Skip to content

Same-sex couples don’t deserve Ice-cream

May 13, 2012

Judas Kiss.

Marriage equality has taken centre stage in the US with US President Barack Obama publicly endorsing his support for same-couples to be able to marry while Mitt Romney, the likely Republican candidate in this year’s US presidential election has spoken out against the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.

“Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman,” Romney told graduates at Liberty University, a Christian college in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Romney, a Mormon by religion, is facing allegations that he harassed and assaulted young effeminate men in his youth. A claim which he rejects.

President Barack Obama, fighting for re-election in November, announced his support for gay marriage earlier this week.

Addressing the Christian graduation ceremony, Romney avoided talking about his own faith but stressed the importance of Christian values in American society.

“There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action,” he said.

While Romney opposed gay marriage, he said same-sex couples should have some rights, including the ability to adopt children.

Back home, despite recent surveys indicating that some 70% per cent of Australians believing that same sex couples should be afforded the same marriage rights as their heterosexual counterparts, Prime Minister Julia Gillard confirmed her opposition to marriage equality following President Obama’s change of heart.

Ms Gillard, an unmarried, self-confessed atheist who is currently living “in sin” with her partner Tim Mathieson is yet to elaborate on her staunch opposition to marriage equality, instead simple stating that she “believes marriage is between a man and a woman” (apparently no further correspondence will be entered into).

I’ve Given You the Answer I’m Going to Give You

Julia Gillard is entitled to her personal opinion, but she doesn’t have the right to impose her personal opinion on the rest of Australia to the extent that her views perpetuate discrimination against an already marginalised minority.

Isn’t Labor meant to a progressive party, after all?

I wonder how Penny Wong feels, a loyal supporter of Ms Gillard, who toes the official party line against marriage equality despite enjoying a loving relationship with her long term partner Sophie Allouache who recently gave birth to a young baby girl.

I really don’t understand the political posturing of the likes of Gillard and Romney on this “non-issue.”

It’s the political equivalent of saying same-sex couples don’t deserve ice-cream.

Heck even the “human headline” Derryn Hinch has publicly declared that he was wrong to oppose gay marriage and now supports marriage equality for same-sex couples.

If only our PM had the same sense of reason, but I doubt we’ll see that.

 

 

36 Comments leave one →
  1. Tony permalink
    May 13, 2012 7:39 pm

    Obama has always supported gay marriage, but wouldn’t publicly support it for base political reasons.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/an-obama-gay-marriage-timeline

    I’d say Ms Gillard’s “position” was arrived at in a similar way.

  2. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 13, 2012 7:46 pm

    No one expects Abbott to support marriage equality.

    But we have a government that actually doesn’t include Abbott. The Prime Minister has been caught taking a politically expedient position, to neutralise Abbott’s position. Public opinion has overtaken her, and her position now looks incredibly shallow and ill-conceived.

    She’ll probably follow Obama’s lead and start talking about her evolution on this issue. That too will sound expedient.

  3. el gordo permalink
    May 13, 2012 8:03 pm

    I agree ToM, poor political judgement by her.

    On the other hand, the incoming Coalition don’t even have to dip their lid in that direction. So Julia has let a lot of people down because of narrow political interests…lost opportunity when you consider a majority of Australians are not against legal reform on this issue.

  4. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 13, 2012 8:07 pm

    Penny Wong’s child cannot have married parents, it must be illegitimate. It seems a little unreasonable to impose that as the only option on any child.

  5. May 13, 2012 8:14 pm

    “Public opinion has overtaken her, and her position now looks incredibly shallow and ill-conceived.”

    Yes, once again.

    Just another example of trying to be too clever by half…

    At least Obama has taken a stand…

    The test will be whether Americans will back him, or opt for the religious nutjob Romney…

    I fear for our future if it’s the latter (let’s bomb Iran).

    What sort of fkn name is “mitt” anyway…??

  6. May 13, 2012 8:21 pm

    Good post, reb.

    I was speaking to a young girl yesterday who said she’ll be voting for whoever supports same-sex marriage. “And who might that be?” I asked.

    “Tony Abbott”.

    WTF!

  7. May 13, 2012 8:24 pm

    I trust you pointed her in the direction of the The Greens and Adam Bandt in that case Migs… 😉

  8. Tony permalink
    May 13, 2012 8:35 pm

    Romney’s history on this issue isn’t quite what you might think, either.

    ‘Mitt Romney’s 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans saying he supports ENDA, ending Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and will be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy’

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/a-mitt-romney-gay-rights-timeline

  9. May 13, 2012 8:48 pm

    Well actually, reb, I did. 😯

    What was of concern was that this girl had no idea that Abbott was totally opposed to same-sex marriage. Why isn’t this being publicised?

  10. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 13, 2012 9:08 pm

    Julia Gillard is entitled to her personal opinion, but she doesn’t have the right to impose her personal opinion on the rest of Australia to the extent that her views perpetuate discrimination against an already marginalised minority.

    I’d say it’s more the views of the over represented religious brotherhood in both major parties that is being upheld.

    No politician has the right to impose their personal belief on the wider population. It is the reason I do not support conscience votes. And how about they start stating these personally held religious/ideological beliefs in the public domain so that people know exactly who and what they are voting for at election time.

    We have a right to know when God is in the House

    The Parliamentary Christian Fellowship is a non-party political group of strongly Christian MPs in the federal parliament, who meet unofficially to discuss politics, parliamentary life and faith…

    …Talk among non-religious members of the Press Gallery now suggests that there may be as many as 90. This means that the percentage of highly religious MPs in the parliament could easily be around 40 per cent…

    …This means that these people are over-represented in the parliament by four times that of the general community…

    …The number of religious parties registered federally has now increased to five – the DLP, the Christian Democrats, Family First, Australian Christians and Rise Up Australia. Each of these parties might get 2 per cent of the vote which doesn’t sound like much but as a block, they are in a position to approach both Labor and Liberal Party Secretaries at election time and offer 6-8 per cent of the vote through preference deals in return for policy promises after the election.

    This frequently happens and is one of the main reasons why censorship, drug, abortion and euthanasia law reform have all stalled recently. It is also the reason I formed the Australian Sex Party

    Slowly and by stealth, we’ve been done over by a group of flat-earthers who have very skillfully infiltrated the major parties (even the Greens now have a Christian faction) through manipulating their pre-selection processes. We need a religious register for state and federal MPs so that all Australians can see where politicians are coming from when they vote or debate moral legislation…

  11. May 13, 2012 9:10 pm

    “Why isn’t this being publicised?”

    Possibly because he’s not the PM…

    The incumbent PM being against marriage equality is probably more significant in my humble opinion.

    The views of an opposition leader, are just well, the views of an opposition leader…

    Gillard has the power to effect change, Abbott does not.

    So the criticism levelled at Gillard, and her inherent hypocrisy is perfectly valid.

    To say “look over there at Abbott” doesn’t really cut it…

    He is isn’t the PM.

  12. May 13, 2012 9:18 pm

    But reb, it looks like he will be the next PM.

    And it wasn’t a ‘look over there’. I think all parties need scrutiny of their policies. We need to know what they stand for, or why do we even bother voting?

  13. el gordo permalink
    May 13, 2012 9:40 pm

    ‘We need to know what they stand for, or why do we even bother voting?’

    At the next election everyone will say what they are going to do, nobody will talk about same gender marriage if they can possibly avoid it.

    We know in advance that The Abbott and Barny will not have gay marriage on the Coalition platform, but a new Labor leader might take it more seriously. There are votes to be had.

  14. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 13, 2012 10:00 pm

    Interesting. Abbott’s position on this issue would be entirely predictable, he’s a catholic conservative. It’s no mystery that he’d hold dated opinions.

    People are entitled to expect more of Gillard.

  15. May 13, 2012 10:37 pm

    Yes, but I don’t think Abbott gets any scrutiny.

  16. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    May 13, 2012 11:23 pm

    Who knows…

    Abbott might get more scrutiny if the government would stop getting itself into trouble by-
    • Appointing a dodgy speaker, with a history of dodginess
    • Having the PM express “full confidence” in an MP who is obviously dodgy
    • Backing out of a written agreement with an independent MP who delivered government
    • Saying there is no leadership challenge, then there is one (twice)
    • Having Rudd and Gillard being on a team, then they’re not (twice)

    There is just so much political incompetence going on with this government, it’s difficult for Abbott to get coverage of his own incompetence.

  17. Meta permalink
    May 14, 2012 12:27 am

    Alternatively, in an analytic world, we could gloss over the OCD-like hunt for the red-herringboned oktoberfest, and return to the idea of a universal conscience vote as promoted by piqued advocacy groups since November 2010; and maybe run a little game theoretic for all players’ positions under a variety of voting-intention and expected-outcomes/payoff conditions, maybe with a side-trip to assess internal-external Party-splitting and Party-defining potentials. Gillard goes to ‘full support’…what happens next? That kinda thing.

  18. Meta permalink
    May 14, 2012 12:42 am

    Incidentally, I think it’s nice that some Members of Parliament are ‘not in Government’; sitting there in the House, taking taxpayers’ money for performing a government job, voting on stuff day after day, and not in need of any especial scrutiny until a triennial Presidential-style electoral campaign. It’d be perfect for a conscience vote, too; ‘not in government’ would reveal itself fairly rapidly in such circumstance, one suspects

  19. Meta permalink
    May 14, 2012 1:14 am

    Three separate bills to legalise same-sex marriage are before Federal Parliament. But as things stand, all the bills appear headed for defeat at the hand of their Labor opponents – including Ms Gillard – and the Coalition. While Labor MPs have a conscience vote on the issue, Coalition MPs do not.

    A simplified matrix of potential positions; which scenario gets the thing passed?:

    Greens…Yes, Yes, Yes
    Coalition…No, No, (Yes = never gonna happen), Maybe (mostly No, some Yes)
    Labor…No, Maybe, (Yes = ill-discipline and/or split), Maybe (mostly Yes, some No)

    How do we get to Yes, Maybe (yes), Maybe (Yes)?

  20. Meta permalink
    May 14, 2012 6:30 am

    Notorious stars’n’moon melon, Senator Hanson-Young‘s views on the matter…

    Greens’ human rights spokesperson Senator Sarah Hanson-Young responded to the Prime Minister’s statement saying, “Prime Minister Gillard risks being on the wrong side of Australian history in her continual opposition to marriage equality. Mr Abbott needs to stop obstructing Coalition members from having a conscience vote on it.”

  21. el gordo permalink
    May 14, 2012 7:30 am

    ‘There is just so much political incompetence going on with this government, it’s difficult for Abbott to get coverage of his own incompetence…’

    True dat…

  22. el gordo permalink
    May 14, 2012 7:36 am

    Hanson-Young makes a lot of sense and I believe the Australian people agree with her.

  23. May 14, 2012 7:49 am

    Interesting that Channel Nine is still running with the news headline “Doctors claim heterosexual marriage better for children,” when in fact the AMA has disputed this claim…


    “AMA president Steve Hambleton has rejected the claims, saying there is no evidence that children with same-sex parents are any different to those with heterosexual parents.

    There is a growing body of evidence that says there’s no difference in [a child’s] psychological development, their general health, their sexual orientation.

    Dr Hambleton says the opinions expressed in the submission do not reflect the views of the wider medical community, saying there are nearly 90,000 doctors in Australia.

    He says doctors must be mindful of putting their opinions forward because they hold influential positions in society.

    “That’s part of the reason why it’s a bit disturbing that these opinions have been proffered. It’s certainly not the opinion of the AMA body of doctors,” he said.”

  24. el gordo permalink
    May 14, 2012 7:57 am

    And there is simply no excuse for Abbott and Barney to hold out any longer…

    ‘Same-sex marriage has been legal in Argentina, where more than 90 per cent of citizens identify as Catholic, since July 2010.’

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/push-for-gillard-to-review-gay-marriage-20120513-1yl0j.html#ixzz1umzmaFSK

  25. Meta permalink
    May 14, 2012 8:06 am

    (That powder-dry frAudit Commission is looking better and better, all things considered, Amanda…”You might think federal Parliament would have a debate on this, but some tricky manoeuvring means that your elected representative won’t get that chance.”)

  26. Splatterbottom permalink
    May 14, 2012 9:44 am

    Armie: “No politician has the right to impose their personal belief on the wider population.”

    An interesting proposition.

    Politicians should vote in conformity with the promises and platform that they were voted into office on.

    A democratic society should allow as much liberty as is possible consistent with protecting the liberty of all citizens. In particular it should constitutionally entrench the rule of law, representative government and freedom of speech.

    Marriage equality is really an issue of the law applying to all citizens equally. Gender discrimination is wrong.

    I would also add that discussion of political issues is best done in a common language, not on the basis of irrational belief systems religious or otherwise.

    Reb: “Interesting that Channel Nine is still running with the news headline “Doctors claim heterosexual marriage better for children”

    It is usually helpful when your opponent pushes an over the top argument. Cases like these are opportunities for a more focused discussion of the issues.

  27. TB Queensland permalink
    May 14, 2012 10:14 am

    Why does polotics seem to attract all the hypocrites …

  28. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 14, 2012 12:18 pm

    Politicians should vote in conformity with the promises and platform that they were voted into office on.

    OK splatter, and could you point me to those explicit promises and platforms (and personal beliefs) on the individual members web pages?

  29. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 14, 2012 12:24 pm

    The views of an opposition leader, are just well, the views of an opposition leader…

    And it shows how much of a free run he is getting on Coalition policy, the non scrutiny of the alternative government. All Abbott does is call a presser every day, blurt out the days attack points, then walk away before any questions can be fired. Easy ain’t it?

  30. Tony permalink
    May 14, 2012 12:34 pm

    Abbott should be criticised scrutinised more, or else the public will think he’s pro-gay marriage. 🙄

  31. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 14, 2012 12:35 pm

    I think it’s nice that some Members of Parliament are ‘not in Government’; sitting there in the House, taking taxpayers’ money for performing a government job,

    yeah, so what exactly are they getting paid for when they ‘got nothin’ to offer? Moralising and gossiping about another’s previous sexual history is not what they were voted into non-office for.

  32. Splatterbottom permalink
    May 14, 2012 1:19 pm

    Armie: “OK splatter, and could you point me to those explicit promises and platforms (and personal beliefs) on the individual members web pages?

    I have no idea what individual members’ web pages say on the marriage equality issue.

    I was making a point of general application. The point is that in a democracy you expect politicians to keep their promises. Voting should not be a guessing game.

    Your point was that politicians should not let their personal beliefs influence their voting behaviour. That statement is way too broad – it is not easy to draw that line. How do you even decide what is a personal belief and what is not?

    As I said, this particular issue is firstly about the rule of law – should marriage laws apply to all people equally or on the basis of gender discrimination. That is something everybody should be able to appreciate regardless of their personal beliefs.

    The existing marriage law also fails the “liberty” test – it restricts the liberty of citizens to marry whom they choose but that restriction is unnecessary to preserve the liberty of others.

  33. Tony permalink
    May 14, 2012 1:28 pm

    I agree about this being an issue of liberty. I don’t need to have an opinion on the ethical, moral, or other aspects of gay marriage. I only need to ask: is it the role of government/ the state to decide who an adult person can marry? The answer is no.

  34. armchair opinionator permalink
    May 14, 2012 1:32 pm

    Voting should not be a guessing game.

    That’s my point as well, how can we perform an informed vote when we don’t know how they will vote on controversial issues eg same sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia?

  35. Splatterbottom permalink
    May 14, 2012 1:46 pm

    Armie, if those issues are important to you, and the politician doesn’t have a clear position on them, you could ask. What are you proposing?

  36. el gordo permalink
    May 15, 2012 11:50 am

    We should abolish marriage altogether and replace it with a civil contract for all…

Go on say something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: