My name is Sandy and I am a fiancée, mother, friend, and primary school teacher.

Happy families

My gorgeous fiancée of two years, Louise, is an ex-nurse who now works as a medical equipment consultant to hospitals. We have two beautiful boys from my previous marriage – aged 11 and 9.

We are a loving and close family, just like any other. Except in one way: my partner and I are both women so under Australian law, cannot marry. Many people do not regard us as a family.

Louise and I have tried over the years to prepare our children for the reality of our circumstances and the discrimination they may encounter. We want them to be prepared and confident, strong and proud of our family.

We have tried to create understanding and patience towards others who don’t know us – yet see fit to label us – in the hope of preventing anger and fighting.

Our youngest often asks us, “Mummies are you going to be engaged forever? Why don’t you get married?” It’s been hard trying to explain that our Government won’t let us get married.

Dylan came home one day and told me that kids at school had been teasing him, telling him that we are strange, that we are not a family. I was worried he was hurt and angry. When I asked him about how he felt and responded he said:

You were right Mummy, they don’t understand, so I didn’t get angry I just explained it to them patiently. I told them like you told me – that families come in all shapes and sizes and that not all families have a mummy and a daddy.

Some have only a mummy or a daddy, some have only their grandparents or two daddies or like mine two mummies. A family only needs people who love each other. There is nothing wrong with my family we love each other and we are a family.

We have never been prouder than we were right then, and we knew that somewhere at some time we must have done something right as parents.

My oldest has often had similar experiences and he has found it harder. I will never forget what he once said to me:

Mummy the government are like our teachers, they need to set a good example for everyone else. If they don’t accept us a family, then other people won’t either.

This is why we continue to hope and fight for marriage equality. We don’t want to be considered special or better than anyone else, we only want the same rights as every other loving couples – the right to be legally married. 

As an adult I know how hard it is to hear people abuse me and make assumptions about me based on the fact that I am in a same-sex relationship. It would be so much harder for a young child or young adult to cope with, whether they themselves are gay or in a family with gay parents. I know the government has laws that are supposed to protect individuals against any discrimination, but these seem tokenistic.

Thanks to GetUp and Australian Marriage Equality I now have the opportunity to share my story and my concerns with the Prime Minister.

As part of a charity auction, we won a dinner with her at the Lodge in Canberra. Louise and I will be there with other couples in same-sex relationships, and we’ll be able to ask her directly why the Government sees my relationship as less important than others in our community.

I’ll ask her why she and others in heterosexual relationships are more deserving of marriage than we are. I’ll ask her what I should tell my children when they ask when their mummies will be married.

Until the Government legally recognises that same sex couples are no different to heterosexual couples and should have the same and equal rights in every area in life including marriage, this discrimination will never end.

The Government must take the first step and set the right example for all others to follow.

Join the campaign for marriage equality here.

323 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Erick says:

      06:04am | 17/06/11

      So many, many articles about gay marriage, which merely a matter of terminology. The whole campaign is about the meaning of one word, nothing more.

      I would like to see a campaign for real marriage equality. A campaign for men to have the same legal rights in marriage and divorce as women do, enforced by an unbiased legal system.

      Unfortunately, an issue of discrimination against fifty per cent of the population is overshadowed in the media by an issue of nomenclature that is of interest to a handful. Such is the political agenda of the mainstream media: pro-gay, pro-female, anti-male.

    • Wil says:

      06:40am | 17/06/11

      At 6.04am you felt the need to write that rubbish as a response to this heartfelt article.  Well done!

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:06am | 17/06/11

      @Wil I agree with Eric

      Who gives a toss?

      2 million living in poverty

      Men taking their lives in ever increasing numbers

      And all we have to read is this shite!

    • Joan says:

      07:12am | 17/06/11

      `Heart felt`? I don’t read that My heart feels for kids denied knowledge of their father and the other half of their gene pool. This story is all about Sandy and Louise fullfilling their desires and using their kids in their attempt.

    • Pete says:

      07:18am | 17/06/11

      obviously Wil you feel strongly about the rights of people regardless of gender to be able to enter into a legal relationship recognised under law and that those people have the same rights as everyone else. A commendable stance.  Erick on the other hand feels strongly about the rights of people in a legal relationship and that those rights need to be equal. also a commendable stance.
      So why do you dismiss his position to be rubbish when it is not that different to your own?

    • Al says:

      07:31am | 17/06/11

      @ ZSRenn ... you may (or may not) be interested to know that the reason a lot of young people kill themselves is because they are gay!

    • S.L says:

      07:45am | 17/06/11

      Erick you are spot on. One of my employees is a woman in a same sex relationship. They both have kids from previous “straight” marriages and have lived together for 11 years. Their kids (3 boys and a girl) have experienced no teasing about their mums and the idea of marriage is the last thing on their minds as they are happy just being together.
      The kids see their dads regularly and life goes on….........

    • Stephy says:

      07:50am | 17/06/11

      I’m with Erick.

      @Al - Want to place a little wager? I’ll bet the statistics for suicide are higher in divorced men who’ve lost everything to their ex-wives, including their children. The ABS state that the highest group of suicidees (if there is such a word) is men aged between 30-39. Hmm….

      Next, I want dinner with the PM, so I can convince her if things I believe are right and bully her into making them legal.

    • Kevin says:

      08:00am | 17/06/11

      @Erick
      If you don’t think the issue of gay marriages is important then don’t comment on an article about gay marriages.
      The quality of discussion on the Punch would improve considerably if irrelevant posts were weeded out.

    • Tedd says:

      08:08am | 17/06/11

      Legalising gay marriage will free up media time for these other societal issues.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      08:15am | 17/06/11

      What has this got to do with gay marriage?

    • sir ronald bradnam says:

      08:25am | 17/06/11

      ahh ZSRenn…. my personal stalker, dug up any secret info on me with your crazy searches again.
      Actually I give a toss, looking at it from a humanistic approach rather than a blinkered sky fairy zealot approach she has very good points that are important and relevant to her and i would love to see julia squirm whilst asked these questions.

    • Bev says:

      08:31am | 17/06/11

      Joan says:07:12am | 17/06/11

      `Heart felt`?
      Exactly.  They have a father but do they get to see him?  We are not told. Perhaps they do I hope so.

    • Al says:

      08:54am | 17/06/11

      @ Stephy: the stats for queer youth suicide are grossly underreported as most of their family and peers will not have known their “secret shame” as they see it ... the men who have “lost everything” at least had the chance to live something resembling a life to begin with!

    • rachel says:

      09:29am | 17/06/11

      @ZSRenn
      Urgh. I am so so sick of people asking why we are focusing on gay marriage when there are so many important issues out there like 2 million people living in poverty. Of course there are more important issues! To say that we should ignore gay marriage because there are bigger problems is so incredibly frustrating. People and governments are capable of thinking about, and dealing with, more than one issue at a time.

    • kate says:

      09:35am | 17/06/11

      @Joan, you haven’t the faintest idea whether these children have been “denied knowledge of their father and the other half of their gene pool” or not, and in any case it has nothing to do with whether or not their mothers should be allowed to marry.

      Or do you suggest that straight people who adopt should be banned from marrying unless they promise that their children will have a relationship with the birth mother?

    • RJB says:

      10:03am | 17/06/11

      Agree Erick, the Punch continues to champion their cause ad nauseam. This little golden book heart wrencher is just a bit too much for me to read to completion but I offer this advice to the author, if you want your sons to steel themselves against the ridicule from their peers, get them to drop the mummy bit from the vocabulary.

    • neil says:

      10:24am | 17/06/11

      @Kevin having an opinion that something is not important is just as important as agreeing with it. Typical of the leftists, if you don’t agree with me your opinion should be shouted down.

      I think Erick is right, it would be easier to pass a bill that sorted the legal issues without tackling the M-word. Then a simpler solution to appease both side is to use the word marriage for church services and all civil services should be called civil unions. This wont stop straight couples refering to themselves as married so why should it worry gay couples.

    • TChong says:

      10:40am | 17/06/11

      neil
      shouting down opinions you dont agree with isnt restricted to “Leftists”
      “Rightists” are pretty good at it too.

    • Reggie says:

      11:01am | 17/06/11

      “if you don’t agree with me your opinion should be shouted down.”

      From another of the table-thumping “name-callers-anonymous.”

      From Sandra’s older son ...“Mummy the government are like our teachers, they need to set a good example for everyone else. If they don’t accept us a family, then other people won’t either.”

      Unfortunately, (unlike teachers,) governments reflect the community they represent. There is obviously considerable division in the community and there is only one loud voice to be heard. That of the religious right which is also connected to the political right via their attachment to the Head of the Church of England.  The Queen. The smaller voice for community acceptance comes from those who justifiably challenge community values.

    • Snake says:

      11:20am | 17/06/11

      “Our youngest often asks us, “Mummies are you going to be engaged forever? Why don’t you get married?” It’s been hard trying to explain that our Government won’t let us get married. “

      Firstly, if that is what the kids are asking, there are problems.

      Secondly, I like how the author managed to make these 2 children, from a previous marriage, to a man, “our”. By inferring they belong to 2 lesbians, the author manages to create the illusion of family because it has its own kiddies. Nice trick, but like all illusions it isn’t so fancy once you see how it works. A mesmerising party trick a marriage does not make.

    • HappyCynic says:

      11:31am | 17/06/11

      @Erick

      At least men can choose to get married or not.  If men want equal rights in marriage, they’d better ask for it from their wife, not whinge and whine constantly on every blog about their poor lot in life.  Grow a pair of balls for f*cks sake.

      Can you also explain how if there are 2 childless people getting a divorce, you get a 50-50 split of the assets (as long as it’s determined that the contribution from both parties is considered equal) so how is it that men don’t have equality in marriage or divorce?  Is it because of the kids and who is determined as the primary care-giver?  If the father is declared the primary care-giver the mother pays child support.  While this doesn’t happen much it’s only because most families still assign traditional roles and responsibilities to males and females.

      If the law is gender-biased, point specifically to where it is biased (sections, paragraphs, lines) otherwise STFU.

    • Bruce says:

      11:56am | 17/06/11

      Thanks to ‘get up’, my first question would be, “Why did you say there would be no carbon tax under a government I lead ??”

    • Erick says:

      12:25pm | 17/06/11

      I note that most feminist counter-arguments boil down to “STFU!”.

    • Kevin says:

      12:47pm | 17/06/11

      @Neil
      There is an open forum in which Erick can post his tediously predictable views on marriage between a man and a woman for those who are interested (which excludes me).  I’m sick to death of his repetitive rubbish and would appreciate if he kept clear of other topics which, by his own admission, don’t interest him and let those who are interested discuss the issue without the intrusion of his irrelevant nonsense and barrow pushing.

    • Kika says:

      01:11pm | 17/06/11

      Eric you amaze me. You are so far detached from reality. Maybe your head is stuck between your own bollocks you can’t tell which one is Arthur or Martha.
      The legal system is fair.  When men start giving birth and taking care of young children 99.99% of the time then you can start talking about equality.  Equality will never be fair when you are trying to balance two different things. You mean equity.  Equity in marriage is the key - not equality.

    • Erick says:

      01:18pm | 17/06/11

      @Kevin: In other words, you want me to STFU!

      You illustrate my point nicely.

    • James1 says:

      01:27pm | 17/06/11

      So negative Erick.  On the plus side, at least the media is pro-gay male.

    • HappyCynic says:

      01:41pm | 17/06/11

      @Erick

      All I said was to point out where specifically in the law it is gender biased or keep quiet on the issue if you can’t (this is also known as backing your bullsh*t up with facts).

      But it seems you can’t do either.  Possibly because you lack the intelligence necessary to do the research needed to back your crap up, or (more likely) because you’re a one trick troll.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      01:44pm | 17/06/11

      @ZSZenn (champion of the poor)

      “And all we have to read is this shite!”

      No - and you don’t need to comment either.

    • Vaunted says:

      02:21pm | 17/06/11

      Sandy says: “Our youngest often asks us, “Mummies are you going to be engaged forever? Why don’t you get married?” ICB on that one. 1. The kid is simply parroting what he’s been schooled he’ll be emotionally rewarded for parroting, and 2. Sandy’s using the kid’s alleged concern as emotional ammunition to persuade us that her pretend family situation is normal. Kids can’t help the accident of their birth but I sincerely hope these poor little buggers at least have a man somewhere in their lives.

    • Kevin says:

      03:35pm | 17/06/11

      @Erick

      “@Kevin: In other words, you want me to STFU!

      You illustrate my point nicely.”

      No, if you read my post you would see I’m suggesting you confine your posts to articles that are relevant to your never ending complaint.  Alternatively, you use the open forum.

      It’s pretty pathetic that your only retort to my last post is a rather weak attempt to put words in my mouth.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      03:48pm | 17/06/11

      I agree Erick - it is about one word. 
       
      If they have all the legal rights of a married couple, why can’t they just invent their own word. The term ‘‘marriage’’ is not available, however,  because it defines a union between a man and a woman.

    • John says:

      03:59pm | 17/06/11

      Erick, they all have been brainwashed by Marxism. Maybe the reason why the media is so pro-gay is because it’s so anti-western culture, so anti-christianity, so anti-white male, anti family and over course they won’t be breeding any more evil whiteys. It fits well with the marxist agenda of deconstructing the family.

    • Sad Sad Reality says:

      04:28pm | 17/06/11

      Kika, what a typical feminist argument. Women only want equality when it benefits them. When it doesn’t, AKA taking full responsibility for a pregnancy you have the right to end at any moment. If women want 100% of rights over the birth of children, that’s fine. You can wear 100% of the responsibilities for the child.

    • RyaN says:

      06:28pm | 17/06/11

      @Vaunted: and so much for that claim that “it’s not a lifestyle choice, I was born this way!”. Clearly she was married to a male before, obviously a life choice.

    • Alannah says:

      08:58am | 18/06/11

      @will,
              Maybe Erick was like me and didn’t bother reading the whole thing. I have a 9 year old son who never askes me if my partner and I will ever get married, i’m not talking about it 24/7 infront of the kids to tell you the truth I don’t talk about marriage at all. These two mummies have drummed it into the kids about their rights and why two women love each other and in the long run it will cause more damage if they don’t BACK OFF.

      An 11 year old kid doesn’t give a shit what the Government is saying, i’m sorry but at that age it’s all about them. I think this women is stretching the truth A LOT to suit herself, at the end of the day i couldn’t give a toss if she gay or not rules are rules. Do we start letting boy use the girls toilets? NO rules are rules. Mother nature did not intend to the human body to be gay, Adam didn’t have a baby with Steve he had a baby with EVE. The funny thing is the question should be asked to all gay couples. HOW DO YOU THINK YOU CAME INTO THIS WORLD?

      As for gay marriages, I don’t think it should be called a marriage because a marriages is MAN AND WOMEN. However if they wish to call it something else that’s fine with me like a “MACHREMONY COMMITMENT DAY” That means marriages as well and it’s not insulting the gay.

    • fox says:

      02:24pm | 18/06/11

      Erick is spot on as usual.

      How many gays have killed themselves because they couldn’t get ‘married’ under current Australian law?? They have all kinds of hate crime legislation protecting them.

      How many divorced fathers driven to desperation by the current laws of Australia, working 2 jobs just to pay child support to a woman who won’t let them see their kids have comitted suicide? A countless, and growing number. Yet they aren’t protected by any legislation, in fact, legislation and the media discriminates against them openly.

      And the writer of this article sounds like she is doing a great job making lobbyists out of her (and her former husband’s, who doesn’t even seem worthy of being mentioned) 9 and 11 year old kids.

    • Skippy says:

      06:32am | 17/06/11

      It’s always the kids that suffer. I just hope that your boys have a positive male role model in their life, cause I don’t care if your gay, straight or a single parent kids need a male and female in their life, it balances them. I know this will possibly cause negative response but I know gay people that are of the same opinion. Also what is your agenda for meeting with the PM? What are you hoping to achieve? Rubbing your happy family in her face so that she changes her mind? Sorry but that is just naive.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:09am | 17/06/11

      While I’m no child psychologist, I don’t agree with this, Skippy.

      I believe children need two role models - a displinarian/teacher and a nurturer/supporter.

      In traditional family units, the first was predominantly the father and the second the mother.

      There is no reason though, as far as I can tell, that two women or two men cannot form a family and provide those role models for their children, any more than it would be for the traditional roles to be reversed in hetereosexual famillies.

      The roles are important, not who supplies them.

    • Matt says:

      09:40am | 17/06/11

      Naive?  Your comment is naive.. What about kids where the father has run off and doesn’t want contact?  What about kids whose father have died?  And how do you know their kids don’t have a positive role model?  Naive alright..

    • Ali says:

      10:38am | 17/06/11

      Skippy,

      Interesting point. I am reading alot about parenting programs and other type of kids and parent relationship ( and yes I have 3 kids).
      I generaly thought that it doesnt matter who raised kids as long as they are loved. This is fact that kids excel in relationship that parent love each other and they love thier kids.

      Since I started reading into parenting I have realised the importance of a father and a mother. Infact it vital. Often kids dont have this and it not ideal but many single mums out there do a fantasitc job at raising thier children as best they could.

      In an ideal world kids need a mother and father and as you so rightly pointed out boys need a good male role model, grandfathers, uncles, family friend or even a dad.  While we would like to be PC about this and say kids are fine in same sex marriages. With out a female or male role model is going to be pretty tough for the kids.  Trying to confuse gender roles makes it very confusing for children and hard for them to adjust in a mainly hetrosexual relationships that exist.  Sandy has ot get over the fact the her want to marry far out weighs the kids.

      I have no doubt that Sandy loves her kids and her partner also loves them too, its not about them its about the kids. But Sandy has tried to merge 2 issues together, gay marriages and kids who grow up in gay marriages.

      Fact is the kids will still tease other if they have same sex parents. Getting married wont change that. And yes it terrible that kids tease kids and it shouldnt happen but it does.

    • Bev says:

      10:53am | 17/06/11

      Ali says:10:38am | 17/06/11
      Yes.  The more studies that are done the more it becomes obvious that each parent brings a necessary element to child raising.  Women cannot fill the role of fathers anymore than fathers can fill the role of mothers.  Many parents try very hard and many do succeed. Stats however show us there are a lot that fail .

    • Gamer says:

      11:08am | 17/06/11

      I don’t know if a male role model is needed or not, I haven’t read any literature about it, but a positive male role model doesn’t always mean a Dad, despite some people automatically assuming it does. An uncle or a family friend, for example, can all fill in the role if the father isn’t in the picture, for whatever reason.

    • Snake says:

      11:13am | 17/06/11

      @Mahrat: The only problem with 2 women or 2 men attempting to do the job of 1 woman and 1 man with children is, they cannot HAVE children. If by some chance a child was unfortunate enough to fall into such an arrangment, then said “parents” would make do, and do a decent job but let us not muddy the waters and call this arrangement ideal. It is not ideal.

      Just because single mothers do it tough and end up doing a great job, it does not mean their child has had an ideal upbringing. Sure they might do alright at school and be somewhat normal but to say that a child will excel in such an environment is grasping at straws.

      We witness miracles of science in action in handicapped people competing in sporting events. We see them run, jump, sprint and shoot hoops only a short time after devastating accidents. These people are not in ideal situations. They are by no means as good as the athletes using the limbs they were born with but they make do with what they have.

      To equate a man with a prosthetic leg to a man with both his natural limbs would be silly. The former is making good of a bad situation, the latter is man as he was intended to be. These lesbians with children (“family”) are just that, making the best of a bad situation. They are not, and never will be, natural (please note the kids are from her previous marriage, not divine lesbian conception). Regardless of your hopes at this dinner, and as stupid as Gillard is, I think even she knows that you are trying to convince us of something that is not quite right.

    • Ali says:

      11:23am | 17/06/11

      @ Bev,

      It been a real eye opener to me. Its some thing that no child psychologist openly says but they continually point to the roles fathers and mother play and the signifcant difference between them.

      The thing is that the differences a really great for a childs development.

      It would appear that while the gay lobby group shove equality down the throat of every body the kids are the ones with no voice and get ignored and they are as always the one who suffer.

    • LeonT says:

      11:32am | 17/06/11

      @Bev, what is the ‘role of fathers’ and the ‘role of mothers’ and why can’t someone of a different sex/gender take this role?

    • Bev says:

      11:34am | 17/06/11

      Gamer says:11:08am | 17/06/11
      I don’t know if a male role model is needed or not
      Studies are showing having a father is best.  Male role models help but they are not dad and mostlt cannot do the same job. Feminist for years pushed the lie that kids don’t need dads. When studies started to prove them wrong that became well perhaps the need a male role model. No its being shown as another porky.

    • kate says:

      11:35am | 17/06/11

      @Ali:  “I am reading alot about parenting programs …  Since I started reading into parenting I have realised the importance of a father and a mother. Infact it vital.”

      I call bs.  I don’t think you’ve “been reading” anything of the sort. 
      Can you provide references?  Because I can.  In 2004 the American Psychological Association reviewed more than two dozen empirical studies concerning sexual orientation and marriage and concluded that “There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.”  The studies reviewed were impressively consistent in their failure to identify deficits in the development of children raised in a lesbian or gay household.

      @“In an ideal world kids need a mother and father”

      Again, your references please?  Anecdotes, assumptions, hunches and comparisons with single parenting don’t count.

      @ “While we would like to be PC about this and say kids are fine in same sex marriages. With out a female or male role model is going to be pretty tough for the kids.  Trying to confuse gender roles makes it very confusing for children and hard for them to adjust in a mainly hetrosexual relationships that exist.”

      Again, go back to the actual data.  Empirical research does not support the misconception that having a homosexual parent has a damaging effect on children’s gender identity or general development.

    • Mahhrat says:

      11:42am | 17/06/11

      @Snake, it’s not natural that I can fly in an airplane - I don’t have wings.  Does that make a plane “less than ideal”?  Of course not, it’s an advancement we humans have made to improve the quality of life both for us AND our children.

      Saying something is “wrong” just because it’s not “natural” denies the sentience we’ve developed to overcome our natural restrictions.

      To get back on topic, should I be prevented from adopting, then, if I’m in a gay relationship?  Or if I’m single?  Or if I’m missing a leg?

      What about polygamy?  That’s against church and Austrlaian law too, but is on the rise - intimate relationships in groups.  Is it ‘not ideal’ for those familes to have children, even though they are more than capable of “natural birth”?  How on earth do you police that?  Oh sorry, you live in a group relationship, you lose your children?!

      Most importantly, how do any of those compare to children in orphanges, being raised with NO consistent parent? 

      State wards need parenting too - while you may argue on what is “ideal”, it’s simply not “practical”.  After we get over that particular hurdle, the only arguments against people raising children is where you draw the line between “Yes” and “No”, but you need to understand that that line is largely arbitrary.

      Once THAT occurs, this sort of thing becomes valid, because obviously their line is drawn differently to your own.

      I’m simply interested that children are raised by loving parents.  I don’t care if the parent is a Giraffe, to be perfectly frank, so long as the child’s needs are met.  Until someone can definitively prove that gay couples raise children who turn into absolute monsters, they should be allowed the benefit of the doubt, the same as everyone else.

    • kate says:

      12:03pm | 17/06/11

      @Bev:  “The more studies that are done the more it becomes obvious that each parent brings a necessary element to child raising.”

      Where are those studies?  Which reputable, peer-reviewed, methodologically rigourous research have you read? 

      I’m sure there are many studies which show poorer outcomes for children brought up by single mothers as compared to two parent families.  But research like that arguably SUPPORTS same-sex parenting.  After all, these women are giving the children two loving parents in a stable relationship - they want to get married, after all, so that’s kinda the point.

    • Bev says:

      12:34pm | 17/06/11

      @Ali @LeonT A recent study reported in the Herald Sun (sorry the link has gone) concentrated on children rough house play with dad (something mothers seldom do).  At first glance it just appears to be meaningless fun.  Close observation and analyze showed this was not the case. The fathers toned down their response so his children could “beat” him but also firmly defined the limits to which the child could go. It gives a child both a physical and mental idea of were boundaries lie while allowing them to explore their own boundaries and strengths.
      @kate I have seen these sorts of studies (many driven by an agenda). I tend to look at the author’s bi first.  In many cases the results (empirical or other) tend prove what the author wanted to. More recent studies (far fewer in number at the moment) which approach with an open mind throw up quite different results often surprising the author.

    • Ali says:

      01:13pm | 17/06/11

      @ Kate

      sure
      A Man’s Guide to Raising Kids -Michael Grose
      Triple P - parenting Program- Professor Matt Sanders
      Secret Girls’ Business - Angelo, Pritchard, Stewart

      These are the one I have read and differnt programs I have been involved in parent of different sexes have different roles in a childs life, development and relationships. There are roles for mums and role for dads.

      We can all be the one sex, we need differnences as we are all not the some kids.

      but then again why would I have to provide a reference that a mum and dad is ideal.?

      children are very capable of adapting, it still doesnt mean they it the best for them surely we would want the best.  Yes there are single mums and yes there gay couples with kids, is it ideal? not really but kids adapt and move on.

    • D says:

      01:20pm | 17/06/11

      @ Snake.

      “somewhat normal”  Wow, thanks, because my father died when I was 6 years old I’m only ‘somewhat normal’, I can never excel (glad I didn’t know this before I went to university and got a degree and a well paying job, I might have just not bothered since I coudlnt’ possibly achieve).

      I imagine I’m unable to parent my daughter in the proper way as well, given my lack of the proper influences in my life, especially since my husband’s father left his family when he was around 8 or 9.  Two ‘somewhat normal’ people.  To compund my inadequacies further, I’m not the natural child of my mother.  I was adopted. 

      You compare a father to a limb.  Seriously? I am missing a limb, I am disabled by the loss of my father?  If you really want to use a body part analogy, then keep in mind that organs, faces, limbs can be transplanted and the body continues to function. 

      A father isn’t essential for someone to be a real person.  There are plenty of people who had the idealised mother/father upbringing that aren’t excelling.  There’s plenty of families that are abusive to the children in their care (both mothers and fathers), to state that this family structure is ideal and provides the only path to people who will excel is naive and foolish.  To state that my uncles and grandfathers failed me and left me a lesser person is beyond inane.

    • Skippy says:

      01:23pm | 17/06/11

      @ Matt, so you have experience in this do you? You know first hand at what it’s like for a child to lose a parent through death, cause I can tell you I do. My sister in law passed away at the tender age of 22 and we were all devastated, she left behind two very young boys. My brother moved back into our family home because not only did he need the help he wanted and believed it was important that his boys had positive women in his life. He wanted his boys to have females in their life to give him what he couldn’t, that’s not naive that’s just a passion for balance. Fortunately my brother re-married and the boys had a stable upbringing as they had positive females in their lives. So maybe before you go asking such questions Matt, you may want to appreciate that some people have reasoning for making such comments. So I stand by my comments kids need positive male and female role models and yes they can be a friend uncle etc. I also think it’s the kids that suffer in gay relationships, they are the ones ‘mummies’ copping the teasing not you, sure you have to pick up the pieces but kids should not have to suffer because of your selfish choices and yes that goes for any other relationship, divorce etc regardless of the circumstances kids will always suffer (and yes of course I appreciate some relationships fail at abuse which is horrific, I’m just saying our children are often the absorbers of our choices and yes as a parent i have made plenty of mistakes too, hence why I say this)

    • Snake says:

      01:45pm | 17/06/11

      Nice try Mahrat, but the technological advancements that allow us to get places faster (air travel) while unnatural, simply make life better. 2 men or 2 women cannot really ever have children alone so how is putting 2 of them together as parents going to “improve” it?

      The missing limb analogy was to illustrate that while it is not ideal, it is still possible for people who aren’t in perfect situations to get by, that is by no means something to aim for. This is what you, the author, and every other hardline lefty is wanting. A world where couples, singles, misfits and weirdos can adopt a child if they feel like it. Almost as though a child is an accesory that has to be picked up because a celebrity did it.

      Children in orphanages are in quite unfortunate circumstances. I agree that this is not a good thing for the children and their upbringing. But like these lesbians the orphanages are making the most of a bad situation. Just trying to help. The problem arises when we make “families” like this one, available for adoption and government funded IVF treatments etc. The problem is that we equate this less than ideal situation to an ideal couple of a man and a woman. It isn’t ideal, it is a last resort. Just like a single parent is. Just like a missing leg is.

      If shit happens, so be it, but do not legislate to make shit a viable options. On the marriage front. Quit using your naturally conceived children to push your unnatural agenda. Marriage is a word heterosexual couples use more as a symbolic but often religious notion to further their bond. If they do not want to share the word with the homosexual community, find another word. In the eyes of the law you should have equal rights, but in the eyes of society you will never be the same.

    • Snake says:

      01:53pm | 17/06/11

      Good on you D, I’m glad to see you survived your less than ideal upbringing and managed to post all on your own, relatively unscathed.

      The sad part is you will never know the benefits of what a normal family can offer you. You will never experience an upbringing with 2 natural parents. It is good to see though that you have afforded your daughter the luxury you never had. These steps forward are a great progress for you. I wish your child all the best.

      Obviously there is no inferiority residing in you. You feel no need to validate your achievments and you aren’t at all defensive. Nice.

      If you managed to see the sarcasm in this post, you have done well, all things considered.

      Oh, one final point, you can transplant any limb you like but, like your father, no fake donation limb or prosthetic instrument can really replace him. Nor can you bend it to the levels you could before or run as fast as you could earlier. This is why disabled people compete in their own olympics. No harm dear, I’m sure with some training, you too can sign up. Did you have a point about same sex marriage or did you just post to tell me you have “excelled”?

    • kate says:

      02:44pm | 17/06/11

      @Ali.

      Re your “references”:

      “A Man’s Guide to Raising Kids” is a self-help book about how fathers can become more involved in their childrens’ lives.  Terrific idea, clearly kids benefit from having both parents involved in their lives, but who says kids can’t equally benefit from both their lesbian parents involved in their lives?

      Triple P - parenting Program-  again, nothing that can’t be equally applied to men and women as parents.

      Secret Girls’ Business - uh, riiiight.  It’s a cartoon book for tween girls getting their first period.  Not entirely sure what your point is here…

      You show your true colours when you ask “why would I have to provide a reference that a mum and dad is ideal”?  The answer is because the human rights of gays & lesbian and their children are being denied based on heterosexist assumptions.

      Finally, to your offensive assertion that “the kids are the ones with no voice and get ignored and they are as always the one who suffer”.  How dare you.  We are out there fighting for our kids every single minute.  It is activists like Sandy, and Shelley Argent, and hundreds of others who give the kids a voice.  If the kids are suffering, it’s because of ignorance and bigotry spouted by the likes of you.  That’s why we keep fighting.  We want equality FOR OUR KIDS.  You have no idea about our lives and our kids’ lives, and unless you can produce something more than “well, duh, straight parents just ARE better” you can just keep your prejudices away from our families.

    • lucy says:

      03:17pm | 17/06/11

      @ Snake.
      Wow - using the whole “you didnt experience it so you dont know what you missed” analogy beats your earlier insult hands down.

      Those of us who were raised in single parent households can say the same thing you know. You have no idea how close a relationship you form with a parent when its your only parent. You have no idea how close a family can be when you know from an early age that things change, that Mum & Dad wont be there forever. You dont know how liberating it can be for a family to actually be divourced…no parents fighting, no body pushing the discipline onto the other parent, no-one kids can play the other one off against, no or limited contact with a negative influence etc.

      Until you experience the benefits of a single parent family (and there are lots) you dont know what you are missing.

      PS: I know of many kids from well to do 2 parent families with private education who are unemployed and just even more people from divourced families with uni degrees and earning 6 figure salaries. The unemployed ones are poping out kids and the uni educated are earning money - I guess it depends on your definition as to what failure is.

    • D says:

      03:39pm | 17/06/11

      @ Snake

      Sure I had a point - let me be a little clearer for you.

      There is nothing unnatural about a child who is raised outside the standard ‘mother/father’ dynamic.  That you consider that child inferior in someway is your failing, not theirs.

      There is nothing wrong with gay marriage, it doesn’t harm children, it doesn’t harm society, it doesn’t harm you.  ‘Marriage’ holds no religious meaning to me, it isn’t a sacred thing that must be preserved from others who aren’t like me.  I am more than happy to share it with anyone wishing to make that kind of commitment to their partner, whether they have children or not. 

      Losing a parent is nothing like losing a limb.  I hope both your parents are alive and well. 

      I met my biological parents - that experience made me profoundly glad they never raised me smile  The family that wanted me, that loved me and cherished me - that is far better than any upbringing I would have received from that pair.  I doubt you can understand that though.  Your need to defend the children from unnaturalness closes you off. 

      I hope no child of yours has to resort to unnatural measures to have children.  I hope no child of yours happens to be divorced or widowed.  Your grandchildren would be devastated to learn how you consider them unnatural and flawed.

      I hope you accept this comment in the manner it was intended, although I think you’ll fall back to sarcasm again.  I am no more inferior than you are superior.  We are both people of equal value.

    • Bev says:

      03:59pm | 17/06/11

      kate says:02:44pm | 17/06/11
      I see same sex couples pushing their agenda. Most times kids don’t seem to rate except when somebody asks about it.  Then you jump up and down, throw a hissy fit, wave a few studies around or say their our kids (half true) we know best.  For me when people do that perhaps they think perhaps they are on shaky ground.  None of what I say here implies they are bad parents but that their children may well be missing something in their upbringing.  You can talk about divorce, absent/dead dads but mostly that was not by design where as for many same sex couples it is.

    • Reggie says:

      04:01pm | 17/06/11

      Snake; “The sad part is you will never know the benefits of what a normal family can offer you. You will never experience an upbringing with 2 natural parents.”

      I’d like to know what this mythical “normal family” is. If I think football is boring, am I going to damage my son, or if I work shift-work, am I de-facto doing damage to my son, daughter and wife? I think a so called “normal” family that teachers their children a specific religious belief is doing them harm. Other so called “normal” parents think it’s perfectly ok to mess with their children’s minds.

      At least a same sex couple would be conscious of the problem while most of the others think it’s perfectly ok to just go with the flow.  Gods forbid that the father or mother is a member of the military or works on a slaughter-floor. Or worse ... is an accountant.

    • grant says:

      08:11pm | 17/06/11

      @ kate

      you know what you right a man can provide exactly the same love and attention as a women.

    • Jason Todd says:

      09:49pm | 17/06/11

      @ Kate. I think I love you.

    • Alannah says:

      11:31am | 18/06/11

      @ LeonT,
                  I can answer your comment plain and simple. Men can not be women as women can not be men, it is impossible for a women to produce SPERM as it’s is impossible for a man to produce an egg. So therefore different sex/gender can NOT take on another roll. Boys need a DAD young boys who are fatherless tend to not know what their roll is in the household because they see mum doing everything, and when such time they enter a relationship this idea the women does everything causes issues. Why do you think women call men lazy because dad wasn’t around and mum did everything, that why men end up getting hurt because if a chick has had both a mum and dad in her life she knows what a man roll is in the home.

    • Servaas says:

      07:53am | 19/06/11

      Skippy, Ali and all the rest, the fact that kids ideally needs a father and mother is no rocket science, it is plain obvious and research supports it. Obviously you get bad parents but that doesn’t refute the ideal in any way. If you have other agendas to push though you can and will choose to differ with it and pull out the data from other researchers (also not willing to accept it) which apparently proves otherwise. If you’re not comfortable with an idea it is pretty hard to accept it on facts or logical assumption - some arguments will last until the end of days.

      Most problems in society can be traced back to missing/uninvolved fathers. Not that mothers aren’t important also, it’s just that it is usually the fathers that walk out or aren’t as emotionally involved, too into their job etc.

    • RyaN says:

      11:47pm | 19/06/11

      @Matt: so what you are saying is that allowing same sex couples to have children is the same as subjecting a child intentionally to a situation where a father has run off and doesn’t want contact.
      Interesting analogy!

    • Al says:

      06:50am | 17/06/11

      thanks Sandy ... the generation behind u are very grateful to have your family out there redefining what people think of as “normal” ...

      As much as i don’t care personally now about “fitting in” (i’m WAY beyond that lol) its the kids that are friends of your youngens at school who benefit from hearing about your family. The secretly queer kids are having their shame slowly chipped away at the more they see positive representations like you and your partner.

      Thanks, thanks, thanks x 100 raspberry

    • Gregg says:

      06:51am | 17/06/11

      Sounds like you are raising two fine lads there Sandy and I wish you and Louise well in attempting to get anything meaningful out of the Juliar.
      Aside from being a great liar, she is also well tuned to evasion when it comes to giving a significant answer and you only have to see her performances in parliament or with the media generally to see many examples.
      Fortunately, she’ll probably be on her best behaviour at such an event and you’ll probably not get the scorn, ridicule and abuse that she uses on others but just be wary of hidden daggers.

    • Sodapoppy says:

      02:51pm | 17/06/11

      Just be tactful, if you talk too much Juliar could figure there are votes to be had and run off with some sheila

    • komet says:

      06:53am | 17/06/11

      Why bother, Julia is not listening, she will only listen to the hollow men on the right who run the ALP and pull her strings.

      I pity you, not because you are unable to marry but because you actually have to sit through dinner with that…thing.

      GetUp…pffft. Toothless fairies who are doing too many back-room deals with the ALP.

    • country town says:

      06:38am | 18/06/11

      @komet: “you actually have to sit through dinner with that…thing.” bahahahahaha - “thing”. nice one and thanx for the laugh!

      can i borrow it? smile

    • Joan says:

      07:01am | 17/06/11

      What smarty pants kids. They sound quite indoctrinated. The truth is mummies and mummies don’t make babies. Mummies and Mummies make babies by using a Daddy sperm usually with a Dr intervention usually a male. without the Daddy factor there would be no baby. Like Creationists deny Evolution . mummy,mummy`s are in denial -  they are not the same as mummy/daddy unions. Marriage stands for mummy/daddy union so hands off mummy/mummy, you can call your union what you like but not marriage…. there is a big difference, I`m sure even your smarty kids can spot the difference.

    • Al says:

      07:34am | 17/06/11

      maybe they can spot the difference Joan… but if Sandy and Louise are doing their jobs right, their kids aren’t so full of hate yet to actually care. As long as they are loved, that’s what counts.

    • Gregg says:

      07:49am | 17/06/11

      @Joan,
      You make some huge assumptions there Joan for no where did I read that the lads had been indoctrinated about the biological procreation or that mummies and mummies making babies is claimed.
      Sandy has stated that they have talked to the lads about how all families are not identical as far as parents go but you seem to want to make something more about it.

      A few of the states and the federal government as far as immigration goes and probably in a few other areas too already recognise same sex relationships and marriage is a term usually referring to two people who love oneanother wishing to formalise their bonding.

      Your tone of using ” smarty kids ” terminology suggests something really gets up your nose and perhaps you are in denial over same sex attraction being possible.

    • Joan says:

      07:56am | 17/06/11

      Al; It`s good to be loved and cared for as child,but that`s not we are talking about here , its mummy/mummy marriage in discussion.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      08:26am | 17/06/11

      @Joan

      Marriage is a mummy and a daddy? You know lots of couples don’t have kids, right?

    • Nick says:

      08:32am | 17/06/11

      Great reply Joan..message to gay union parents..Stop using your children to try and legitimise your sexuality.

    • fairsfair says:

      08:59am | 17/06/11

      While I believe that gay marriage should be allowed (because it is such a non-issue it is hardly worth even talking about) I totally agree with Joan’s second comment and Nick.

      I am tired of seeing children being used as a commodity, a bargaining tool and a platform for any kind of social negotiation.

      Its not what they were invented for.

      Its a word for an institution that is completely disregarded by almost 50% of the heterosexual community. Yes, those making the push are in the minority, but christ on a cracker this has been talked to death and something needs to change. We are all human beings and we all deserve the same social freedoms. Can we please move on.

    • AliceC says:

      09:09am | 17/06/11

      You’re right, mummies and mummies don’t make babies. Neither do infertile heterosexual couples, or heterosexual couples who can no longer reproduce due to age. Therefore, they should also be denied marriage?

      @Nick
      They are not using their kids to legitimise their sexuality, children have nothing to do with one’s personal sexual orientation.

    • Matt says:

      09:52am | 17/06/11

      You need to catch up on your research Joan, the evolution ‘theory’ has been disproven and requires just as much faith to believe now as believing there is a God. Your whole argument fails due to the fact there are infertile hetrosexual couples, yet you still think they have the right to marry, making you a bigot.  It’s 2011 Joan, single women are having babies through sperm donors - they don’t have a ‘Daddy factor’.  According to you if you can have children you can get married - such a simple, basic yet stupid argument…. Your use of the extra ‘my’ on mum and dad is a bit creepy too..

    • Tchom says:

      09:55am | 17/06/11

      Well said, Joan.

      Which brings me to the only thing that grinds my goat more than same-sex parents… SINGLE PARENTS! Aren’t they the worst? Their kids grow up weird! You need a mummy AND a daddy! Just like on TV! Single parents should be beaten to death on the street

    • Bev says:

      10:58am | 17/06/11

      AliceC says:09:09am | 17/06/11
      Straw man.  Hetrosexual couples have or have had the potential. Same sex couple have never had nor ever will have the potential.

    • mike j says:

      11:56am | 17/06/11

      “the evolution ‘theory’ has been disproven”

      Wow, Matt. And I used to think you had half a brain. The idiocy of this statement is unparalleled.

      If you’d ever like to catch up to a high-school level of understanding of the observable paradigm that is evolution, this would be a good place to start: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

      But I’m beginning to suspect that the extent of your intellectual ambition is the fabrication of superficial pedantry to justify your own vested interests. Here’s hoping your sexual preferences preclude you from breeding.

    • Matt says:

      12:47pm | 17/06/11

      mike j I thought of not bothering to answer seeing as your link is to Wikipedia… really?  That’s your source of information - a website that can be edited by anyone in the world? You do know evolution is just a theory and never proven right?

      If you feel like it read - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved.html - it’s not long, or - http://ldolphin.org/wmwilliams.html - which disproves scientifically man didn’t evolve.  Fossils alone disprove evolution…

      Your computer has google, use it.. But don’t let scientific facts stop you, if you say so, evolution is right..

    • Matt says:

      01:29pm | 17/06/11

      Oh, and by the way mike j, here’s the very first line of your link -

      The modern evolutionary synthesis is a union of ideas

      Since when are ideas considered proof?

    • James1 says:

      01:33pm | 17/06/11

      I knew it.  Joan will even stoop to attacking small children if its supports her point of view.  What a wonderful person she must be.

    • marley says:

      01:33pm | 17/06/11

      @Matt - okay, I’ll bite.  What is it you’re trying to say?  That evolution is wrong?  and that the two pieces you quoted prove it?  But the first one in fact does nothing of the kind, it trashes a set of myths about “intelligent design”  (aka neo-creationism) while the second one is the loopiest piece of religious dogma I’ve seen in years.  Neither of the links does a single thing to challenge the theory of evolution, and one fully supports it.

      Oh, and while the fossil record cannot “prove” evolution, it is certainly consistent with it.  Exactly as the first link you provided, says.  Good link, by the way.  You should read it sometime.

    • mike j says:

      01:36pm | 17/06/11

      Put the shovel down, Matt.

      Scanned the first article, entitled “Evolution myths: Evolution cannot be disproved”. You’re going to have to explain to me how this article demonstrates that evolution was never proven, because I don’t think it does that at all. In fact, you haven’t even read it, have you, Matt. Let me quote directly from the article that you, yourself, have cited as evidence against evolution: “In the wild, too, there are numerous examples of evolution in action.”

      As for your second link… the very first words on the page are: “Note: This article is posted for historical reference purposes.” Why? BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN IN NINETEEN-FRICKING-TWENTY FIVE, DUDE! What’s next? You going to start referencing the Bible?

      And Wikipedia; I use it because it’s far more reliable than the plethora of fraudulent bullshit misinformation that can be found on the internet, and subsequently gets coughed up by desperate, intellectually bankrupt fucktards such as yourself in stupid debates like this one. That Wikipedia article cites 106 publications - is there any one, in particular, that you object to?

      Don’t even bother, failer. Just pretend that you suddenly got called off to a family emergency back in 1925, and never had the opportunity to respond.

    • Tchom says:

      01:55pm | 17/06/11

      @ matt

      Hi mike. The new scientist article was interesting but the other link was not very scientific. Reverend Williams applies no scientific method and his argument that ‘if evolution is wrong, christianity is right’ is a logical fallacy of false cause. Scientific method doesn’t seek to disprove theories as it seeks to prove its own hypothesis. Current models of evolution, while being far from air-tight, are generally pretty convincing especially as more evidence is gathered to support it. A theists should aim to show scientifically the need for a creator. And before someone says it, the argument ‘the universe had to come from somewhere and that thing was god’ isn’t scientific, because then you have to prove god is without a creator

    • Matt says:

      02:21pm | 17/06/11

      I did read them - they may not have been the best articles but as I said, google ‘evolution disproved’ and there are many more articles… Perhaps then you could actually provide a link proving evolution that are not just ideas? 

      Either way, my comment was in reply to Joans original comment regarding ‘mummy/mummy in denial’..  These women are not in denail about anything, especially whether or not they want to get married.

      I’m not interested in an evolution debate, and marley fossil evidence is not consistent with evolution at all and if you think it is perhaps you could explain how a 200 million year old fossil has a shoe print in it?

      http://www.pureinsight.org/node/2979

      Tchom I said nothing about a creator..

    • Tchom says:

      03:17pm | 17/06/11

      @Matt

      You didn’t. But that was the basis of that second article you posted. Thats what i was talking about in my post

    • mike j says:

      03:32pm | 17/06/11

      Reading just isn’t your forte, is it.

      BTW, Matt: 1 + 1 = 3. Google it. It has 25,270,000,000 hits. And no Wikipedia page, so it must be true.

    • WTF says:

      09:20am | 18/06/11

      Joan, what do you honestly care what its called.  Take a look through history darling and you will find alot of different meanings for marriage.  If a loving couple want to have kids and marry I do not personally care if they are gay, straight, etc etc.  Do you think we should get rid of IVF completely.  I would rather be the child of a happy union between two people whatever the sexual preference than an unhappy one.  Thats the great thing about internet debate, isn’t it.  Why do these people care so much about a word.  It is a word that has been used to describe many states throughout history.  Bring on same sex marriage and congrats to this couple on the way they have raised their kids.  They should be congratulated that they will accept love in all its guises.  Well done.

    • Against the Man says:

      07:02am | 17/06/11

      Sorry to tell you but Gilltard has painted herself into a corner with this issue. A simple google search will show you that she has gone on record as being against gay marriage for conservative, biblical reasons. So for her to back down now would make her the ultimate political liar! I doubt she will change her mind. She also has other major screw ups to fix and she needs to actually do her job at some point…..........seeing the mess she has created for herself and the ALP, I’m doubtful she has the time or interest on the topic of gay marriage…...or asylum seeker issues….......health care…..economic reform…......preventing a recession…........working for the Australian people…..

      Oh but spending their taxpayer money on big pensions and travel etc…...no worries there for Miss Gilltard aka Australia’s biggest blugger (maybe she could get a reality show deal huh?)!!!!

    • Super D says:

      07:31am | 17/06/11

      Given her response to refugees, where she argued for years against a supposedly cruel solution and is now seeking to impose a crueler one I would argue that Ms Gillard is more likely to recriminalise homosexuality than allow gay marriage.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      07:34am | 17/06/11

      Erick nails it once again, institutionalised misandry and what does the government do, sits on its hands and squanders cash like all good socialists on rent-seeking greenist mythology. Disgusting.

      When women can walk away with 70-80% of marital assets as well as the kids as well as ongoing payments amounting to 20% of man’s pre-tax salary there is something seriously broken about this system.

      This should be receiving headlines, not a tiny minority of evolutionary dead ends.

    • Al says:

      07:54am | 17/06/11

      wow u make a pretty good case for same-sex marriage right there, lol ... skip the men all together girls, by the tone of some of their comments today it may be better for your sanity.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      08:31am | 17/06/11

      Again, what does this have to do with gay marriage?

    • Michael says:

      08:42am | 17/06/11

      There are probably many reasons why a magistrate would give a woman 80% of assets, she is primary care giver with custody of the kids and needs the car to get the kids to school and to the doctors and soccer etc etc, i don’t see the problem.

      Like anything there will be the mainstream or majority in the middle with things working out for them all to varying degrees of satisfaction, which of course leaves those on the fringes some are dads that feel they have had the rough end of the deal and some are mums that have had the rough end too…lets keep it in context of just how rough times gone by have been on women especially single mums in a male dominated society.

      If a marriage or relationship ends the two people still have responsibilities especially where children are concerned, the idea that it’s “unfair” is a belief, nothing more, in some cases the belief is more biased than in other cases.

      Scenario, husband and wife split they have three kids a house two cars and an investment property, mum gave up her career to be a mum it was agreed to by dad as he earned the most and it made financial sense.
      Skip forward 12 years they are breaking up, if i am the judge i say split it 50/50 whomever keeps the kids gets 10% for each child…80% of asstets obviously four in the family house makes sense the other can go live in the rental or get their own place, if dads still got his career, can earn more money and move on with life. I wouldn’t give the children to the money earner, it would impact that parents earning capacity and lower the expected outcome for the children, i would give the children to the person with the lower earning capacity (given all other considerations are equal) as this doesn’t add financial difficulty to childrens lives.

      One is raising the kids, still the otherneeds to pay at least 50% of the cost of raising those children, and no that doesn’t mean cutting costs and skimping because you don’t think it’s fair, ie if non custodial parent eats tim tams the kids can have tim tams not home brand etc.

      When non custodial parent gets a new ladyfriend or manfriend, no he/she doesn’t get a discount to afford his/her new romance, he/she has commitments still. When custodial parent gets a new manfriend or ladyfriend, no, the new friend doesn’t then assist with the finances of raising children they only assist in the relationship financially between his/her self and the custodial parent.

      Yep the kids will still go to good schools and non custodial parent will pay at least half, why at least? because non custodial parent can earn money and advance in their career, custodial parent has children that will always come before their career; always have, always will.

      I am probably biased i will conceed that. i was raised by a single mum who’s husbands did not “do the right thing” irrespective of court orders etc. there is still alot of room to wriggle if you can afford the lawyer.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      09:21am | 17/06/11

      Mum chose to give up a career to be a mum, and now she needs to be compensated for her choice by the man. It’s not like the man could have chosen to give birth is it by some chance.


      A woman gives birth and has a mother role, therefore the idea she gave up a career is total rubbish, and even if she did it’s her choice and she should live by her choice. Creating a financial incentive for women to split up a marriage is cutural socialist cretinism.  This is the only reason we have marriage failure rates at around 50%


      Apparently now according to the bleeding heart latte socialists, a woman has a right to a career and a right to be compensated for her biology in choosing to have a child. Unlike our socialist PM who chose not to have children to further her career, 99% of women follow their biology, not sexless ideology.


      Maybe you expect the father to sit at home and wear some artificial milk filled boobs and mother the child so the woman can go out and have a career?


      Secondly even if the husband does not work full time and is able to look after the child he is still has a massive uphill battle to get 50:50 access, so your argument is complete crap.

      Once a marriage ends, that’s it, the law has no right to force the continuation of the marriage situation, each party has to make changes and there is not a single valid argument to the contrary. Under your socialist utopian sexless cretinism the woman can just sit back in the same comfort she enjoyed before while the man pays for everything and receives virtually nothing in return for it.

      There is absolutely nothing in your apologist pansy little post to suggest 50:50 custody and property split is not appropriate.

      The lesson for all men here is very clear, never let a woman sit idle at home, always send her out to work, never get into a de-facto or marriage without a pre-nup, even at 50:50 you will be way ahead. Ensure your pre-nup gives you 50:50 accesses to children.

    • Cloud Strife says:

      09:44am | 17/06/11

      @Sony B Goode

      It’s usually the parent that has total or majority custody of the kids that gets the majority of the assets - basically for the kids.

      My dad had majority custody of my sister and I, and so got the majority of assets in the divorce. And this was in the 80’s!

    • Michael says:

      09:59am | 17/06/11

      Sony, lol you poor angry little fellow, wanna hug?

      My wife gave birth and returned to her full time career after several months.
      I use a bottle and expressed breast milk to feed my child when his mother is at work or out doing whatever she feels like doing when she is out, it may be having a latte or shopping for kids books and clothes.

      Yes amarriage ends, but the commitments do not, you have exposed your nasty little self by saying

      “Apparently now according to the bleeding heart latte socialists, a woman has a right to a career and a right to be compensated for her biology in choosing to have a child”

      Yes a woman has these rights, the same as men do, and it’s not compensating a woman for having a child it’s a man being responsible financially for his children, are you a man? or boy?

      If a man and woman or husband and wife decide together to start a family and that one will stay at work or both will or whatever they decide together that decision lasts longer than a marriage.

      The responsibilty DOES NOT END until the children are not dependent on a parent, i think it is at 18 years of age.
      So, a decision to have a child is an 18yr commitment, it is not legally bound to the marriage certificate.

      You seem to be espousing the view that if the marriage ends there is some form of punishment to the woman, and that punishment comes in the form of not paying for you own children.

      I wouldn’t give you access to you kids either until you had your emotions in check, i wouldn’t want to be responsible for another Arthur freeman type tragedy.

      Pansy? your opinion and you welcome to it, Apologist? if you say so smile

    • KH says:

      10:34am | 17/06/11

      Sony - there is one argument - a pretty compelling one.  THE CHILD.  Who wants to shuffled around town every week?  The child needs some stability, a place they can call home - 50/50 just wouldn’t work for them really. 
      The best solution is the children get custody of the house, and the parents move in and out.  They are the ones with the issue, so let them be inconvenienced and shiftless…..........

    • Sony B Goode says:

      11:02am | 17/06/11

      “whatever she feels like doing when she is out,”
      we can see who wears the pants in your family.

      “Yes a marriage ends, but the commitments do not”, rubbish all commitments between a man and woman end with divorce. That’s why it’s a divorce and a separation. Your ilk are always looking for a free lunch, from the oppressor to the helpless and most vulnerable.

      Just because your dad managed to avoid getting screwed by the system you are supporting the unsupportable. Well good on him, no man should be forced into indentured servitude by the state.  I think we need to feel sorry for you; you grew up without a father role in your life and have now are infected with feminazi ideology.

      Slavery has a new name it’s called family law.

      “Yes a woman has these rights, the same as men do, and it’s not compensating a woman for having a child it’s a man being responsible financially for his children, are you a man? or boy?”

      Since you seem to let your women walk all over you it’s no wonder you think they have rights to do so. So if the asset transfer is for the children then you will have no problem returning the excess assets back to the man once the children turn 18 or leave home? Nor would you have any opposition to ensuring that all child support money is strictly veted by the man to be spent only on the children? Any cent not spent on the children should be paid back.

      “You seem to be espousing the view that if the marriage ends there is some form of punishment to the woman”
      Only a quisling would say such things. How is equality a punishment? You seem to think the man should be punished 3 times, loose access to his children while being forced to give up the lion’s share of the assets and then made to bleed through the nose supporting his ex-wife, irrespective of what she gets from any new man, all the while bleating some lie about “it’s for the children!”.

    • John Smythe says:

      11:03am | 17/06/11

      Michael, you are correct you are biased. And you admit that it is based on the arsehat not doing the right thing.

      Your views started sounding good until you started with the math. That’s some harsh and unrealistic calculations there.

      >>>because non custodial parent can earn money and advance in their career

      this is a bit of a dream mate. There is no guarantee this happens. So to base on the possibility of a career advancement equating to financial freedom is also unrealistic.

      I really don’t know how to interpret your 2nd Life (as the Japanese call life after divorce with a new person), as anyone getting involved with a ready made family needs to also accept the responsibility that it is a ready made family. You aren’t just stepping into it with the custodian only.

      I think you have a right to be bitter. But one of the things Erick is arguing for, is a fair standard. What you advocate is a very unfair, and if it were to be passed as law, a very huge hurdle against the wage earner.

      Not all divorces are because of a sleep around partner. You are essentially condemning all divorcees to a life of financial slavery. And that I can’t agree with.

    • Bev says:

      11:25am | 17/06/11

      Michael says:08:42am | 17/06/11
      One is raising the kids, still the other needs to pay at least 50% of the cost of raising those children, and no that doesn’t mean cutting costs and skimping because you don’t think it’s fair.
      Your comment is full of contradiction so I will address just this.
      In 80% of divorces where children are involved the mother initiates divorce regardless of the reason the mother has NO right to demand that the man she had a relationship with continue to support her and the children in the way that they were before divorce. He has an obligation to his children yes but it is purely up to him as to whether he pays for example for a private school or not. Both have the right to get on and make the best of life that they can.  To suggest otherwise is either animal far or indentured servitude. We make decisions we need to live with them. We after all do have (supposed) no fault divorce.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      12:04pm | 17/06/11

      “You are essentially condemning all divorcees to a life of financial slavery”

      That is in fact the current law.

      Let’s examine closely the flaw in logic.

      When a man and a woman decide to split responsibility for raising children and providing income, the woman has a natural mother role and the man has the provider role, this is how it has been since the dawn of man.

      The argument put forward is that the agreement between the man and the woman is that the man will provide for her and the kids. The implied socialist argument is that that it is a promise lasting forever irrespective of a change in status in the relationship between the man and woman.

      I can bet my last dollar that no man makes the following agreement with a woman: I’ll bring in money to look after you and the kids even if we split up. No! The implied argument is always, I’ll look after you and the kids while we are together! If we split all bets are off!

      Socialists have distorted reality and made assumptions that are not logical and wildly unfair; they hide this vicious redistribution of wealth and income under the rubric of “it’s for the children”. Lies!

      Any responsibility for looking after children post-split should be equal.

      Until the system changes back to sanity, what is very clear for all men out there is that under this cultural socialism that women must be put back to work and men have to take half the responsibility for the kids, this should a contractual obligation in the form of binding financial and parenting agreements.

      Remember under this system women are strongly incentivised to split and find a new man since his financial status and provider role is ignored. You have a 50:50 chance of divorce and financial slavery.

    • Erick says:

      12:28pm | 17/06/11

      The “best interests of the child” principle is rubbish. If the law really was based on the best interests of the child, abortion would be illegal and no-fault divorce would not exist.

      The reality is that the best interests of the woman trump everything else.

    • Michael says:

      12:39pm | 17/06/11

      John and Sony, you have both assumed i didn’t see my dad…i did, as often as i wanted to but i lived with my mum as she got custody, we didn’t go without but mum did it tough and dad didn’t live up to his financial responsibilities.

      The maths i offered was a direct response to sony’s claim of 70%-80% of assets go to the woman.

      My math was basic and only served to illustrate my point which i will make again more simply, remember it’s based on Sony’s 70-80% assertion.

      50-50 split of assets, 3 kids each of whom are given 10%

      custodial parent- 50% of assets

      non custodial parent-50% of asstes

      3 kids - 30% of assets

      custodial parent gets 50% + 30% = 80% not at all unfair

      non custodial parent gets 50% minus 3kids@10% ea = 20% of assets

      It makes no difference who proceeds with the divorce nor who is at fault because the childrens welfare is the primary concern.

      Some would argue a woman gets married to her financial benefit others would argue they divorce for the same reason, can’t have it both ways.

      Sony you are just incorrect about responsibility ending when the marriage does, you will have a responsibility at least financially until they are considered independent, you also don’t have the right to decide what you will pay for and wont pay for, the courts have the responsibility to decide how much you will pay and the mum can spend it as she see fit. Remember for every dollar you contribute the custodial parent is paying a dollar too, just because you don’t see the bills anymore doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

      The personal insults about my relationship are just a reflection of your attitudes towards women, no wonder you wives left. I’m very proud of my wife’s achievements and the life we make together.

      I understand you being bitter at failing in a relationship, it happens, take responsibility.

      John the career prospects for the non custodial parent (my example) are the same after marriage as they were during or before, the dream is the same one shared by 22 million Australians ie. meaningful employment with advancement possibilities.

      A single mother who has been out of the workforce for 12 years (my example) has very different prospects due to possibly needing retraining to become current in terms of skills set.

      Bev i can see what you are saying, but you have misunderstood me.
      If the children were in private school during the marriage, they should be able to remain in that school and the father or whomever is non custodial parent will still be paying 50% of that education cost, as this is the share aportioned to them in an equal split 50%-50%

      The non custodial parent doesn’t have the right to say ok well now we are not married my kids can go to the cheapest public school i can find because that’s all i’m prepared to spend.

      Also a question to Sony, did the bank let you out of your comittments to them financially when you got divored? i guess no because the contract is between you and the bank for your share of the debt not to a “husband” that disappears when the marriage is over.

    • Bev says:

      12:50pm | 17/06/11

      Michael says:09:59am | 17/06/11
      I wouldn’t give you access to you kids either until you had your emotions in check, i wouldn’t want to be responsible for another Arthur freeman type tragedy.

      Err your bias is showing.  Since mothers murder children at twice the rate of fathers fairness would dicate you name two mothers and one father.

    • KH says:

      01:08pm | 17/06/11

      ‘no fault divorce would not exist’ - of all the monumentally stupid statements you have made Erick, this is the best.  Because it is way better for the child to grow up in a house with an alcoholic who comes home pissed every night of the week and screams abuse at everyone (my world) - I’m glad my mother left the loser.  For centuries women were condemned to shit marriages because they might as well be dead if they left it.  It is the right of anyone to walk away from a marriage that is shit, without having to ‘prove’ the other person was doing something within some limited definition - not being happy should be enough reason.  You only get one shot at life, and its not nearly long enough to waste it with someone you don’t want to be with.

    • Bev says:

      01:12pm | 17/06/11

      Michael says:12:39pm | 17/06/11
      The non custodial parent doesn’t have the right to say ok well now we are not married my kids can go to the cheapest public school i can find because that’s all i’m prepared to spend

      Yes he does. He has his obligation as laid down in law anything beyond that is his decision alone.  Many fathers do but it is still his decision. Anything else is financial servitude (a form of slavery). Despite your personnel experience (which has coloured your view) 92% of fathers do meet their obligations.  So “deadbeats dads” while they do exist are not as numerous as many would claim.

    • Kika says:

      01:15pm | 17/06/11

      When a man can go through pregnancy and childbirth on his own then he will have equal rights to the raising of the child.  Especially when the kids are young. Kids need mums and dads, but no one can deny that when a child is young a mother is so important.

    • Michael says:

      01:17pm | 17/06/11

      Actually Bev, fairness would be parents NOT killing their children to get even with or punish their ex partner/wife/husband.

      This article isn’t about who is statistically more likely to kill their kids, it’s about gay marriage rights and Sony was trying to use it as a segway into his own personal soapbox against, i can only assume, his ex wife. I am engaged in debating Sony on his views, whilst they might at first seem similar to Ericks the two views are not the same.

    • Bev says:

      01:43pm | 17/06/11

      Michael says:01:17pm | 17/06/11
      I only brought it up because you implied that this person might kill his children and therefore shouldn’t have access. Way over the top in my view.  Then compounding it by pointing at a father again implying that only fathers kill their children which is just not true.  Agree no one should kill their children.  Most fathers don’t kill their children what happens most is in despair they take their own life at the rate of 2 to 3 every day.

    • Bev says:

      01:54pm | 17/06/11

      KH says:01:08pm | 17/06/11
      This is the case feminists always throw up. Despite your personnel experience the same could be said for the 1 in 3 dads on the receiving end.  Despite mum being a shit in a majority of cases mum still gets the kids.  Remember the case (in the papers) not so long ago where the judge agreed dad was far a far better parent than mum but she got the kids anyhow.

    • John Smythe says:

      01:54pm | 17/06/11

      Actually Michael, I didn’t assume you didn’t see your father. I just called him an arsehat for, as you indicated, he didn’t live up to his responsibilities. In hindsight, even so, I guess that puts me out of line with the comment.

      I’ll also happily stand corrected here as I was interpreting the split as income, not of assets. Will also note you mention educational costs are 50/50.

      This is different to how things are done in Japan (from what little knowledge I have of it as I haven’t been divorced here). So that is where I miss-interpreted the split between assets and income. I would, assuming I am the non-custodian, then be required to pay 100% of the educational fees as well as living costs to a certain extent.

      I still disagree on the career advancement stage. What happens outside the marriage (through divorce) is of no longer consequence.  Perhaps I’m not getting what you are saying, but if I divorce, and later get a pay raise, then no I do not believe that my (ex-)wife should be entitled to more money. Obviously within marriage, I get a promotion, that is more money that CAN be spent on the family, note, not must.

      I can appreciate the mother being out of work for 12 years, but this is still a decision she has made. I don’t mean that in a heartless sense. I mean that in that there is still ample opportunity for study at home to retain or improve skillsets, or like my mum, soon as we hit Primary school, went out and worked herself.

      So the insistence that the mother does nothing but child raring is a little archaic, and to be critical, irresponsible. Though that comment is made on the pretense divorce is coming.

      I think one thing that is not factored into the discussion here, and this is where most see the bias being unfair to the custodian, is that the custodian receives the house/apartment whatever. The non-custodian then moves out, note not disappears, and then must also subsidise their own living. This directly impacts their finances, and as such also has an impact on the finances they can provide.

      Where this again becomes way askewed, and again you mention this as well, is that the custodian has a “right” to live the lifestyle they had up to divorce. Wherein then, is that right to the non-custodian? How many non-custodians give up those standards just so that they can meet the responsibilities they face?

      This is where the perspective of financial slavery comes from.

      I’m with KH on the reasons for divorce should also simply be lack of happiness. People can and do fall out of love. Happens.

      And in line with Kika’s comments, I whole-heartedly agree. If I were to divorce, and hopefully amicably so, I would be more than happy to leave the kids under the mother’s care. But I guess that’s also because i think she is a fantastic mother.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      02:44pm | 17/06/11

      “i didn’t see my dad… i did… i wanted to but i…”

      The little i is a dead giveaway. It should a capital I. Do yourself a favour and start using it.

      Repeating your maths doesn’t back up the underlying assumptions.

      First false assumption is that there is such a thing as a custodial parent and a non-custodial parent. It’s a lie. A break up is an end to the relationship, requires a new agreement not a continuation of the old, its not a break up if things continue as they were is it?

      Secondly that the “custodial parent” should get the bulk of the custody at the expense of the non-custodial parent. False assumption. It should be 50:50 or by agreement.

      Thirdly that this unfair split was the intention before separation. It was not.

      Fourthly that the custodial parent should receive the “kids share” of assets for herself. As it is a woman in 99% of cases. That’s insane.

      Fifthly that the man should compensate the woman for a choice by her to be a mother, that’s like saying I chose to jump under a bus and now someone needs to compensate me for my choice. Complete nonsense.

      Unless you consider motherhood to be some sort of handicap there is no compensation required, she will have to make adjustments just like the man will have to.

      Sixthly you keep harping on the fallacy that it’s for the children. It’s not. No amount of repetition will change reality, nor justify the socialist distortion of it. If a woman has another child by another man, it dilutes your children share, they have no means to restore their share. If a woman marries again and dies before her new husband the children can lose everything. Clearly it’s a fallacy that asset transfer is for the children, it’s not. If she spends it all , there is no way for the children to recover it. As with “child support” she can spend it on new shoes for heself if she likes.

      It’s all a gift to the woman to do as she pleases with.

      My attitude is a reflection on the system not on women. The zebra marry zebras excuse, that men are to blame if women take the incentive dangled in front of them when the relationship goes through a rough patch, is just plain insane. And trust me all relationships go through rough patches.

      Giving women a strong financial incentive to break up and find a new provider whilst milking the old one is evil.

      to suggest equivalence to a mortgage contract is a bizzare, the implied contractual term in any relationship, is “while the relationship lasts”. No more.Your argument boils down to saying you have to keep paying for your mortgage and still loose your house, because thats how it was before. wtf???

      That men aren’t allowed to get angry about the system is like saying that you can get a red hot poker shoved up your ass and not show any emotion. Men are human beings not rational economic production units. We have a clear right to be angry, very angry with this evil system.


      We can all see just how distorted the socialist world view is, the vulnerable helpless woman gets nearly everything and the oppressive male gets turned into a financial slave with scant access to his children which is not even considered worthy of a mention.

    • Michael says:

      03:25pm | 17/06/11

      I didn’t mean to imply that Sony would kill his children, if Sony feels that i did, i apologise unreservedly.
      What i meant was that the emotions felt toward an ex can have flow on effects to the children, Arthur Freeman was a very extreme example of that. I assume there are many examples of parents of either gender doing equally disturbing things to their children.

      I was saying i would be concerned about being responsible for custody arrangements with a parent that was displaying spiteful tendencies toward their ex, the child’s other parent. Lets not forget it’s just my opinion, i’m no family law professional, nor am i a divorcee.

      I don’t back away at all from the belief that if woman and a man have a child together they are responsible finacially for that child until the child is not a dependant.

      I don’t suggest that an ex-husband should pay for the mother either, just the children. My point of view is that what the children get is what is necessary, the parent with custody lives with the children so yes in the house etc. Some people can’t see past what the ex is getting to realise it’s that the children are getting their home to live in and their needs met.

      I don’t know what the law is Bev on the school thing it’s just the way i see it, why disrupt the kids from their routine, if they went to that school before and it was good enough then, is it good enough after the marriage has ended? yes is my answer, the marriage ended not parenthood or the type of education you want your kids to have.

      Perhaps the actual difference here is that i don’t see the relationship between the parents as being the thing that binds a parent’s relationship with their children.

      After all is said and done at 18 yrs of age you don’t support your child financially so the burden is finished in the current arrangement, if you have managed not to alienate yourself from your kids you can see them as much as they want to see you.

    • Erick says:

      09:47am | 19/06/11

      @KH - You clearly have no idea what no-fault marriage is. It simply wouldn’t apply to a marriage where one of the partners is alcoholic and abusive - because that is a *fault*.

      No-fault marriage is the concept that either or both partners can simply walk away from a marriage for any reason, or no reason at all. When there is no misbehaviour in the marriage, and children are involved, this is not in the best interests of the child.

    • marley says:

      01:07pm | 19/06/11

      @Erick - I think you meant no-fault divorce there, not no-fault marriage (could such a thing possibly exist smile  )

      And I half agree with you about no-fault divorce:  I think couples should only be able to get such a divorce after compulsory counselling.  That being said, I had an aunt and uncle divorce back shortly after no-fault divorce cam in where they lived.  My aunt was having an affair and wanted to move in with the guy. Infidelity was a grounds for divorce, of course, but my uncle didn’t want to drag his children’s mother through the mire by actually hiring a private detective and getting the photos.  So, a brief separation, followed by a no-fault divorce in which he got custody of the kids and paid a small settlement to his ex (no alimony and he kept the house).  It was far less traumatic for the kids than an ugly court appearance would have been.  And the marriage was a dead duck anyway.

      There are a lot of situations where it’s a “he said, she said” situation which might involve physical or mental abuse, alcohol, drugs, infidelity, etc where a no-fault divorce does make things easier on everyone.  I just tend to agree with you that, where kids are concerned, perhaps it’s just a bit too easy.

    • Sheldon says:

      07:58am | 17/06/11

      But the Marrige Act is all ready equal for all. For the laws which says you cannot marry someone of the same sex not only applies for homosexuals but also hetrosexuals.

    • Dennis Denuto says:

      09:18am | 17/06/11

      Exactly right Sheldon. Hear, hear. Minority groups do not have the right to be ‘more equal’ than anyone else.

    • kate says:

      09:45am | 17/06/11

      Fail.

      Anatole France worked this out way back in 1894:  ““The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and the poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

      (He is also reputed to have said “Stupidity is far more dangerous than evil, for evil takes a break from time to time, stupidity does not.”  Seems to characterise a few people commenting here…

    • Matt says:

      09:57am | 17/06/11

      Wow.. did you use both of your brain cells to come up with that one?

      Dennis - care to explain how if these two women get married they would be more equal than anyone else?

    • Dennis Denuto says:

      10:50am | 17/06/11

      Matt

      Read “Animal Farm”: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.”

      It was a statement about the hypocracy of a minority being superior to the majority, under the guise of equality for all.  Essentially, you can’t legitimately argue under the banner of equality by arguing that you should have special rights in excess of those afforded to everyone else.

      Kate: I think your initial comment actually supports mine. However, your secondary observation takes legitimate discourse into the realm of emotion.

    • Matt says:

      11:17am | 17/06/11

      Dennis no one wants ‘special rights’ in excess of others.. How will allowing same-sex marriage afford extra rights to homosexuals over heterosexuals? What exactly don’t you understand about the word equality?

    • Sheldon says:

      11:28am | 17/06/11

      But Matt, that was what I was arguing before. The marriage laws are already equal. I cant marry someone of the same sex just like a homosexual cant. Not only that but I cant marry someone elses wife, someone under the age of 18, a close relative or marry more than just one wife. Yes we have freedom but freedom is always limited. We cant just do what we want to cause it feels good. Otherwise there would be know need for any laws at all.

    • Dennis Denuto says:

      11:47am | 17/06/11

      Matt

      Refer to the original comment that started this discussion from Sheldon.

    • Matt says:

      12:24pm | 17/06/11

      Hilarious Sheldon…. What are you, 5 years old?  Others don’t find in-equality a joking matter.

    • Sheldon says:

      12:51pm | 17/06/11

      Its not a joke. Thats how the law stands.

    • James1 says:

      01:59pm | 17/06/11

      Let’s invert your logic Dennis and Sheldon.  Should gay marriage be legalised, that would not constitute discrimination against heterosexuals or offer special rights only to homosexuals, because they would have just as much right to marry someone of the same sex as would homosexuals.  So it would not be a case of “more equal” at all - as is the case in your posts, everyone would have the right to gay marry, homosexual and heterosexual alike.  No “special rights”, just equal heterosexual or homosexual marriage for all regardless of sexual orientation.

    • Skippy says:

      02:28pm | 17/06/11

      I think Matt has a few issues. Matt is there a reason you are so degrading in most of your posts? What are you so angry at? I have no idea, but do you really think this is the place to vent it? There are ways to disagree without being down right rude, show some respect and stop reverting to derogatory language. I think you owe Kate and Sheldon an apology, there is no place for that rot you sprout here

    • Sheldon says:

      02:50pm | 17/06/11

      You could also just get rid of marriage all together. But I wasn’t arguing for that.

    • Matt says:

      04:11pm | 17/06/11

      I’m degrading?  hahaha… How’s this for degrading - Skippy, go f*ck yourself mate, if people attack my lifestyle as they have here I have every right to fight back.  Where have people been showing respect here?  By saying homosexuals are unnatural?  Or shouldn’t be allowed to have children - even born of themselves?  That we’re sick and not normal… Why shouldn’t I revert to foul language when that’s what’s thrown at me? And yes, I do have issues with constantly being told by heterosexuals like you how unnatural I am or how we shouldn’t be raising children..

      It may not be doing the best for my cause but why shouldn’t I be able to defend myself from comments of others?  Or is that another thing reserved only for heterosexuals?

      You want an apology?  Ok - I’m sorry you don’t find equality an important issue and I’m sorry defending myself and my lifestyle has upset your delicate, precious senses.  There, better?

    • Tbowler says:

      05:51pm | 17/06/11

      @ Matt. Equality is relative. By all means fight for your cause; just don’t be surprised that I switch off when I have a vocal minority cramming it down my throat.

      My opinion is that equal rights exist; everyone has the right to marry someone of their opposite sex with certain pre-conditions. Gay people can marry someone of the opposite sex if they want to. There is nothing being denied to homosexuals; just nobody is particularly interested in abrogating the existing rights to their benefit. How many other minority groups should we satisfy by changing the law to include their collectice predilictions?

      Im gonna use an example; by way of analogy only. Don’t read into it that I am saying homosexuality is similar to it or anything like that. Okay. Good.

      wanking in public is my sexuality. It’s what gets me off. If other people are made uncomfortable by it they are bigoted against my sexuality. Everybody has the freedom to wank privately at home, nobody has the freedom to wank in public. I demand that I be allowed to wank in public. It doesn’t hurt anyone, nobody who enjoys wanking in private at home, as the law allows, needs to be offended, it doesn’t devalue the institution of wanking.

      Why shouldn’t we have wanking equality too? Why is homosexual marriage equality anymore important than my sexuality recieving equality?

    • Nat says:

      09:32am | 18/06/11

      Hey Matt, Good on you! Thowler, gay marriage rights are not like wanking in public.  That is a ridiculous and insulting anology.  Womens equality was only found through a vocal minority at the time.  Shout as loud as you like and keep it up Matt.  Hopefully if the (sensible) minority (and I don’t think it is a minority) shout loud enough we will get there in the end.

    • Plose says:

      03:30pm | 20/06/11

      Are people on here serious with this comment? Has it occured to you that while everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex that’s not the issue? The issue is the right to marry the person who you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, regardless of their gender.

      This isn’t a “more equal” right but a basic right. It wont effect hetrosexuals in the slightest. It certainly doesn’t make them second class citizens. If anything it will increase their rights in a democratic country by giving htem more freedom. To love who they want in a mutaully agreed loving relationship.

    • Ms Lulu says:

      07:59am | 17/06/11

      I believe gay couples should have the same marriage rights are hetrosexuals but something is up with this whole story…Would like to know the Ladies connection to GetUp….... I have also raised a kid into adult along with my friends and to me someone is putting words in these kids mouths. How long have you been together two years? Hmmm very suspicious I am ( But I always am when Getup is involved trying to suck money out of me )....

    • ro says:

      09:34am | 17/06/11

      They attended a marriage equality workshop put on by Australian Marriage Equality, who won the auction along with GetUp. The workshop was for couples who want to learn how to get their message across, how to lobby people, how to deal with harassment and bullying. They have been together for four years. I’m interested to know what you think is ‘up’ with the story?

    • Dean says:

      11:27am | 17/06/11

      Anyone can join GetUp by visiting their website, as the other half a million people did….

    • NSW says:

      08:08am | 17/06/11

      As marriage is meaningless anyone/anything should be allowed to do it. Hell get your dog married. Marriage is a farce.

      As for same sex couples with kids….this is wrong. Children need a male and a female influence when growing up. These boys will cop it throughout their childhood and will not grow up into normal human beings.

    • AliceC says:

      09:12am | 17/06/11

      @NSW
      “These boys will cop it throughout their childhood and will not grow up into normal human beings.”

      Based on what? Do children of single parents all grow up to be abnormal human beings? It appears these Mums are trying to teach thier children patience and tolerance, values many people in our society lack.

    • Adrian says:

      09:41am | 17/06/11

      These boys will cop it throughout their childhood and will not grow up into normal human beings.

      Yes, they’ll cop it from homophobic arseholes like you. So if they fail to grow up into “normal human beings” the fault will be yours, not theirs and not their parents. Think about it.

    • kate says:

      09:48am | 17/06/11

      The boy school captain at my daughter’s primary school has two mums.  He was elected by his peers, from a short-list chosen by teachers, so by definition he is popular enough to be elected, and well-adjusted and responsible enough to be nominated. 

      Maybe you’re the one with the problem?

    • Matt says:

      10:00am | 17/06/11

      Boooooooooooooooooring…...................  Surely you’re not so stupid as to not know there are MANY families out there that don’t have a male influence or female influence due to divorce/death/sepeartion/gaol etc.  Sounds like these children are already more normal and adjusted than people like you have make up stupid and irrational arguments for what reason exactly?  How would it affect you if they were married?

    • Bev says:

      01:23pm | 17/06/11

      Adrian says:09:41am | 17/06/11
      It seems to me that feminists/gays make decisions (knowing what may happen) then shifting blame to everyone else while not accepting any responsiblity for their own decision.

    • Snake says:

      02:21pm | 17/06/11

      @Adrian: Correct. People will continue to do things that you do not like. Some wanker will run a red light, some screw ball will stalk kids at a primary school, some rapists will rape and some murderers will murder.

      Whatever you can do to stop yourself being the target of these people should be the goal. Not to aim for a fantasy land where people don’t curse or spit, where not recycling is a crime and 2 lesbian mummies can impregnate each other simultaneously on a cloud of vanilla ice cream, under myriad rainbows to the hum of leprechaun midwives.

      Wake up to yourself. Shit happens. When you graduate to the real world where kids get picked on and suicide is quite the reality, you might realise children living in a “gay family” are going to have a rough time at school. It’s unfortunate, it will make baby jesus cry, but it will happen. You can bet your next decaff-soy-latte, it will happen.

    • Mahhrat says:

      08:11am | 17/06/11

      One thing Erick says is right - the marital asset division is usually incredibly biased towards mothers.

      In the case of two mothers, what happens then?

    • Michael says:

      09:04am | 17/06/11

      Are you sure it’s not biased towards the custodial parent?

    • Cloud Strife says:

      09:41am | 17/06/11

      Spot on, Michael.

      My father had primary custody of my sister and I, therefore he got the majority of the assets in the divorce.

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:53am | 17/06/11

      Unfortunately Michael, it isn’t, at least based on my relatively limited experience of transcripts I’ve written for the Family Court.

      In a lot of those cases, there were men who spent considerable time pre-relationship building asset bases, THEN they get married, yet after the relationship breaks down, all previous and a lot of future earning capacity is taken in the marriage split up, no matter whether there are children or not.  This (at least in one case we typed) was in spite of serious unfounded claims of rape and molestation by one complainant against the other.

      Like I said, Erick is seriously canted to one side ont he issue, but how the courts treat men against women in adversarial situations like Family Law is something he’s very close to the mark on.

    • Richard says:

      08:12am | 17/06/11

      So… why did your previous marriage break up? Did he beat you? Rape you? Chain you to the kitchen sink?

      Or did you never really give him a chance. Did you cheat on him in your heart. Where you a lesbian from the start? Where you frigid?

      Why did you enter a marriage and have 2 kids if you were gay? Are you a man hating femi-nazi teacher unionist banshee?

      You’re not a innocent victim in my eyes, there is always more than one side to the story. I do not feel even a slim skerrick of sympathy for your “plight”.

      Why should I?

    • AliceC says:

      09:15am | 17/06/11

      What’s the other side?

    • Richard says:

      10:05am | 17/06/11

      Alice C, the other side of the story may belong to some poor guy who was probably in love with this woman, only for her to up and ditch him so she can play house with another chick. Meanwhile he still gets lumped with all the bills for bringing up his children, but he doesn’t get to be their real father. No, some butch lesbian gets to be their quasi-father.

      This isn’t fair for the father, and it isn’t fair for the 2 (male) children. The masculine gender needs to be respected and celebrated for its unique qualities, not treated like it can be substituted at the drop of a hat with a member of the female gender for no reason but a silly whim or a left-wing ideological bias.

    • Bryndal says:

      10:48am | 17/06/11

      @ Richard “The masculine gender needs to be respected and celebrated for its unique qualities, not treated like it can be substituted at the drop of a hat with a member of the female gender for no reason but a silly whim or a left-wing ideological bias.”

      You are showing some “unique qualities” - non of which I would want passed onto children.

    • scubasteve says:

      08:16am | 17/06/11

      Gay marriage laws should be a no-brainer for our left faction PM in alliance with the greens. pity the Penny Wong monologue cant deviate from the morning labor party memo to put some cabinet level input into the public debate.

      i predict Juliar will come up with this ‘brave reform’  next time 100 assylum seekers drown.
      cynical?  hardly.

    • not important says:

      08:16am | 17/06/11

      This would rank about the 1,000,000th most important issues facing mankind.

      I do not see how getting a certificate to say you are married do anything, a lot of young people choose to not have a wedding anyway.

      It is not like you cannot do anything a married couple cannot do

      Reading this article was a complete waste of my time

    • AFR says:

      09:26am | 17/06/11

      Well, its not imprtant to you (and me neither). BUT it is important to a lot of people. I have a friend getting married this weekend, and she sees it as the biggest day of her life, and who am I to deny her that? Its not about whether a “wedding” is important to you - its about denying a basic right to a sector of the community that the rest of us take for granted.

    • Michael says:

      10:32am | 17/06/11

      You are correct AFR, some people are being denied the right to practice their cultural cermony because they practice it in a slightly different way to someone else.

    • Richard M says:

      08:21am | 17/06/11

      PM’s offer these occasions for auction at the media ball for charity.  It is a pity that Getup sees it as appropriate to politicise this.  I wonder how long PM’s (whether Julia or future PM’s) will continue to do this for charity if these occasions become habitually used for political purposes.

    • marley says:

      08:57am | 17/06/11

      But surely that’s what it’s always been about.  People with a particular interest paying good money for access to the PM.  Maybe Erick should take a leaf from the two mommies’ book and bid for a seat next year to push his own agenda - he’s certainly got a valid issue to raise.

    • Bev says:

      11:57am | 17/06/11

      marley says:08:57am | 17/06/11
      Last time I looked politicians were elected to represent the people they are supposed to serve.  Whether paying money to the politician/party or to a charity (both a bribe) it makes no difference the end product is someone get to get special pleading time. Something you and I don’t get. It would make more sense if she said randomly hey you and you come to dinner I want to know how you feel about things.

    • marley says:

      01:18pm | 17/06/11

      @Bev - ever written to the PM or your MP?  Ever dropped into the local constituency office to raise an issue?  Ever joined a lobby group to push for your particular pet project?  Ever signed a petition?  These are all tried and true ways of getting in touch with the politicians to plead your special case. 

      This media ball is no different.  You get access for an hour or so to the movers and shakers.  And quite ordinary people can do so, if they care enough about their particular quest, and think that this is an effective way of furthering it.  The author of this piece did exactly that.  There’s nothing to stop you or Erick or anyone else from doing what the author did.

    • Bev says:

      02:08pm | 17/06/11

      marley says:01:18pm | 17/06/11
      Yes I have. Mostly the polies don’t even acknowledge your letter or respond.  Petitions, most wind upin the rubbish. This is not the US where in some states they must action them.  I got a response to a letter I wrote to a high court judge he replied and answered my letter point by point.

    • marley says:

      03:28pm | 17/06/11

      @Bev - but that doesn’t alter my point - whether they respond or not (and my MP most certainly did - and even apologized) - someone in their office has seen your letter - and if enough letters pushing the same theme arrive, or a formal delegation from an interest group shows up, or a massive petition arrives on their doorstep, they take notice.  And if you organize yourself to get a seat at the PM’s table, they listen as well.  They may not agree, may not do what you want (they have to balance off other interests) but at least you have your opportunity.  And the Media ball is no different than a letter-writing campaign or any other kind of lobbying activity.  That’s how politics are done.

    • Dan is tired of BS says:

      08:33am | 17/06/11

      It wouldn’t be thepunch.com.au without the weekly “Gay Marriage” BS / feel sorry for me / my life is not fair / if only I could get married story.

      There is much BIGGER things to worry about than this crap.

      Maybe you should ask her about cost of living pressures, Falling public hospital standards, falling public school funding, kids living in poverty etc etc etc etc etc

      Seems that when you are “GAY” life becomes all about being “GAY”.

      Gee, I can’t wait for next weeks episode of “I’m Gay, therefore let me marry” - - - - NOT !

    • Richard says:

      08:54am | 17/06/11

      I agree. Right now, even as we speak, the entire continent of Europe is being ripped to shreds in a financial cataclysm. This is the continent who is lauded as our betters in the climate debate. We are being told that they are so good and we should be emulating them in every way, and that Canada and China and the US and Japan and Russia are irrelevant.

      But Europe are the ones we must follow, they say, while the whole continent suffers from the most dire and violent financial convulsions and seizures. We simply must not follow their path.

      Where is the article examining this critical issue and its ramifications in the context of our own carbon debate on the punch today? Wake up eds! We don’t care about far left agenda non-issues: there are far more pressing concerns at the moment.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:23am | 17/06/11

      I totally agree, but response is swinging two ways. Like me - I just want her to change it to shut people up so we can move on. However it is also incensing others to oppose it just on principle.

      I guess though, we will then have to listen to the hardcore antis at the prospect of it being change - but at least it is different to the constant barrage of pro gay material we are currently being fed. I am pro gay, but I am a tired pro gay and my gay friends are over this crap too.

    • TChong says:

      09:32am | 17/06/11

      Agree Richard, many events and machinations around the world/ europe etc are happening as we speak/ post.
      You’ll find plenty of such coverage at AFR, etc, etc, etc.
      Maybe Punch cant cover all stories / issues all the time?, and maybe, just maybe Punch is giving us articles that the punters want - the survey a couple of weeks ago was for something , wasnt it?

    • rachel says:

      09:42am | 17/06/11

      I really despise this argument of “there are more important things to worry about”. Why is it one or the other? Most people have the brain capacity to think about, and act on, several issues at one time. Perhaps not you.

    • Matt says:

      10:03am | 17/06/11

      You’re right and seeing as it won’t affect you at all why all the fuss? Why not just pass it and let it be over with? Why not let everyone be equal, then we’ll hear the end of it…

    • LeonT says:

      10:56am | 17/06/11

      “Maybe you should ask her about cost of living pressures, Falling public hospital standards, falling public school funding, kids living in poverty etc etc etc etc etc”

      Maybe you should start thinking about real but often ignored consequences of marriage: immigration and power of attorney. Marriage equality is no small issue and the government’s position prevents families from being together which is pretty damn important.

    • MarvinM says:

      11:51am | 17/06/11

      Dont you see that it is in the Interest of this website to garner as many hits and comments as possible. The most effective way is by stirring the pot.

      Getting a rise out of the mainly conservative commenters keeps the web hits and traffic counter flowing.
      ‘Punch On’

    • Brenda says:

      08:37am | 17/06/11

      I don’t think many people care about the partnering choices of others until children are selfishly used as pawns to get laws changed. The quotes from the children sound extremely precocious for their ages and I doubt if they are being teased because of their two mummies.  As a widow, my children were teased because they had no daddy. It is not up to a government to re-define male-female heterosexual marriage just to accommodate a different family dynamic.

      How do traditionally married people feel about having the definition of their unique heterosexual union stolen by a grouping that could simply advocate for the modern-day term “civil union” which carries all the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman, or any de facto relationship? 

      But no, selfish same-sex couples want to hijack the uniqueness of marriage that commonly defines the male-female family structure.  Homosexuals don’t consider or allow for the fact that marriage may have deeply important personal meaning for heterosexuals.  Their overly vociferous “caring” doesn’t extend to married heterosexuals who feel their relationship is defined by traditional marriage. I think those feelings should be respected and not changed to suit alternative lifestyle groupings.

      I suspect that the word “married” publicly defines a couple’s sexuality, their family arrangements, and possibly how they fit into the male-female scheme of things.  They are not “out and proud” about their heterosexual marriage, they just want it to continue to define the particular nature of their relationship. Those who choose the heterosexual marriage as we have come to know it have intrinsic rights to its intended meaning.
      Apples are not oranges and never can be. They are of equal value, yet of different categories. 
      The union between a heterosexual man and heterosexual woman is known as “marriage” and they have every right to retain their relationship category, just as homosexuals have every right to next of kin recognition.

    • marley says:

      09:12am | 17/06/11

      Well, I’m a heterosexual, married person (in a church, with all the bells and whistles) and I have no difficulty with the concept that marriage should be a union between two loving people, irrespective of gender.

    • Ripa says:

      09:14am | 17/06/11

      @ Brenda

      Totally agree, very well said.

    • AliceC says:

      09:19am | 17/06/11

      How on earth do same sex couples/familes actually impact your life? And how does them getting married actually impact you and the way you live?

    • kate says:

      09:55am | 17/06/11

      “How do traditionally married people feel about having the definition of their unique heterosexual union stolen “

      It’s not something they own, how can it be stolen? 

      No doubt many white, male, property-owners were upset about their unique right to vote being ‘stolen’ by women & low class imposters too. But that doesn’t mean granting universal suffrage was wrong.

    • James1 says:

      02:12pm | 17/06/11

      “How do traditionally married people feel about having the definition of their unique heterosexual union stolen “

      I have no problem with it at all.  I love my wife, and men marrying men will not change that.  If the dictionary definition of marriage is what keeps you and your husband/wife together, you should probably not be married.

    • Bev says:

      02:22pm | 17/06/11

      kate says:09:55am | 17/06/11
      Actually the suffragettes where the ones most against giving the vote to “low class imposters”  The ones who couldn’t vote but could die in the trenches in their millions.  If you decided it that was not a good idea they sent you a white feather.  Go read a real history book (non gender studies).

    • Ripa says:

      02:48pm | 17/06/11

      @kate

      you talk in circles and you use useless comparisons, Its very easy, gays and lesbians should stop defining themselves as such, there should be no gay bars, no gay and lesbian mardi gra, no distinction at all between people, only then can you apply one definition. More often i have found gay people to be very arrogant and judgemental compared to “others”.

    • Plose says:

      05:50pm | 20/06/11

      1. “Using children to fight their fights
      I feel the same when I hear the old tired and never backed up “Gay Marriage will hurt the children”. line. It is an interesting phenomenon that people who criticise one party for something invariably do the same, but never see the hypocrisy in what they are saying.
      2.Same-sex couples hijacking marriage
      This is funny from someone who is from a country that claims it is in a democratic country. That claims all people are equal. Someone earlier made a reference to animal farm where everyone is equal, but some are more so. People should learn to share. It will make everybody happier. Your apples and oranges allegory explains it perfectly. To translate in human terms “they are different from me, so they shouldn’t have the same rights. If they become like me I’m willing to share.” In this instance however we are not equal as you seem to be inferring. Heterosexuals can marry the person they love, homosexuals cannot. Not equal in the slightest.
      3. “The union between a heterosexual man and heterosexual woman is known as “marriage” and they have every right to retain their relationship category”
      Really? What right is that? Where does it state that heterosexuals have that right? Who agreed to it? I would like to know since even the Un and several countries around the world don’t seem to think so. It seems this, like most things in the world, is a matter of opinion, and not as “intrinsic” as you seem to think.

    • majority says:

      08:38am | 17/06/11

      Julia giggles, waves her hands and says “look, I understand this is important to you but…....:...”. You have wasted your money.

    • susie q says:

      08:44am | 17/06/11

      although i think anyone should be allowed to get married (boost the wedding industry)  - i normally support GET-UP but they’ve lost their ‘eye on the ball’ - gillard has already lost the next election (sadly) & in 3 yrs time with abbott in power we’ll probably be wondering where our ‘freedom of choice’ went & how we’ve been dragged back into the 1950’s by an out of touch MC pollie! - get - up please WAKE UP & smell the coffee! start doing something to ‘save julia’ cos she’s not saving herself - we can rant about climate & gay marriage all we like but fat lot of good it’ll do us when the Mad Monk’s in charge!!!

    • AJ says:

      09:07am | 17/06/11

      Nice article.

      I hope you have a nice dinner with the PM, but I would try not to get my hopes up about making an impact on the PM’s current “reasoning” about legalising same sex marriage. I’m constantly surprised that a female PM in a defacto relationship is able to espouse the “benefits” of reading the Bible and the “value” of traditional values as arguments against legalising same sex marriage with a straight face.

    • John White says:

      09:20am | 17/06/11

      Marriage is about the basic human right of a child to start life with a Mother and a Father. What happens later through death or adversity happens but marraiage is a union of these two diffent sexes to have a child.

    • D says:

      04:51pm | 17/06/11

      And those children who are born to unmarried parents?  They have lost a basic human right have they?

      My daughter goes to school with a girl whose parents (mid 40s) aren’t married.  I didn’t realise they weren’t offically married until last week when her mum mentioned it to me.  She calls her partner her husband, they just dont’ have the certificate.  You know what - if she hadn’t told me I’d have never have realised they weren’t. 

      Marriage isn’t to have a child.  Plenty of people get married who don’t ever plan to have children.  You’re invalidating their marriages. 

      Giving birth to a child can and does occur outside of wedlock, and it’s not always a single mum, there’s plenty of couples who have kids before they get married, or never get married.  Marriage isn’t something you enter into to gain the right to have a child.  And no child has a basic human right for their parents to be lawfully married prior to birth.

    • Plose says:

      05:57pm | 20/06/11

      Kind of sad really when you marry someone for life just to have a child with them. It sounds like a long dreary loveless life.

      Personally I married because I wanted to be with the person I love. As humans, I kind of thing we are a bit more evolved then to just “mate to perpetuate the species.” I mate for higher ideals, like love.

    • Gordos truck driver says:

      09:22am | 17/06/11

      I am so distraught in missing out on Gordos comment in all this! 
      Personally, why is this subject on the menu times again? Who cares for as long as I don’t pay for the burger or lobster, move on. Give me update how money was distributed to our folks loosing it all. Like to know what happened to my contribution .

    • Richard M says:

      09:26am | 17/06/11

      Obviously, there was a male person involved in the production of these boys.  Where is he? Is he involved in their lives?  If not, why not?  Also, if not, what male role models are available for these boys?  And I don’t mean occasionally visiting friends, or the bloke at the corner shop, but a substantially present, reliable, solid male figure in their lives.  This has been shown to be essential to boys’ development.  Frankly, I couldn’t give a monkeys whether you get married or not.  The much more important issue for all same sex couples is the deliberate absence of a role model of the other gender - especially for boys.

    • fml says:

      01:25pm | 17/06/11

      I think a whole new industry could come out of this, Hire-a-daddy.

    • Bev says:

      02:35pm | 17/06/11

      and girls.
      The whole feminist argument that fathers are not nessesary is being pulled down stone by stone and the wall will (not might) fall. When it does I hope that feminists cop the derision they deserve for the misery they have wreaked.

    • @CraigLambie says:

      09:30am | 17/06/11

      Marriage is a contract between two people.  The ONLY thing this does is provide a family with stability and certain responsibilities that come with it.
      It is a safe guard for each partner in the arrangement to ensure the other will be looked after if something tragic where to happen to one of them.
      For children I think it is immensely important to have this stability - Much more stable in same sex relationships often than opposite sex relationships.
      I think as a Hetero male that the opportunity to enter into this contract should be open to all for the benefit of our next generation - being raised by loving parents is important and will ensure a better world.

    • Debbie says:

      09:50pm | 17/06/11

      Well said, that is exactly what marriage is about. It is about a contract to take care of each other and any children in the relationship. Given how many forms a family takes these days and how relatively few are a traditional MOther, Father and kids these days, it is irrelevant whether it is a women/man, women/woman or man/man. Please can we all get over ourselves and our prejudices and legalize marriage for everyone now.

      I completely fail to see how two women getting married in any way debases my hetrosexual marriage. I would love everyone to have the opportunity to have a long term loving committed relationship as I have with my husband.

    • Jay-ded says:

      09:33am | 17/06/11

      Joolia’s in a heterosexual relationship?

    • Rod says:

      09:36am | 17/06/11

      There is nothing quite like a woman who grows hair on her ovaries.

    • Samuel says:

      09:37am | 17/06/11

      Legally, same sex couples have the exact same rights as heterosexual couples. Only difference is the word ‘marriage’. Let’s at least get that one thing clear - this isn’t a debate about rights, because there are no issues with rights.

      Also, for what it’s worth, it doesn’t sound like your kids are being discriminated against because you’re gay. It sounds like they’re being teased because that’s what kids do. I’ve worked in high schools and, you know, been a teenager, and I’ve seen kids get teased for having parents who are divorced, parents who are dead, for being black or white or Aboriginal or Italian, for liking the wrong sport and the wrong music, for wearing the wrong shoes and their bad spelling or their good spelling, for being smart, for being dumb, for being disabled, for being skilled. Kids will tease other kids for any reason they can find, it’s not a good thing, but it’s how it is.
      So, let’s be serious for a second and not drag your kids into this because it’s not about them.

    • Warwick says:

      11:26am | 17/06/11

      Samuel, that’s a very good response. I didn’t know that same sex couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples. And it is certainly true that kids will tease on very little provocation.

      It is also a good point that a pair of sixty year old heterosexuals getting married is a different thing from twenty-five year olds doing so, specially if the intention of having children - “starting a family”, is at the centre of the project.

      A heterosexual couple might get married and then find that they are unable to have children; would that mean that the marriage should be automatically declared null?

      It is very difficult for a woman on her own to raise and care for kids but I’ve met some who did it extremely well. Certainly they were able to claim that were maintaining a first rate “family.”

      I’ve had experience of children being loved and well-cared for in a family where the two adults were gay women.

      I’ve never seen a family where the two adults were gay men and the idea that a child would be intentionally brought up without a mother makes my flesh creep. It is not for nothing that the phrase “motherless child” automatically conveys the idea of someone bereft and suffering. I would vote against and generally oppose any arrangement that would have motherless children as the intended outcome.

      Maybe we should invent different categories of marriage. “Marriage” for heterosexuals intending to start a family, “larriage” for homosexual males not content with the word “partner,”  “farriage” for female homosexuals intending to make a family in which to raise kids, and “palliage” for gays and straights not intending to create child-rearing families.

    • Two Mummies says:

      12:51pm | 17/06/11

      You need to educate yourself a bit more about the rights and responsibilities that you get when you get married as opposed to coexisting in a defacto relationship. Much of it comes down to timing and having to prove you are in a ‘committed sexual’ relationship.

      You can get married after only a few short weeks of knowing someone and get all the legal entitlements instantly. Not so with defacto relationships where entitlements are earned through the longevity of your relationship. A relationship you have to prove exists. If you are married you just whip out your license.

      Other issues are around parenting and recognition of relationships between mothers or fathers and their children. Marriage conveys an instant legal relationship between the parties to a marriage and any kids that are born into that marriage. Same-sex people can’t get married and are denied these sorts of rights and responsibilities.

    • Plose says:

      06:09pm | 20/06/11

      Warwick:
      You response says more about you then gay relationships. You are ok with a child having two mothers but “cringe” when you think of two fathers?  Why exactly is that?
      And your solution to it all is instead of integration you want a further segregation based on sexuality.
      It seems that you have a bit of a bias going there old chap.

    • Tom says:

      09:45am | 17/06/11

      Good on you Sandy!

    • biff says:

      09:49am | 17/06/11

      Can we have more articles dealing with real issues instead of this flummery? What can we do to assist the unsung carers of Australia who are saving the taxpayers about AUD$13 billion each year? Some respite care for them perhaps. What about our 100,000 homeless…can we assist them? There are many more important issues to deal with.

    • Real man says:

      09:55am | 17/06/11

      Kylie’s got it right, I have received an e-mail showing her as the real femine article.

    • Annie says:

      09:55am | 17/06/11

      What makes Sandy think she will make this “marriage” work…the last one didn’t. So these lesbians are advocating marriage to a man, get some kids then move on to what they really want and take the kids?  Either that or use some male for sperm to provide them with babies.
      If I were the PM and you asked me those 3 questions, I would tell you “because what you are asking is not NORMAL, MORAL or SENSIBLE, and that if allowed would set a precedent for the most horrendous breakdown of the family unit. I would tell you the damage you are doing to what might have been ( but now there is little hope of) two normal young men.

    • kate says:

      10:20am | 17/06/11

      Hate to break this to you, but gay people have been bringing up children for decades, and all the reputable research (as opposed to moral panic hysteria) shows that the kids are doing just fine. 

      This campaign is to address ongoing prejudice (which can only HELP children), not to somehow give permission for us to have children and raise a family (yes, a child and his or her two mummies IS a family).  That’s already happening, and will keep happening, and there’s really nothing you can do about - nor should you, seeing as how it’s none of your business.

    • Dean says:

      11:37am | 17/06/11

      I hope you don’t have kids Annie… The sooner your line of thought dies out the sooner the world will be a better place.

    • AdamC says:

      09:57am | 17/06/11

      Sandy, the reference to your kids in this article is extraordinarily tacky.

      My view is that same-sex couples’ rights are better protected in a framework that avoids the motif of marriage. It is utter nonsense to contend that the inability to get married constitues some kind of government censure of your relationship.

    • Daniel says:

      10:10am | 17/06/11

      when is the dinner

    • Mark says:

      10:23am | 17/06/11

      Child saids: “A family only needs people who love each other. There is nothing wrong with my family we love each other and we are a family.”

      Mum responds: “We have never been prouder than we were right then, and we knew that somewhere at some time we must have done something right as parents”

      A family is much more than people who ‘love each other’ and teaching the next generation that this (alone) constitutes family is, frankly, appauling. After all, the brother and sister who ‘love each other’ cannot form a family. Neither can the man who has two female partners form a family. Having such a simplistic criteria for family is dangerous and negligent.

      But yet it suits the homosexual agenda and will pushed ad nauseum. I just hope they are consistent and don’t ‘discriminate’ against the incestuous and polygamists.

    • Dean says:

      11:43am | 17/06/11

      So your idea of a family is people that can have sex with each other?  That’s beyond weird.

      So you don’t think foster families are real families?  How about adopted kids - they’re not real famillies?  Your idea of family is much more dangerous and negligent than theirs.. And last time I looked incest and polygamy were illegal, homosexuality is not so there’s no real excuse is there..

    • Emma says:

      11:46am | 17/06/11

      A family can be defined by love my parents died when i was 12 and my brothers raised me we are a family and to say that siblings dont make a family is cruel. I would give anything for one parent, these kids are lucky enough to have two and the fact that they are two women is irrelevant they have two people who love and care for them that is family. Coinsidentally my brother is gay and he will make a terrific father one day no matter what anyone else thinks

    • Mark says:

      11:54am | 17/06/11

      No, my idea of family is rather conservative actually. However, i used the same arguments as the SSM advocates (people who love each other) to show the logical consequences of redefining institutions with sloppy parameters.

      Sorry if you missed the point!

    • James1 says:

      01:51pm | 17/06/11

      “After all, the brother and sister who ‘love each other’ cannot form a family.”

      Wow - that is one of the dumbest things I have read on this thread.  Last time I checked, a brother and sister are a family.  Or at least a part of a family. 

      As for the last paragraph, are you seriously trying to tell me that were gay marriage legalised, you would see that as justification to shack up with your sister?  If not, your argument is disingenuous.

    • Mark says:

      02:29pm | 17/06/11

      James, why not?

      we are two consenting adults who ‘love each other’. We will provide a loving, caring and nurturing family environment. We will have both a male and female role model for our children.

      Why is our relationship any less special than your’s, homosexual or otherwise.

      If you think it’s wrong your just a bigot. After all this is the 21st century. Don’t jam your bigotry onto my relationship(s). Who are you to step in my way…

      All i’m asking for is equality!

      ...(replace all the above with homosexual rather than incestuous and you see the point…a flawed and dangerous logic from you and other SSM advocates)

    • John says:

      08:19pm | 17/06/11

      Your spelling is appalling.

    • over it says:

      10:33am | 17/06/11

      Why does this minority issue, which is really nothing more than an argument about semantics/defintion of a word and has no significant ramifications to society, other than to try to normalize self-described queer behaviour, get so much air time?

      It’s such a non-issue in the broader scheme of things.

    • fml says:

      02:24pm | 17/06/11

      Minority issues dont deserve attention? Only issues that affect the majority deserve attention?

      The reason why its getting airtime is because its not resolved yet.

    • over it says:

      03:13pm | 17/06/11

      What’s to resolve?

      As is pointed out here by others homosexual couples have same legal rights as heterosexuals. It’s just marriage is not available to them. Where does the “right” to have access to the institution come from anyway?

      marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman and the arguments for changing that defintion are not convincing.

      It’s all so much ado about nothing.

    • marley says:

      08:43am | 18/06/11

      “marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman.” 

      Not in Canada it’s not.  Nor in a few other countries.  And you know what, the world hasn’t collapsed because gay people get the same rights there as straight people.

    • Coop says:

      11:22pm | 19/06/11

      Actually , it is resolved fml. The answer to gays is “no”. Can we move on now?

    • Prue says:

      10:41am | 17/06/11

      I see marriage as a religious thing. So why don’t we just take the word marriage out of politics? Heteros and homos under state law can have a civil union to recognise their relationship for all the tax reasons etc. If you want to have a relgious marriage then it means nothing under state law unless you also get the civil union papers.  This truly would be separation of church and state.

      Also if gay marriage is legalised than polygamy should be as well. Why the hell can’t I have a husband and a wife?

    • Elphaba says:

      10:59am | 17/06/11

      @Prue, because marriage was never a religious thing in the first place.  It was contracts between families to elevate the status of their offspring, hopefully moving them to higher classes.

      Religions just appropriated the tradition for themselves.  But they didn’t invent it.  Marriage began as a political and social convention.  You can’t take the politics out of marriage when it started as a secular tradition.

    • neil says:

      11:05am | 17/06/11

      That is another can of worms Prue, why can’t I legally have two wives? Where do we draw the line, how many minority groups do we pander to, polygamists, animal lovers, pedophiles? These may sound ridiculus but each are allowed by some cultures and religions.

    • kate says:

      11:06am | 17/06/11

      Wrong.  Marriage is a secular contract governed by secular law.  If you want to have a religious ceremony to go with it, go right ahead, but it has no legal status.

      To avoid confusion, let’s distinguish between:

      (a) a marriage - a legally binding contract
      (b) a religious unioin - a ceremoney which a minority of people choose in conjunction with their legal marriage.

      This is not about religious unions.  It’s about marriage.

    • neil says:

      12:10pm | 17/06/11

      Kate, that may be true of our current laws but the origin of the word is from the French marier which has mostly replaced the old english wedlock from weddian meaning pledge. It’s origin was not in law but in honour.

    • Eskimo says:

      10:42am | 17/06/11

      While main stream churches have been performing marriages for hundreds (and perhaps thousands of years), Australia has been a nation for 110 years. While I agree with the creation of civil unions for consenting adults, who is the government to tell organisations with a long history in celebrating marriage what the rules should be?

    • marley says:

      01:04pm | 17/06/11

      But legalizing gay marriage doesn’t imply forcing the churches or mosques to perform the ceremonies. 

      Marriage is at base a civil contract.  When it is performed in a church, the minister or priest is essentially acting as an agent of the state, as well as of the church, and it is the former role, not the latter, that makes the marriage legal.  When it is performed outside the religious environment, the marriage celebrant or registrar or whoever, fulfills the same role - agent of the state. 

      Recognizing gay marriage would mean that same-sex couples could be legally married in a civil ceremony or in one of those churches which is prepared to conduct same-sex marriages.  It doesn’t mean the Catholic Church or the local mosque would be forced to perform the marriage against their religious principles.

    • Dementer says:

      10:49am | 17/06/11

      So when you get married all the kids will stop teasing your kids.

      Get real anything different kids pick one, race, weight, parents, brothers, sisters, religion.

      How about not trying to justiy your relationship by hiding behind that you are trying to protect you kids.

      Very very low .

      I agree with your right to lobby the PM and even agree with your cause dont use your kids. Its bad form.

    • LeonT says:

      11:29am | 17/06/11

      This is incorrect, it is vitally important that these children be held as a counterexample to the scaremongering practiced by many opponents of marriage equality, some of which have graced us with their presence here.

    • sid says:

      11:01am | 17/06/11

      I would like to see the term marriage expanded to include a non sexual loving relationships. Such as 2 friends, 2 sisters, 2 brothers etc etc etc. I think if we are looking to include homosexual relationships into marriage other loving relatioships also need to recognised.

    • Trent says:

      11:30am | 17/06/11

      I have never really thought of it like that but you have a point.

      What does define a loving relationship to raise children, often it the case that a couple of sisters, aunts, uncles and grandparent raise a child but thier relationships are not recognised formally.

      If we want equality we should extend the perameters to include other relationships.

    • Plose says:

      06:19pm | 20/06/11

      Uhmmm, because there are different types of love in this world. If you only define love in one way you have some very interesting relationships.

      The love between two adults who want to share their lives together is completely different to the kind of love between two friends or two siblings. This is a basic understanding of relationships that every child understands.

      Using this as an arguement actually dumbs down your view point. Not enhance it.

    • Nil by mouth says:

      11:07am | 17/06/11

      Sandy and Louise, I know exactly how you feel, only my situation is much worse. I have been in a committed relationship with my dog now for five years. My 10yo son and 8yo daughter (from my previous marriage but who live with me) are totally fine with it, but we know that if the secret got out, we would all suffer terrible discrimination and life totally wouldn’t be worth living. I don’t want my kids bullied at school just because I choose to have a consenting sexual relationship with my dog. Given that the government won’t even allow gay marriage, I don’t have much hope that they will allow Cindy and me to get married any time soon. This is a terrible situation because we just feel like we’re in limbo, and the kids aren’t free to be honest about our family situation. Why should I be discriminated against just because my experience of true love is different from your own? I can hear all you religious types and other narrow-minded people judging me already. So what’s the difference? Just because the majority of people don’t understand our situation doesn’t make it wrong. The majority of people didn’t accept gay relationships 50 years ago, but look at the situation now. I feel that all loving relationships, whether they be gay, polygamist, bestial or whatever, should be allowed by the state. Why should the government tell me who I can and can’t marry? Why do we have to live in a nanny state controlled by fundamentallist Christians when the majority of people in the country aren’t even religious? Love is love, and I don’t care what all you narrow minded people are going to post in response to this post. Hypocrites all of you, especially gays who tut tut at me and my situation.

    • Matt says:

      11:34am | 17/06/11

      (yawn)... the tired old ‘why can’t I marry my dog’ argument.. So boring.  I’ll tell you why you can’t marry your dog.  Firstly, it’s illegal.  Secondly, your dog cannot give consent.  Thirdly, I doubt your dog would want to be stuck in a relationship where it has the majority of brains and has to go out and work while you sit and stare at carpet or whatever it is you people that bring up this easily-solved argument do…

    • kate says:

      11:42am | 17/06/11

      Sad, really.  If this is the best the anti-equality brigade can come up with, no wonder 71% of Australians believe gay marriage is inevitable. 

      If you truly can’t work out the difference, get your dog to sign his (or her?) name, and give consent.  Meanwhile, I refer to the second quote from M. France, above.

    • mark says:

      11:51am | 17/06/11

      haha funny as…good use of irony (i hope) to show the illogical parameters of this debate.

      How dare those homosexual ‘normals’ criticise your love!

    • Nil by mouth says:

      12:07pm | 17/06/11

      @Matt - you’re just jealous that your dog doesn’t find you attractive.
      And to address your poorly made point - it’s only illegal because it hasn’t been made legal yet. I can remember not so long ago that “sodomy” was illegal. Not any more.  Once there is greater acceptance of love in its various manifestations, the law will change.

      @Kate - There are a lot of people out there who are illiterate and can’t sign their name. There are different ways of giving consent. Cindy gives me consent every time she licks me.

    • Nat says:

      09:57am | 18/06/11

      If you cannot see the difference between marriage to a dog and marriage between two consenting adults then I feel sorry for you.  The dog obviously has more brain cells than you and probably is seeing a poodle on the side anyway.  Do you scratch your arse on the carpet as well?  Sounds very much like it.

    • Rossco says:

      11:25am | 17/06/11

      So if two married lesbians get divorced does that mean they get 80% each?

      BTW just let them call it a marriage. There’s a movement for the idea, it’s not hurting anyone, just let it happen so gays can get on with their lives and we can stop hearing about it and start hearing about other issues like men’s rights being abused in the system.

    • Power of Attorney says:

      11:30am | 17/06/11

      I find this gay marriage debate highly amusing for one very simple reason: What came first, marriage or the marriage act?

      Think about that one for a moment. What happened first. Did the Government declare that it was okay for people to hold a ceremony where they invite all their family and friends, declare their love for each other (generally under some sort of God or deity) and then decide to live in the same house and raise children together - or did people start having ceremonies, calling them “marriages” and *then* the Government decided to recognise them legally with a “Marriage Act”?

      Think about it.

      There is NO LAW that prevents a gay couple organising a ceremony where they declare their eternal love for each other. There is not even a law that would prevent them calling it a “marriage” ceremony and inviting people to their “wedding”. There is no law that prevents them exchanging rings. There is no law that prevents them from living with each other in the same house and raising children (should they have any - though that one does rely on someone of the opposite gender being involved at some point - laws can’t help biology).

      And gay couples can even go one further. You can even sign documents at your “wedding” ceremony. My advice would be to speak to a good lawyer about a Power of Attorney. Worded correctly they will grant you a large majority of the rights and powers laid out under the marriage act.

      That includes right to finances / bank accounts, right to have the over-ruling say in health-care if your partner is incapacitated, rights around who looks after the kids and so on. In fact I’m surprised the G/L lobby haven’t already gotten together and started publishing a set of standard documents that provide these powers. Now just organise for a JP to attend your wedding to witness the signing.

      The fact is, you’ve *given* this power to the State when it’s a power the state never had. You’ve rolled over and accepted this - instead of doing what has been true through-out all of history: Acting first and then letting Government sort out the mess later. This is true for every law we have today. (EG: Cyber-crime occured long before the Government created laws for it. And someone even had to mruder someone else before we made laws about that).

      I guarantee you that the minute gay couples start having “wedding” ceremonies, calling each other a “married couple” and then going into hospital and pulling out all the legal paperwork to prove who has what authority over healthcare when their partner is incapacitated - there will be calls for these marriages to be recognised. Simply because hospitals, banks and everyone else knows how to easily deal with a marriage certificate - but power of attorneys are complicated.

      Bog the system down that with that and you’ll get what you want. Keep going with this “I have rights! Please give them to me, pretty please?” and you’ll never get what you want.

    • LeonT says:

      12:02pm | 17/06/11

      Immigration is not covered in this. Marriage equality is important.

    • Samuel says:

      12:03pm | 17/06/11

      This makes perfect sense - if the debate was really about marriage, but it’s not really. It’s about normalisation and acceptance.

      If the issue was actually equality and rights, this would be the best advice you can give.

    • neil says:

      12:52pm | 17/06/11

      I had a similar discussion with a lawyer who is gay and he said the same thing, that the law did provide for anyone to have the same rights as the marriage act provides but for gay couples it must be achieved outside the marriage act.

      So the arguement is more about acceptance than law, but you can’t force acceptance on someone it has to come from them, just because you change a law doesn’t mean you have changed peoples hearts and minds.

    • AdamC says:

      05:09pm | 17/06/11

      This is an interesting angle. But, as the other commenters say, the gay marriage debate isn’t about any explicit entitlements granted by the ability to marry. It is about receiving the imprimateur of the state that (apparently) can only come from changing the marriage act to include same sex unions.

    • snow bunny says:

      11:38am | 17/06/11

      wishing you all the best in the world but - gay relationships are NOT normal. gays having and rasing children is NOT normal. you are very sick individuals and should not be allowed to procreate, let alone flag your “relationships” as normal. I am fully aware that you will not publish my comment because you cannot handle different opinion to your own, but that is your perogative!

    • Matt says:

      12:03pm | 17/06/11

      Your comment was published.  Congratulations bigot!

    • Nil by mouth says:

      12:29pm | 17/06/11

      @Matt - it must really gall you to have to allow people’s comments to be published with views different from your own.
      You are the moderator of this forum, aren’t you?

    • Cloud Strife says:

      01:04pm | 17/06/11

      I’m seeing a sick individual here, and it ain’t the author of the article…

    • Matt says:

      01:16pm | 17/06/11

      No actually, it doesn’t Nil… I’ve learnt long ago you can’t change a bigot’s mind and why should I try?  These people were raised by shitty parents and have had hatred instilled from an early age, I only try and show the stupidity of their arguments…  Replace the words gay with black, disabled, inter-racial, elderly or any other word and there would be uproar.  Yet here’s a comment directly attacking homosexuals and it’s allowed… If they’re allowed to say it, I’m allowed to call them what they are - bigots. Fairs fair after all, why should I just roll over and let some illiterate dick attack me?

    • James1 says:

      01:36pm | 17/06/11

      Indeed Matt.  When a person’s point of view is informed by ignorance (as in lack of knowledge), you will not be able to change their mind using facts, as facts are already irrelevant.

    • Another Chris says:

      04:33pm | 17/06/11

      Just to to bring up a point Matt…
      At no point did I see “Hate” in snow bunny’s message.
      Seem’s the Pro SSM group are quite sensitive to anyone having a view that is anti-SSM. (No hate intended when I say “anti” OK…wait…I used caps..no hate intended there either).. we’re labelled Biggots et al because we thing it’s wrong for whatever reasons.

      I’m from a family with a Mum, Dad, brother and a Dog.
      My Dad and I would have conversations about sport, motor racing, girls and do Guy things…I’d help him around the yard, cut fire wood, weld stuff and build things. Nowadays when I get back, we talk about planning for the future, real estate and finance/business…that and Girls smile
      Mum and I would talk about Girls, life and school issues or problems with friends.. and whilst we talk about the the things I talk with Dad to an extent, we don’t go into as much depth and vice versa. That’s not to say I don’t have a meaningful relationship with both.

      I’ve had the opportunity to have a “Dad” and a “Mum” and i’m so grateful for that. I’m lucky to have not had my Dad/Mum up and go, or either of my parents Die. When I look back on it, I wouldn’t have it any other way (i.e. a Mum/Mum ...Dad/Dad..). The structure works and provides balance. Sadly, divorce, death and abuse are the outlying factors and I wish it weren’t the case.

      All Children are entitled to a Mum and Dad by default. It’s one night stands, divorce and the rest that are the main reason why this isn’t the case. 

      I’m over the “two loving people” it doesnt stick.

    • Skippy says:

      07:23pm | 17/06/11

      To all who have been subject to Matt’s attacks…not only has he taken most comments out of context but he clearly doesn’t have the intellect to approach an argument in a non-defensive manner. I see this a lot with gay people, they think they lost their job cause they are gay, no it’s cause you were under performing, please keep things in context Matt and accept other peoples point of view rather than resorting to telling me to f off! I in no way spoke in a derogatory manner to you, look I could have ranted and raved about how much I disagree with your lifestyle, but I had the decency to express my views in a public arena such as this forum respectfully, something you clearly cannot do. Run away Matt live the lifestyle you choose but do as all a favour and accept other people have a point of view and just because it differs to yours does not make it wrong. You as a gay man want us to accept your views, well mate it goes both ways doesn’t it? (Please don’t answer that I’m really done with your carry on)

    • Glen says:

      11:41pm | 18/06/11

      Poor Matt - the only gay in the village.

    • ForGayMARRIAGE says:

      12:37am | 19/06/11

      Wow.  What century are you seriously in.  And of course Matt has the right to defend the way he lives his life.  I would like to apologise to him on behalf of these total wankers and say that we all don’t feel like that.  I cannot myself believe that a story about the rights of two people to express their love has become this.  Snow bunny sweetie, you are the sick one.  What would you do if your son or daughter said “Mum, I’m gay”.  God help the poor little buggers hey.  I for one do not care as long as my kids are true to themselves.  Those that say it is not normal well, kiss my )(*&!!!!!!!!

    • Hayden says:

      11:49am | 17/06/11

      ... I believe in Marriage between a man and woman. I believe, though, that it should not be something that the “state” has control of. Every union should be a civil union according to the state, and if the couple choose to perform rites around that union in a church and call it marriage, so be it. But it should not be something the Government determines..

    • John says:

      12:07pm | 17/06/11

      There is no such thing as sexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and heterosexuality, these do not exist. It’s all a delusion in people’s minds. There is only man and woman. There is no word that defines man’s and woman’s courtship, basically discarding the legitimacy to all other types of sexuality’s. You calling someone a heterosexual is try to give legitimacy to other types of sexuality’s. Since there is no legitimacy to heterosexuality, there is no legitimacy to anything else.

    • stockinbingal roo says:

      12:12pm | 17/06/11

      I feel for these blokes who have had terrible divorces, (where the wife has morphed into a monster), but you married the woman in the first place, how good is your judgement of a person’s character? You quickly judge a successful relationship but forget that you failed at yours.

    • Kika says:

      01:24pm | 17/06/11

      Good point. Because some go through bad divorces they paint all women with the same brush. My parents don’t have the best marriage, but they love each other for who they are and have stuck it out through the years because they are a team. Not individuals in a marriage, but a marriage which contains individuals. They’ve been through the worst of everything, but through love and forgiveness they made it. 30 years now this year.

      They’ve known many friends go through divorce, many family friends inclusive, and bad ones too. None of them happen by a day, month or year.  Most were slow burning and a lot had issues right from the beginning. A lot got married for the sake of it, or for the children’s sakes, or for whatever reason. My parents had 7 years together before marrying whether good or bad but they are mates first and foremost these days and the romance or whatever that was died long time ago! This could be a bad thing, but like the old people say when you’re both old and ugly friendship is the main glue that keeps you together.

      Divorce is sad, but you gotta wonder sometimes. Why marry them if you’ve got issues to start with? No one becomes a jealous, psycho, monster the minute they get married. No one becomes a selfish, philandering loser when they put a ring on the finger. Likewise many think that ring fixes all these issues and more and will make them live happily ever after.

    • Bev says:

      02:54pm | 17/06/11

      Kika says:01:24pm | 17/06/11
      Good post.

    • Helen says:

      12:15pm | 17/06/11

      So, what does this article and the comments tell me?... that people like Snow bunny, Snake and Bev will not want to be friends with you. That sounds like a win for those children straight off the bat.  All the best for your dinner with Gillard, Louise and Sandy! May your logic win out and may this be one step towards a world in which we look back with bemusement on the Snakes and Bevs as today we look back on the Victorians who covered up piano legs.

    • Snake says:

      02:47pm | 17/06/11

      Good on you Helen. Befriend all the weirdoes, the freaks, the gay’s faux-children and the social outcasts. You’re the next Che.

      Look out homophobes. Here comes Helen.

      On a more important note, I just hope Gillard snubs them quickly and painlessly. No point wasting important time on this non-issue. GIve the same legal rights to civil unions that marriages currently have. Leave children out of it.

    • buckyboy says:

      12:17pm | 17/06/11

      As the father of a profoundly intellectually disabled child…what would be my chances of sitting down with the PM over dinner, and discussing the pathetic, disgraceful disability services available in this country.

      ABSOLUTELY ZILCH…....

      Maybe if I divorce my wife and move in with my best mate… my voice might be heard.

    • Dean says:

      01:24pm | 17/06/11

      Or you could win a charity auction as these two did.. Don’t try and make it sound like they received some sort of favouratism when clearly the article tells how they won a dinner invitation…

    • Andrew says:

      08:04am | 18/06/11

      They won because they had more money. Not because they had a better argument or opinion. There are people and organisations that have real problems, and needs not fully met by governments. There are real issues that concern society, and gay marriage is not one of them.

    • sooverit says:

      12:30pm | 17/06/11

      Hope you and your partner and the other reality show contestants have a nice publicity stunt with the PM and I never hear from you again.

    • Madeleine Reeves says:

      12:32pm | 17/06/11

      Great piece!

      I think it’s very brave of you Sandy to publish this piece, knowing that you would be on the receiving end of vile homophobia and blissful ignorance that’s displayed in the comments.

      Your and your partner’s kids sound like people any parents would be proud of—accepting of difference and able to calmly explain their point of view on the world to people that are hostile to that point of view. It sounds as though you and Louise have set a good example for your children, and that their positive attitude will rub off on their friends and peers.

      Obviously, legalising same-sex marriage alone won’t erase homophobia and suddenly make everyone accept families headed up same-sex parents—but just like we can’t except our children to not tease and bully GLBTIQ youth and children of same-sex parents if the parents themselves don’t view gay people as equals or normal, neither can we expect society as a whole to change.

      Governments set standards for citizens, and they need to do the right thing. Good luck with your dinner with Gillard smile

    • Edward James says:

      12:53pm | 17/06/11

      Louise and Sandy, Will you let us read on the Punch how your dinner with and questions to our Prime Minister go please? The wording of your questions and her responses may be very instructive. Edward James

    • Kika says:

      01:27pm | 17/06/11

      How did this thread become an anti-misandry blog again? This is about gay marriage.

      Sandy - Good luck to you and I wish you every happiness. Whilst I don’t agree necessarily with gay marriage, whether you and your wife are married or not won’t make a razoo of difference in my life. All I can say is good luck, God bless and I hope you achieve what you want. Marriage is good in all but name. It’s just a word at the end of the day. I know to the gay lobby it’s an issue ‘because’, but its what in your hearts that counts. If you feel married, then you are.

    • LeonT says:

      02:01pm | 17/06/11

      “How did this thread become an anti-misandry blog again? This is about gay marriage.”

      Erick got up at 6:04 and saw another article not about him.

    • Helen says:

      02:09pm | 17/06/11

      LOL @LeonT! It’s funny because it’s true.

    • Max Kidder says:

      01:41pm | 17/06/11

      I have no problem with gay marriage as long as brothers and sisters and family members of an adult age and polygamists can all get married too.


      Freedom to all, or freedom to none

    • marley says:

      02:05pm | 17/06/11

      Okay, then no one gets married.  Freedom for all, or freedom for none (including deeply religious heterosexuals).

    • Lily says:

      08:33pm | 18/06/11

      I’d have to agree with Max.  What adults do with each other, provided they don’t hurt anyone else, is their own business.  Perhaps it would be better if we all stopped worrying about what other people are doing behind closed doors and concentrated on enriching our own lives.

    • Elvis says:

      01:48pm | 17/06/11

      But won’t your sons feel depressed later in life when they realise they missed out on having a father through their childhood and now lack the capacity to form meaningful relationships with women themselves because they were never exposed to the flow of heterosexual relationships. Or, have studies shown that kids of same sex parents don’t care if they had a mum or dad, and can anyone post a link to the study…

    • Cloud Strife says:

      02:25pm | 17/06/11

      ‘Never exposed to the flow of heterosexual relationships’? Are you for real?

      Turn on the TV, look in the paper, open a magazine - 99% of them will feature het couples.

    • Peter Simmons says:

      02:52pm | 17/06/11

      Don’t care,  Sandy.

      Democracy - Rule of the majority.

      I do not like paying Medicare Levy (Tax).  Pay it because the majority ruled.

    • marley says:

      01:44pm | 18/06/11

      Well, we didn’t always have medicare.  Then one day, the majority changed its view, and we did.  So why not the same thing with gay marriage?  Nothing is immutable, not even the definition of “marriage.”

    • ausspud says:

      03:05pm | 17/06/11

      Just suck it up sandy, you were in a hetero marriage & all of a sudden your a lesbian,so stop your nagging and live a happy life without being married.

    • Julie says:

      04:57pm | 17/06/11

      Isn’t there another point that’s been missed?
      Who said the adults have to be married for the group to be a family???

    • Lauren Jones says:

      04:58pm | 17/06/11

      I only wish that one day my wife and I ( we got married in the USA) have children as beautiful as you two. I hope that you get what you need from the dinner with the PM. I also hope you don’t read all of the rubbish some people post in the comments section.  Your family is an inspiration to many of us.  Thankyou for the courage. all the best.
      Lauren J.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      05:03pm | 17/06/11

      Total waste of time, a much more important question to ask Gillard is what to reply when a child asks “dad how come I can’t come over to your house more often?”

    • Lloyd says:

      09:39pm | 17/06/11

      Because the rights of a heterosexual father are more important than a gay couple being allowed to marry, right? Typical hetero-normative arrogance. We’re sick of being treated like second class citizens and yet still being expected to pay the same taxes.Full equality - nothing more, nothing less, no pandering to the bigots of which there are many, right here on the Punch.

    • Dick J says:

      05:17pm | 17/06/11

      Oh diddms. You can get married if you want. The law just wont recognise it . 

      Get over it. Move on. Why is the commentary dominated by this piffling issue .

    • Tbowler says:

      05:40pm | 17/06/11

      @Kika, Erick et al…

      Me and my wife have signed a number of prenups; prenups that get around those nasty restrictions on contracting out of statute (Family Law Act etc)...

      Essentially if we divorce: Assets will be split 40:40 with the kids immediately moving in with their maternal grandparents. 20% of assets (Whatever the most liquid is) is to be put in a trust (already set up).

      Me and my wife each take our 40% and are to arrange our own form of custody.

      Should we be unable to agree on a form of custody then the children live the maternal grandparents 100% of the time.

      There is to be no maintenance payment or transfer of any money whatsoever after the 40% split; regardless of who looks after the children; the childrens 20% of net assets in trust is to be controlled by a trustee (my lawyer) for the benefit of the children only

      What do you think?

    • Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

      06:49pm | 17/06/11

      Reading many of these comments, I must remind you all,that HOMOPHOBIA is a Crime !!!

      If any individual was Homophobic towards myself, I would drag them to court before they could say
      “I’m not Homophobic…but”

      raspberry

    • Not a Catholic says:

      07:41pm | 17/06/11

      And if I was catholic…..

      It is really quite hard to tollerate the high horse opinions of one of the biggest bigots I have ever encountered on this site. What do you think gives you the right to be so enraged by some of the above comments when you make worse ones yourself?

      I feel sorry for you.

    • stephen says:

      08:03pm | 17/06/11

      Homophobia is only a feeling, Drew.
      I’m slightly that way, yet no harm is done, (don’t like cargo-pants either, and I won’t start a ‘movement’.)

    • Tbowler says:

      08:31pm | 17/06/11

      Homophobia per se is not a crime. One is allowed to be homophobic, racist, sexist,  hate christians, jews, muslims, hindus and buddhists and all manner of prejudices provided they don’t act on these feelings.

      The government is unable to legislate how people are allowed to feel about things.

      I for one thank god for that .

    • Lilian says:

      08:33pm | 17/06/11

      Love is love. Whether it is between man and woman, two women or two men.  It takes courage to fight for what one believes in when one goes against mainstream opinion.

    • Mark says:

      07:21pm | 18/06/11

      what about two men and one women; or two women and one man; or one man and one woman who are closely related; what about father and daughter, mother and son….

      your right, love is love!

    • John says:

      09:08pm | 17/06/11

      How can Julia Gillard, a declared atheist, and in the eyes of Christians, living in sin, deny gay couples the right to marry?
      It is an inconsequential request in the eyes of many, but for a minority group, it is recognition as a couple and an acceptance by the state.
      Julia show some leadership, and have a conscience vote in parliament………. It will not increase your budget deficit, but it might draw the attention away from your current massive problems and it might increase your dwindling popularity.
      Sandy and Louise, may you cherish your love for each other, the majority of Australia is with you.

    • Hayden says:

      11:29pm | 17/06/11

      Because Julia Gillard is but one person in the Cabinet, regardless of her position.. wink

    • John says:

      05:26pm | 19/06/11

      @Hayden
      Or is it because Julia is spineless and does not stand for anything? What about some leadership? What about other cabinet members that are openly gay? Do they also stand for nothing?
      What will gay marriage cost hetrosexual people like myself? The answer is nothing.
      What will gay marriage cost Julia? The answer is the fundamentalist Christian vote.
      Our government is spineless, gutless and weak, and does not stand for anything.

    • Servaas says:

      09:47pm | 17/06/11

      “Until the Government legally recognises that same sex couples are no different to heterosexual couples…”

      I’m not sure if the saying exists in English as well but roughly translated it states: ‘Don’t sell me donkey droppings and tell me its figs’.

      The government will (well, for the time being at least) continue to see the difference between same-sex and heterosexual couples.

      Good on you all for loving eachother, I love my sister, mom and dad and they love me but government won’t be recognising marriage between any of us soon.

    • Ray says:

      12:03am | 18/06/11

      It is not clear that the quest for same-sex marriage offers any substantive good to those on whose behalf it is so insistently demanded. Put another way, it is hard to see why such an absolute equality of public recognition should be essential to the happiness of homosexuals.

    • marley says:

      08:37am | 18/06/11

      The choice should be theirs, not yours.

    • Brother-in-law says:

      12:50am | 18/06/11

      I’d like to point out for all the hurtful comments here, whether you believe in gay marriage or not, jumping to conclusions and assuming Sandy is keeping the boys from their father is wrong I can tell you she is not.

      Sandy is my ex sister in law, and there has never been a time where the boys have been kept from the father, and vice versa. As far as divorced families go you would struggle to find a better relationship between the boys father and their mother. That Sandy is in a relationship with a woman now is besides the point.

      The fact that she says ‘our’ kids, is no different to if she had started a relationship with another man and he had become their step father. I think people like ‘Joan’ are a stain on our country. How can you go attacking someone’s character based on what you have thought up in your head? I think every one of you that has attacked Sandy for the way she has brought up her kids should be ashamed, because their father see’s them every single day and they both have played a massive part in their upbringing.

    • WayneT says:

      01:43am | 18/06/11

      Just perfect, a bunch same sex couples with an agenda ambush an opportunity for a broader cross section of the community to get access to our PM all for their own selfish needs and to promote their particular way of life.  Way to go getting the general public behind you on the issue.  Just plain selfish and narrow minded….. Oh wait, isn’t that what you guys accuse us of being?

    • marley says:

      08:36am | 18/06/11

      Umm - what ambush?  They put in a bid and won.  You could have done exactly the same for whatever cause you care about.  Would you feel the same if the winners had been a gaggle from the Shooters and Fishers party, or a pro-farmer organization, or an anti-pokies lobby group?  Nothing selfish about it.  You have a cause that matters, you get active, and you engage politicians. Otherwise, you’re just like the guy who complains he never wins the lottery, but never buys a ticket.

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      02:20am | 18/06/11

      What next? Government funded turkey basters and unlimited sperm bank access for the unfortunate ones not impregnated in a straight marriage who leave their husband for another woman?

    • Loxy says:

      12:38pm | 18/06/11

      Whenever an article like this appears in the news I cringe at the rampant homophobia in this country. To Sandy, ignore the ignorant comments on here and continue your fight for equality. I don’t have much hope in Julia changing her tune but I wish you the best of luck!

    • Servaas says:

      07:58pm | 19/06/11

      Please define homophobia and tell us why what is written on this page could be considered homophobic and then why it is such a bad thing. And why do you call the people against same-sex marriage ignorant? Ignorant of what? What is it that they ignore?

    • Tilly says:

      02:10pm | 18/06/11

      Normally, I don’t enter into discussions about gay marriage as I know that those who are firmly against it cannot be logically reasoned with.  Refer to previous posts from Erick and Snake.  But there is one recurring mistake in definitions that needs to be cleared up.

      There is a difference between sex and gender.  Sex is the biological bearings of an human being.  Gender is the socially constructed bounds that declare things like “boys shouldn’t play with dolls”.  Or, closer to the argument, gender declares that “it’s the rules of nature…God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve”. 

      Gender is not split straight down the middle—masculinity and femininity come in many shades of grey.  Those who argue so vehemently for the need for a father figure in a child’s life, or that God did not intend for same sex couples, are generally the ones that bow so readily to the confines of gender identity.  I fear more for the children who feel that they have to fulfill a gender role that their parents have imposed upon them, than children brought up in a loving and open minded family such as Sandy’s.

      The reality is that homosexuality is biologically just as natural as heterosexuality; but an heteronormative society has declared it unnatural.  This is the same society that believes it to be more natural for two men to hold guns, than to hold hands.  Sorry, I’ll take the values of the minority over this messed up majority any day.  Until the populace comes to its senses, this country is screwed.

    • fox says:

      02:43pm | 18/06/11

      What if a brother and sister wanted to conceive, or adopt a kid and raise it as a ‘loving couple’. Both are consenting adults, so why not? Would all of you leftist progressive types also see such a couple as ‘brave’?

      Why not? After all, children being raised in a loving environment is the only important thing, right? Everything else is just attributable to those pesky ‘social norms’.

    • Sony B Goode says:

      10:13am | 19/06/11

      It’s the moral relativism of the socialist left that says nothing is superior to anything else. Which is of course total garbage and the basis of the moral downfall of modern society.

      Everything socialist is a failure. The great big socialist experiment is slowly ending with society left to pick up the pieces.

    • marley says:

      01:18pm | 19/06/11

      I wish people would actually try to understand what socialism is and is not before tagging it with such uninformed comments as this one.  Think about it.  If socialism did in fact believe that nothing was superior to anything else, it wouldn’t have a problem with capitalism, would it?  It wouldn’t argue that cooperative economic and social development was a better model than hierarchical, either, because both would have equal value in a relativist world. 

      Socialism is based on a set of values, just as much as any other “ism.”  Now you might not agree with those values, but to argue that socialism negates all values is frankly idiotic.

    • sam says:

      06:07pm | 18/06/11

      no taxation without representation and religion has no place in politics

    • melle says:

      07:07pm | 18/06/11

      I am so fed up with reading about homosexual couples and their desire to have the unnatural considered natural.
      Now it’s “let’s use the children to push our agenda”.  I pity the children.

      Considered natural?  Never going to happen.

    • sam says:

      11:56am | 19/06/11

      melle says: natural . well you have never seen dolphins or dogs and there unnatural ways

    • James D says:

      08:21pm | 18/06/11

      I call BS!
      You seriously expect me to believe that the quotes (you used” ” to highlight them)  are from a nine and eleven year old? BS! paraphrased and touched up with some emotional license by a woman so selfish in her pursuit of personal happiness and agenda that she can even use her children as leverage.

      Seriously, write an article like an adult, not some dreamt up tale. Im sure the context is true, just the delivery is pathetic. You should be ashamed.

    • Jay says:

      06:54am | 19/06/11

      Tell your kids that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that she loves her partner very much and they will keep living together as they have been for as long as they continue to love each other. Not that hard.
      In comparison you have many parents who have to tell their kids that their mother or father is dying or about to die. Absolutely breaks your heart and in comparison gay marriage is a non issue, so toughen up princess and stop whining.

    • marley says:

      09:29am | 19/06/11

      I don’t want to make any further comments on the same-sex marriage issue but I do want to address a comment someone made somewhere further up the thread, to the effect that mothers are twice as likely as fathers to murder their children.

      That struck me as a pretty odd figure, so I checked it out.  And learned, surprise surprise, that like many statistics on the internet, it was fabricated.  In the US, according to the FBI, 60% of child murder victims are killed by their parents, and the split between mothers and fathers is 50/50.  In the UK,  70% are killed by parents, and the split mothers/fathers is 47/53.  In Australia, the split is 37/63 (or was in 2009) , and the figures for Canada are similar.

      Another myth bites the dust.

    • Erin says:

      09:40am | 19/06/11

      It seems like your 9 year old has a better idea of the situation than you do.  Families look like any range of things and that’s exactly as it should be.  It doesn’t matter if you and your partner are married. The number of heterosexual couples who don’t get married number in the tens of thousands and those kids aren’t asking mummy everyday when she’s getting married.
      As far as kids at school doing the teasing, this has nothing to do with whether you and your partner are married, it has to do with the fact that your family is different to their family.  Even if we legalised gay marriage and the two of you got hitched your kids would still be teased because they have 2 mumies instead of mum & dad.  “Marriage” won’t change anything.  So don’t use your kids as an excuse to try and get what you want.

    • Amy says:

      09:23am | 20/06/11

      If gays marry the world won’t end. All that will be different is gay people will be married. I don’t understand why people are so scared or angry about the issue? You live your life, let them live theirs, don’t get involved it you don’t want to and we can all get over it.

    • Servaas says:

      11:08pm | 20/06/11

      That is in Amy-land but in real life changes has consequences.
      All these so-called homphobes on here and all over the world recognise that it is beneficial to society if a marriage between a man and a woman is regarded as special and unique. It is the preferred environment in which we want the next generations to be raised in. It is the only union which could bring forth the next generation naturally into an environment where all the siblings share the same mom and dad. Other combinations can also ensure the kids grow up fine but it is not recognised as the desired ones. These combinations normally occur because of circumstances such as death of a parent, divorce, abusive parents etc but they remain second best as a societal norm. Therefore we prefer to protect the institution. If you don’t care, live your life and let those who do care oppose it.

    • Steve says:

      10:42am | 20/06/11

      It funny at kindy we are constantly reminded of the importance of male and females parents in the development of the kids.

      We get lots of information about roles for dads and roles for mums.

      While all the studies indicated kids are no worse off with gay parents at the front line of childrens education and development it would appear that the kindys, schools and teachers are saying a very different thing. It would appear that mum and dad family is best for kids.

    • Sandy Miller says:

      05:20pm | 23/06/11

      Wow!Boy did my personal story open a can of worms and such strong opposing views. For those of you who have offered supporting comments thank you it has touched us and we appreciate it. For those of you who don’t support our view on marriage and having the same rights as heterosexual couples, that is your right and I really don’t have anything to say against you. For those of you who have attacked our children with comments such as “smartypants”, indoctrinated and used children shame on you. It was a big decision to include them in our story, but they are a part of our lives and together we are a family, it’s not just us, our family includes our kids. We have not tried to use our children; neither do we see ourselves as victims. We are an incredibly happy family who never wish any harm to anyone. We talk about our children, because we are proud of them and they are a part of our lives, to not talk about them would seem unnatural to us. We do however worry what would happen to the other if something should happen to us. As we are not recognised as a family we worry about financial security and rights to make decisions about the other and not be usurped by other family members.
      I also need to set the record straight on a few things. The most important one being about my ex-husband. He is one of my best friends and a wonderful father to our children. He is an amazing role model and together the three of us are responsible for the two wonderful boys we have. We share custody and care of the children. He is extremely supportive of me and in no way feels threatened by my relationship with a woman. When I told him I was seeing someone and a woman, his exact words to me were “we have agreed to move on and whether your choice is a man or a woman makes no difference just as long as you are happy and she is good to our children.” We have put aside our differences and remained friends and put our children first. I don’t however believe that children from single parents, divorced parents, same sex parents or children being brought up by siblings or grandparents are predisposed to being at a disadvantage. Children need to be loved and cared for, supported and set on the right path; the rest is up to them. I did not write a novel; so many things could not be explained. This is just a small part of our lives and why this issue is important to us. This does not mean that we are not aware of other problems in the world or worthy causes. This issue is just one that is important to us and we decided to put ourselves out there and fight for it.
      We are looking forward to our dinner and are not expecting the world to change, because of our story, we have just been lucky that we have been given the opportunity to put our point of view forward. After all Rome was not built in a day. I am sure that when women fought for equal rights and blacks fought for the same rights as whites very similar things were said about them. Change did however occur and I am sure that the same will happen here. For those of you who have asked for us to let you know how the dinner went and what was discussed I would be happy to do it. I am sure there will be many more responses to what I have said and you have the right to have your say, but please don’t be derogatory about my children.

    • Plose says:

      02:32pm | 28/06/11

      Nice On Sandy. Well done to you and yours and I hope all goes well with the dinner.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

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]

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