
      Is this yet another admission that the anti-gay marriage movement is religiously motivated?  Shock!  Horror!  And does gay people getting married harm heterosexual marriage?

    • Tim says:

      09:16am | 01/12/10

      I disagree with the conclusion of this article. If the government changed the Marriage Act to allow gay marriage—as it definitely should—then opponents would quickly forget about it, as they would realise that it doesn’t affect them anyway. Unless it happens just before an election, which it won’t, then Labor shouldn’t be worried about it.

      A greater concern should be failing to act on this and continuing to lose thousands of progressive votes to the Greens. Are they really prepared to do that given the influential position that the Greens’ Adam Bandt has found himself in?

      Another prospect is that this will come down to a conscience vote supported by the Coalition, in which the Coalition wouldn’t be able to “blame” the Labor government for changing the law. Surely there are enough Liberal MPs who support change to force a conscience vote if Labor decided to go down that path.

      Reply

    • MarK says:

      09:30am | 01/12/10

      This is starting to look ugly.

      Over Christmas Gillard has to work out

      1. Gay marriage - a non issue turned into one

      2. ETS/Climate Change - the Mexican jaunt is a fizzer. Contrat it to the stark choice we had at Copenhagen. What was it - “x” hours to save the world? Well the world is still here and our contingent to Cancun is 35 - down from 114 under Rudd to Copenhagen. Times change I guess.

      Still The Greens are screaming because Combet wants to limit the cuts to 5%. Why are we doing anything? I mean gosh ..... a whole 5% symbolic (shambolic?) carbon gesture. The Greens are howling because they claim China is reducing emmissions/doing more than us. Farcical.

      I even heard Windsor on the radio this morning saying China builds a coal fired power station every week but shuts down an old one every 10 hours. He hastened to add he has not seen the proof of course. When questioned by the host about the level of interest in climate change in his electorate he gave the usual giggle and said not much. Never comes up.

      Tax that and have fun Julia.

      3. Mining tax no where near resolved.

      4. Labor backbenchers wondering aloud about nuclear stations for power generation. Hahahaha. Bet the Greens didn’t see that in the fine print of the alliance they signed. Try having a reasoned debate on that come July.

      5. Banking mess not sorted.

      6. Boats boats and more boats. Lips being sewn together by detainees. Detainees rioting and escaping. Detainees moving into the Adelaide Hills. The issue of the abuse of the unaccompanied minor loophole. The highest number of refugees EVER in detention.

      Oh the irony. Where is Burnside and the other hand wringers accusing Gillard f being a monster, a violator of human rights. A piece of scum…...you get the picture. Hypocritical assholes.

      And now we have the Libs coming in withj an actual soulution and a track record of stopping all of this mess to add to her pressure.

      7. Stevens already starting to publicly say that national savings need to be put in place for bad times ahead (hellooooo NBN spending)

      8. The NBN. Has not even started yet. The business case must stink. You have to believe it is fertile ground for the opposition. Hell we are even looking at the aesthetics (rightly so) of the build now. Gillards performance where she ridiculed the Nat pollie who brought up a concern form a member of the public will not play well if a mess is made.

      9. Labor falling like dominoes in ths states. In South Australia they need police protection to protect them from….you guessed it….that nice lot of ordinary Joe’s the progressive thinkers of the union movement. Hell the deputy goes out on the town, tries to pick up and gets smacked for his trouble. Really?

      What is it about the left and violence anyway?

      And that is for starters.

      She has a mess on her hands. A great big mess.

      And the year has not started yet.

      Good luck with it. Getting focus groups to give any semblance of structure and decisiveness out of that lot will be impossible.

      We all know she is not capable of the postion she was elevated too by the backroom boys. This coming year will show that fact definitively.

      Reply

    • Saskia says:

      09:36am | 01/12/10

      Interesting to see the redneck attitudes coming from majority immigrant suburbs.  Also the map of the world with its attitudes and the horrifying fact that all of our illegal immigrants (by boat anyway) come from nations with stone-age views on marriage and women.  How are they to assimilate into our society when they believe gay marriage is punishable by death?

      I look forward to the usual band of legal twits trying to justify gay marriage AND Australia’s acceptance of bigoted and racist immigrants!

      Reply

    • Eddy says:

      09:39am | 01/12/10

      How does a gay person getting married affect the general population?

      It doesnt!

      So let them get married.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:23am | 02/12/10

      @ Eddy

      But don’t you see?  If we let gays get married, then it opens the door for people to be forced to marry cats!

      Whoa.  Sorry, I think the bad arguments are rubbing off on me.  In all seriousness the ‘harming the institution’ people are nonsensical.  A gay marriage cannot affect a straight one - unless one or more partners in the straight marriage is actually gay and has been holding out for gay marriage to be legalised to come out.  I have my doubts this applies to a significant portion of the married population.

    • Gregg says:

      09:50am | 01/12/10

      I think your heading says it all Tors for with Gillard being PM courtesy of a Green and Independents she is just facing reality and that is to have a chance of her remaining in power without challenge or the next election defeat she does at the very least have to not lose any further seats.
      Thus she will be tugged hither and thither by many forces not knowing any less than she is whether she is Arthur or Martha abd so dithering on many issues.
      What must be disconcerting to her is that her troops do not relaise the dilemma the party has to retain power but then again perhaps some do and have their own agendas.

      Reply

    • Jason says:

      09:55am | 01/12/10

      It’s the Liberals and Greens who are using gay marriage as a wedge issue to attack Labor.

      Reply

    • Sociologist says:

      09:56am | 01/12/10

      Drawing on the work of Durkheim’s The Sacred and Profane (1956), we can critically examine the argument of marriage being a sacred institution. Objects, places, individuals and ideologies that are regarded as sacred possess significant social authority and power are often protected from critical analysis. They symbolize values that are deeply woven into the structure of a society and provide the basis for social institutions and practices. We can conclude that sacredness is however not intrinsic and anything can be considered sacred as they are only symbolic representations of ideas and morals held at that time. This further suggests that ideologies of family and marriage are not fixed and are adaptable.

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      10:08am | 01/12/10

      I don’t give a toss whether or not gays or anyone else for that matter go through the expensive charade of Marriage. The vast majority end up in bitter divorce so what’s the point of it.
      It will be interesting to see just how many of our MPs actually DO CONSULT with the people within their electorates. My bet is that most will simply brush it all under the carpet & do nothing.
      I await with eager anticipation the Federal Member for the SA seat of Mayo, one-time staffer & architect of John Howard’s Work Choices, Jamie Briggs, sending out a questionnaire to me & my friends. My bet is we will wait a very, very long time.

      Reply

    • Royston says:

      10:38am | 01/12/10

      This is a matter of equality - every man and woman has an equal right to be miserable.

      Reply

    • popesicola says:

      10:42am | 01/12/10

      What is making these pollies are so perplexed over this proposal of gay marriage is the fact it is giving a section of the community a FREEDOM now this goes against their grain they are programmed to take freedom not give it the Australian parliaments have been in ban mode for the past ten years all connected to religion of course

      Reply

    • Alannah says:

      10:49am | 01/12/10

      I personally couldn’t care less if gay people want to get married or not; i’m not gay and i never will be. aboriginals wanted equal rights and we gave it to them so i guess in one way we owe it to gays the same rights; in my heart i know being gay isn’t what i call normal however with more and more people claiming to be gay maybe it is time to change our opinions. There are other sides that will be taken into account things like centrelink will now be able to question two chicks or two blokes living arrangements because that will be part of gay rights. People will have to prove they aren’t gay because at the moment centrelink don’t question two chicks or two blokes living together in a relationship i do think that is very unfair. So bring on the gay rights things might not be so rosie after all.

      Reply

    • Ben C says:

      11:56am | 01/12/10

      Agree Alannah, gay people should be entitled to the same privileges as hetersexual people, but they must also face the same consequences as heterosexual people for their actions. They want equality, they’ll get equality - in all forms.

    • Your nameandy says:

      12:19pm | 01/12/10

      @alannah @ben haha, what? yes im sure this is going to be a HUGE issue.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      12:24pm | 01/12/10

      Centrelink and DVA *already* does take same sex couples into account when processing entitlements.

      So basically, same sex couples get all the legal drawbacks of being a legal couple already, and none of the benefits.

    • Sodapoppy says:

      10:51am | 01/12/10

      OK, let’s have homosexual ChurchCelebratedMarriage. Then for all to see, line up Bob Brown, Penny Wong,  Michael Kirby and all their mates to toe the Altar. They asked for it, let ‘em have it!

      Reply

    • Heather says:

      10:59am | 01/12/10

      Most people are so stupid. Don’t you realise that this is another of the ALP’s distractions deliberately aimed at getting the electorate all riled up over exceedingly trivial matters, to avoid discussing anything important, i,e.; nuclear power (pro), stuffed river systems (fix), climate change (over it, fund innovation), cost of living (too high), public transport (a joke), carbon tax (will raise cost of living)?  I used to not care about gay marriage, but now that there is so much fuss being made over it, I have decided to oppose it, for the main reason that the whole issue has just become so irritating.

      Reply

    • Hamish says:

      04:06pm | 01/12/10

      Agree Heather. There are actually some serious issues out there and really the gay lobby should realise it’s not a great time to be bringing up a debate that has largely descended into an argument over semantics.

    • Anjuli says:

      10:59am | 01/12/10

      It would be interesting ,once they get equal rights to see how the divorce rates would be compared to heterosexual couples.

      Reply

    • Dan Larkam says:

      11:11am | 01/12/10

      ROFL!. How was the poll conducted? If it was a news.com.au online polls, then the result (and your story) can’t be taken seriously. Who are most likely to participate in an online poll on gay marriage? Ummm, gay people? You don’t think the poll has bias?

      Reply

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      11:35am | 01/12/10

      As long as it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything, I’m all for legalising gay marriage…..

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      03:58pm | 01/12/10

      Not only will it not cost the taxpayer anything, it’ll bring more revenue into the hospitality and tourism industries - weddings and honeymoons are generally expensive outings.  Equality and $.  Bring it on!

    • Kika says:

      11:42am | 01/12/10

      I don’t really care who gets married. If gay people want to be married, why can’t they? I believe that we shouldn’t really decide who can get married because there’s a LOT of people I know who shouldn’t be married, but because they are a man and a woman the state doesn’t care. What’s so sanctimonious about marriage anyway? If gay people want marriage so be it. But why would they WANT marriage?? What’s so good about it anyway? Yeah it provides security but nobody could seriously say it’s a sacred institution these days when people everywhere treat it so flippantly.

      Reply

    • Anna C says:

      11:42am | 01/12/10

      The Labor Party has traditional, working class, Irish Catholic roots hence Julia Gillard’s refusal to endorse same sex marriage. If gay people want same sex marriage badly enough I suggest they start joining the party and lobbying for change from the within.

      Regardless of what the polls say I still think most in the community do not care enough about this issue to force change. Change on issues like this, that can effect the fabric of our society, should be from the ground up. I have not seen any groundswell for change yet in the greater community. I don’t think that this issue is even registering on the radar of most people I know. While I do think that gay people will be allowed to get married in a few years time I just don’t think that time has come yet. You always find that during hard economic times (which it is for most of us except maybe miners)  people are too self focused on keeping their heads above water financially to care about issues like gay marriage. 

      In the meantime, the Labor Party would do well to concentrate on more pressing matters if it wants to increase its support in the polls such as: border control/asylum seekers; housing unaffordability; tax reform; banking reform; cost of living pressures etc etc.

      Reply

    • Fiddlesticks says:

      11:47am | 01/12/10

      Yep, Dan. A little digging shows it was the news.com.au “Votamatic”, the Murdoch in-house online pushbutton poll.

      Practically useless, all these things. Unknown and unknowable selection bias, plus very easily fiddled by mutiple voting “swarms”.

      Polls like this have one use only: feed the trolls. Works just dandy.

      Most of my submissions are getting canned at present.  Lets see if this one gets up.

      Reply

    • Alfred Deakin says:

      11:49am | 01/12/10

      Can the people who claim same-sex marriage is a massive vote-changing issue please explain to me why the only two parties who supported it (Greens and Sex Party) got less than 11% of the vote between them at the Victorian election?

      Reply

    • David says:

      12:00pm | 01/12/10

      OK, so the argument is that it’s OK to discriminate against a minority since there aren’t many of “them” so who cares?
      Would you say the same thing about discriminating against aboriginies, asians, disabled people, or senior citizens?  Because these ‘minorities’ have all had discrimination lifted against them over the last few decades.

      Reply

    • TEA taxed enough already says:

      12:02pm | 01/12/10

      If we’re going to become a society that values state-enforced equality, lets have gay marriage. But when did being an Aussie mean letting the government tell us what to do, rather than us telling the government what it can do for us - namely, get out of our way!

      BTW, gay couples are radically different from hetero couples. Therefore the Marriage Act will have to be redefined to cater for the 0.15% of marriages that are same-sex. Honest gays will admit that they’re to unique to be pigeon holed into the old idea of marriage. But that they can still be good parents.

      This is your government.

      Reply

    • peter says:

      12:05pm | 01/12/10

      Australia has a population of 21.8 million people. so 150,000 is around .7% of the population. less than half of this ‘poll’ was in favour of it. how is this a ‘huge poll’? Gay marriage is becoming a smoke screen for the government’s continued failure to govern this country.

      there are plenty of other issues that need to be looked at before this…

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      01:59pm | 01/12/10

      Peter,
      have you ever heard of a survey sampling? the 150k people chosen are representative of the rest of the population.  This is how it works in election polling..  if done properly can be quite accurate.

      And for your second point, its not a smoke screen for the labor party..  they dont wont to deal with it, same as the libs.  its a distraction for them.  They know they need to focus on economic issues, hence why the PM has been anti gay-marriage since she was elected. 

      Next time you comment, you might want to comment on something you actually know something about.

    • Fiddlesticks says:

      03:29pm | 01/12/10

      News.com Votamatic is certainly *not* a representative sample survey, not in any shape or form.

      Who told you that? Did you bother to check or find a source?

      It’s just a digital push-button poll.  Look it up.

      It simply isn’t possible to get a sound representative sample with an online pushbutton affair. Not at all.

    • Chris D says:

      12:13pm | 01/12/10

      @Tombowler, thank you for some clarity!
      @MarK, well said!
      There is a small percentage of the Australian population that is gay, and of this small percentage even fewer are in a long-term relationship.  Of this fraction, it could safely be assumed that there is only a fraction that are in a position to actually want to get “married”.  So, my question is this;  why is this such a National issue?  Also, why do people (hetro or homo) feel this need to keep claiming “rights” and “laws”?  We all have exactly the same rights, and we are all Governed under the same laws.  It is that simple.  There is no argument here, and no discussion to be had.  It would seem the whole gay marriage movement is way out of line, making absurd claims that no right minded citizen should or would rationally make.  If you want/need to get married so badly, go and do it somewhere where it is legal, and tell all your friends about it when you get back.  Enjoy the holiday too!

      Reply

    • Steve says:

      01:51pm | 01/12/10

      Chris D
      Its a national issue, because federal parliament needs to amend NATIONAL laws (marriage act) to allow same-sex marriage.  Thats not going to happen unless we have nation wide support.

    • Luke says:

      12:28pm | 01/12/10

      Yeah, totally agree. A total non-issue. And guess what, despite seemingly popular belief, it is not the so called gay lobby that makes it an issue. It is scared little unthinking people with nothing more but some worn-out slippery slope arguments. Grow the &^%$ up. I mean, when do we get to vote on your marriage? Huh? Tired of you people…. (oh, and while I’m at it, Teresa Gambaro, would you be so kind as to vote according to your statements in the future? Cheers.)

      Reply

    • toitoi says:

      12:38pm | 01/12/10

      Ok.. this is probably a good example of why me and many others like me come to Australia! In South Africa, a country largely seen as a very conservative society, this is such a non issue that its been legal since 2006! This means that thousands of hours of debate and some action could be spend on REAL problems that affect every body! Come on people - seriously lets move on! Some people make less than obvious choices - so let them!  Lets deal with things that really are meaningful.

      Reply

    • PJ says:

      01:43pm | 01/12/10

      Who is pushing this agenda?———-Left you got it .This bill when passed will allow Mr Bob Brown and Ms Penny Wong to marry their partners Paul and Sophie. I don’t care less, but the big picture involves adopted children. DOCS are busy enough now!

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      01:44pm | 01/12/10

      Firstly, to Wayn e Fehlhaber says:(12:59pm | 01/12/10)  Human’s are animals - but I don’t suppose you will ever believe that as I suspect you would think that Charles Darwin is the anti-christ and that the world was made by god in 6 days.  I can’t believe there are so many mornoic bigots left in the 21st century.  Marriage is just a legal construct and the law can change.  Marriage should be for all - so it is for all human kind not just the hetro’s out there.  Also, if marriage is only for those who can make babies - when are we going to ban infertile hetro’s from marrying?  We aren’t - its just an excuse for people be justify their bigotry.

      Reply

    • I wish my brother George was here says:

      01:46pm | 01/12/10

      I thought it was 15% of the population were something other than hetrosexual… Look at it this way.  If we are made in the image of god, at 15% of human kind is something other than hetro, then 15% of god must be Queer.  problem solved grin

      Reply

    • Peter says:

      03:04pm | 01/12/10

      I can assure you that it’s higher than 15%, it’s just most people don’t want anyone to know their true persuasion. As a gay guy I can tell you there aren’t as many totally hetro men in this world as you think. Society is still trying to come to terms with the truth. The majority of str8 men I’ve met have admitted attraction or thought about other men after a couple of beers.

    • cynical1 says:

      01:12am | 02/12/10

      Peter says:

        03:04pm | 01/12/10

        ¨ I can assure you that it’s higher than 15%, it’s just most people don’t want anyone to know their true persuasion. As a gay guy I can tell you there aren’t as many totally hetro men in this world as you think. Society is still trying to come to terms with the truth. The majority of str8 men I’ve met have admitted attraction or thought about other men after a couple of beers¨.

      Peter old chap, where are you meeting these straight men?
      A public toilet?

      A majority of straight men, after a couple of beers?

      Yeah, right.

    • AdamC says:

      08:50am | 02/12/10

      Peter, I think you’re way off.

      I am not sure what the stats say but, in my experience, maybe 5-10% of the male population is gay (drunken crushes on one’s friends notwithstanding). Lesbianism seems less common (maybe not if you include the Anne Heche and Lindsay Lohan variety).

      Of course, this is Australia. In non-western countries, the incidence of self-identifying gays would be much lower. (Though, no doubt the incidence of drunken attractions would be much higher!)

    • Fiddlesticks says:

      01:25pm | 04/12/10

      15%? Nup! 10% Nup! 5% then? Nup.

      The stats say, consistently, under 3%, guys or gals.

      Claims wildly to the contrary simply reflect the restricted circle of aquaintance and life experience of the source. And grown men aren’t much -if at all - prone to “crushes”, drunken or otherwise.

      We’ll just have to face facts.

      The idea that there’s a happy (or miserable) gay, secretly aching to be liberated inside most hetero guys and gals, is just fantasy, nothing more..

    • Julian says:

      02:12pm | 01/12/10

      Two blokes and a cocker spaniel don’t make a family!

      Marriage is between a man an a woman. I don’t see any real reason why this should be changed. Same sex unions are simply civil unions.

      Attempting to change the Marriage Act is a direct attack on the fabric of society. The vast majority of society is not gay. Some heterosexual members of society may say ‘i don’t care about it’ but are they just being pc…. what are their true feelings. The vast majority of our ‘married’ friends covering a wide demographic are against gay marriage, not because they don’t approve of gay relationships, but because they feel the meaning of marriage will be eroded

      Reply

    • Nathan says:

      02:23pm | 01/12/10

      Oh pet… you odviously don’t see any reason why this should be changed because you’re hetro and therefore selfishly don’t think about other people.  The law does not discriminate against you - so why bother changing it!!!  If we all thought like that we would not be able to have interracial marriage as most Australian’s are white.

    • Ben says:

      02:34pm | 01/12/10

      I suppose a man and a women and a cocker spaniel do?  If your point is that marriage is for making babies, they Im sure that you would agree that heterosexual people who for what ever reason are infertile, should also not be allowed to marry.  You would agree with that Julian - after all I am sure you’re not a bigot are you….

    • Steve says:

      03:06pm | 01/12/10

      Julian,
      How will the marriage of 2 loving adults affect your marriage or the meaning of marriage?  Wont it still be the ultimate commitment between 2 loving adults?

      what exactly are you afraid of? whats your worse case scenario? How will we destroy the fabric of society? 

      Did you make these same arguments when society gave women/Aboriginals the right to vote/decriminalised gay sex?

    • WELL DONE says:

      02:14pm | 01/12/10

      The only thing to consider in a “gay marriage” is who is the pin and who is the cushion. By the way, who gets the headache?

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      02:31pm | 01/12/10

      After reading through these posts, I have a headache.  Does that count?

    • St. Michael says:

      04:05pm | 01/12/10

      Allow gay marriage.  Why should a multitude of miserable heterosexual couples suffer alone? wink

      Reply

    • Lucas says:

      04:20pm | 01/12/10

      Why do people insist on having to be married? and why does it have to be a Government recognition? Surely it’s time to move on, look at the divorce rate, how many people do you know that are staying with someone only because they are married? If you truely love someone you don’t need a certificate. And it should have nothing to do with the Government if you do get married.

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      04:25pm | 01/12/10

      I can’t believe this has become such a big issue!
      Firstly, I have no issue with Gay couples being recognised as a couple and having the benefits that married couples have. I’m all for this in fact.
      It makes sense that they be bound by law when pooling assets,  sharing a life together and in the possibility of a break up.
      That said, I still believe Marriage should be a Heterosexual institution with the intention of it being a Husband and Wife that will most likely at some point raise a family. Whilst I am a Christian, I have nothing at all against Gays and while I don’t agree with the life style- I still have Gay friends and get along with them famously… I would never treat them any other way.
      Leave Marriage to Hetero’s give Gays the rights they deserve and leave it at that. Equality is not in title alone.

      Reply

    • Richard The Lionheat says:

      09:01am | 02/12/10

      A gay couple, married by a female Bishop in Europe or North America arrive home and turn on the lights powered by a nuclear power station. They have a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down and no one gives a toss anymore. Get with it Australia!

      Reply

    • Ben says:

      10:27pm | 02/12/10

      Tory says this is an “issue that really doesn’t have the slightest impact on the vast majority of the population” – but that’s what lesbian feminists said about expressive divorces (and we are still paying the cost). Aren’t there enough fatherless families in Australia and in our jails? This piece is propaganda.

      Reply

    • Andrew of Mornington says:

      07:37am | 04/03/11

      What a load of absolute bullsh*t! So we overturn our society, our ageless traditions, our morals and endanger future generations, just to appease the tiny number of mincers who are throwing a screaming hissy fit, just because they’ve chosen their lifestyle and have to endure the consequence of not getting married? What are they, little children?! This is what I say to them: dry your eyes and harden the f*ck up princess!

      Reply

    • Andrew of Mornington says:

      07:38am | 04/03/11

      What a load of absolute bullsh*t! So we overturn our society, our ageless traditions, our morals and endanger future generations, just to appease the tiny number of mincers who are throwing a screaming hissy fit, just because they’ve chosen their lifestyle and have to endure the consequence of not getting married? What are they, little children?! This is what I say to them: dry your eyes and harden the f*ck up princess!

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 26 May 12 01:27PM

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 01:27PM

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 12 12:52PM

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 12 12:44PM

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

8

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

46

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

24

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