Is Julia Gillard homophobic? Or just whistling? (On same-sex marriage)
Is Julia maybe a teensy bit homophobic? Or just par-for-the-course, predictably, utterly cynical? I’ve been wondering and the result, alas, is this rather long post — but I figured we needed the facts, ma’am, just the facts. However it does have a conclusion, thank Google.
This either/or has arisen several times now, in prominent spots, set off by rockjocks Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O in their June 30 interview with the PM. A caller, 20-y-o Tatsuya, asked, “what is your view on same sex marriage, and would you consider legalising it?”
.
Frankly, my dear
In her measured sandpaper tones, Gillard said, “This is the frank answer, we’ve got very clear Labor party policy on this and it won’t be changing – that we believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that it’s recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples, in the things that government does in social security benefits and the like.”
Pressed for her personal views, Gillard’s next frank answer was: “Look, that is my view, I think that’s where we’re at as a community now, and I think it’s appropriate that for these very sensitive issues that we’re reflecting community views.*”
The point is, she did not have to state her personal opinion at all. She could have simply said, this is party policy. And that, as with all party policies, it might be reviewed in the future in the light of different “community views.” Which leaves us with the two options.
Either: Gillard really does hold that view — which Rodney Croome takes apart, below,
Or: she doesn’t believe it, but thinks there is political mileage in it.
In any case, she has taken the trouble in subsequent interviews and q&a’s to keep stressing that it is her own position.
(*Polls: The last poll we have is by Galaxy, June 2009: support for gay marriage rose to 60 per cent, up from 57 per cent two years ago. A Galaxy poll taken in December 2008 found that 60% of Queenslanders believe that same sex couples should be able to have a civil union with the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage, while 54% of Queenslanders believe that same sex couples should be able to marry.)
You, as a woman
On ABC’s Q&A, August 9, audience member asked, “How do you justify your stance on same-sex marriage? Tradition once dictated that you, as a woman, could not vote, own property or run for Parliament, let alone become PM. So why can’t Australia “move forward” with the times on this issue too, to give equality to all its citizens?”
Gillard’s frank answer: “Okay, thank you. I understand there’s a variety of community views on same sex marriage and I suspect what I’m going to say now is going to disappoint you but I’m going to just tell you the truth and the truth is that the position, my position, the position of the Labor Party, which we worked out at our national conference, is we believe that the Marriage Act should stay in the same way that it is now, so marriage would be defined as marriage between a man and a woman but we also, as a government… [have] gone through federal legislation and worked to take those discriminations away … the Medicare Safety Net … count their expenses together … Superannuation … So, you know, we’ve done those things. I know from your perspective it’s not enough but that’s the things that the government has viewed to be really important.” (Full answer below**)
Tony Jones: “All right, there’s a long debate there …”
Gillard: “Sorry.”
Not the 7:30 report
On August 10th on Channel 10′s 7pm Project a million people watched Gillard give the same highly qualified answer before Hughsey got bored and moved her forward. One of the hosts graciously offered her an out: ” Is it hard sometimes that you have to just do what the party agrees on?”
Gillard: “PM: Oh no, I support that, I agree with it …”
At Rooty Hill
From the SMH: Prime Minister Julia Gillard predicted her answer would disappoint some in the room … declaring: ”I think in our culture there has been a special status around marriage — the genesis of the marriage act — and we’re intending to keep that special status.”
That prompted an emotional response from a woman who said: ”I’m a taxpayer. I’m a law-abiding citizen and I want to be able to say to that woman that I love: ‘Will you marry me?’ Not ‘Will you civil-union me?’
+++
What reason could Gillard have for being against same-sex marriage?
Rodney Croome‘s article in the Age, July 2, included this neat and thorough interrogation of Gillard’s postion:
“She is an atheist, so it can’t be because she believes God ordained marriage as a holy sacrament and condemns homosexuality as a sin.
She has no children, so it can’t be because she believes there’s an obligatory link between procreation and the right to marry.
She is in a de facto relationship, so it can’t be because she opposes legally recognising different types of relationships.
She is a female leader, so it can’t be because she believes in some kind of profound biological difference between the sexes.
And as our first female Prime Minister, she can’t believe that discrimination in the past justifies discrimination into the future.”
So we return to the inescapable binary: she either holds a prejudice against same-sex marriage (and therefore, to a lesser or greater degree, gay people), or, she wants the socially and religiously conservative, and the anti-gay, and the religious fundamentalist voters to think that she is on their side.
+++
Is there a more palatable reading?
The Salt Shakers smell a plot
Curiously enough it is the Christianist (to use Andrew Sullivan‘s term) Salt Shakers who point the way most concisely. Their reading of Julia Gillard’s negative position on same-sex marriage is that it is a sham, a Machiavellian feint to obscure what will be her inevitable shift to condoning s-s love & marriage.
The Shakers’ tone of voice: “Whilst it might be easy to be thankful that the Prime Minister is not openly supporting homosexual ‘marriage’, it is important to take a closer look at her own statements and Labor Party policy on this issue …”
Their helpfully close scrutiny of Labor policy (a policy which is the despair of gay wonks and activists) do provide grains of pro-gay sentiment which, Shaker-wise, might well transmute into the seeds of s-s marriage:
“… at their last conference, held in 2009 … There was a strong push by the left wing of the [ALP] to accept marriage for homosexuals. That move was defeated — but a compromise position was reached: the policy was changed to REMOVE any reference to marriage being between a man and a woman.” (Bold text, theirs)
And: “Instead of saying they supported ‘relationship registers’ which didn’t ‘mimic marriage’, the policy now says ‘Labor will take action to ensure the development of a nationally consistent framework that provides “The opportunity for all couples who have a mutual commitment to a shared life to have their relationship officially recognised”.’ … Hence the federal government didn’t challenge the ACT’s ‘Civil Partnership Act’.
Community views and the “homosexual ACT minister”
On her remark about “reflecting community views,” the Shakers accurately register that “it relies on ‘where the community is at’ rather than on a point of principle!” Noting with alarm that “already, both the Tasmanian and Victorian branches of the ALP have passed motions supporting same-sex ‘marriage.” Thus leading to the crucial question: “And if the Prime Minister comes to see that the community and the ALP support same-sex ‘marriage’, could she change her position too?”
And then — the Shakers are good at connecting the dots — they point to “Andrew Barr, the homosexual who is an ACT government minister, has warned them not to be too critical of her.” Yes, “them,” those homosexual folk. And indeed he did:
Mr Barr says the comments shows there is still a way to go before gay and lesbian people are treated equally, but believes Ms Gillard is open to persuasion. “The Prime Minister has a more flexible position in relation towards the internal Labor Party debate than the previous prime minister,” he said. “I know from my dealings with her through Education ministers’ forums that she’s certainly more open to hearing arguments, so I’m optimistic in the future this issue can be revisited.”
And finally the Shakers go home to Andrew Bolt and his blog*** of October 2007, citing a Gillard-penned document from her days in the Socialist Forum (1998-2002): “We need to recognise the only possibility for major social change is under a long period of Labor administration. Within that administration the Left needs to be willing to participate to shape political outcomes, recognising the need to accept often unpalatable compromises in the short term to bolster the prospect of future advance.” (Bold text, mine)
(***No, I can’t bear linking to this, you’ll just have to do it from the Shakers.)
.
The Census recognises you recognising your same-sex marriage
And here’s a thank you tip for the Shakers, a dot they missed which they can now link up: “Same-sex marriages will counted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in the next national Census due on 9 August 2011.”
Paul Lowe, Head of the ABS Population Census Branch, announced in an email to Australian Marriage Equality that “the count of people in same-sex relationships who tick the ‘husband or wife of person 1′ box at question 5 will be made available as a part of the standard output from the 2011 Census.”
“In the past, if someone reported that they were married to a person of the same gender, we would then change that response to indicate ‘de facto’,” said Lowe. “From 2011 we will record their response as married, and release this information in what we call our standard output – in other words, the publicly accessible, standard census information released every four years.”
In still other words — it’s official. Kinda, sorta.
.
In conclusion: Doris Day or Rock Hudson?
What to believe? How much truthiness is there in Julia’s “frank” answers? Is the “real” Julia (“I think it’s time for me to make sure that the real Julia is well and truly on display”) merely homophobic or … a true-blue cynical pollie?
Recall Rodney Croome’s analysis above: there is no wiggle room. It would be truly digusting if Gillard really is homophobic. It’s something I don’t even believe was a core truth of John Howard (I figure he was just deeply, anciently ignorant).
As I am still inclined, at this moment, to give the benefit of the doubt to Gillard’s humanity, I prefer to think that is she playing cynical politics — ugly, self-justifying, rationalised politics. To take from the Socialist Forum doc: “… recognising the need to accept often unpalatable compromises in the short term to bolster the prospect of future advance.”
Or, as she is quoted from 2006 in the current issue of the Monthly: “I’m not naive you know, I’m not Doris Day who’s just somehow parachuted into Canberra. I had to fight hard to get preselected, I had to play a factional game to do that. I had to count the numbers, I had to make deals and I’d do all of that again tomorrow if I needed to.”
In this way Gillard is the precise opposite of Tony Abbott: “I know politicians are going to be judged on everything they say but sometimes, in the heat of discussion, you go a little bit further than you would if it was an absolutely calm, considered, prepared scripted remark. Which is one of the reasons why the statements that need to be taken absolutely as Gospel are those carefully prepared scripted remarks.” As Michael Kinsley observed, “a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.” On the matter of same-sex marriage Julia Gillard is unlikely ever to be gaffed, or surprised by her own spontaneity.
If Gillard succeeds in talking The People of Australia into loaning her the keys to the Lodge, and she gets to stay top-dog (don’t go there) for a while, maybe we’ll get to see Real Julia. And maybe Real Julia will come out and say, “Hey, I was just doing whatever it takes, you know. You didn’t really believe I was homophobic, did ya? Did ya?”
+
+
**The full answer she gave on Q&A:
“Okay, thank you. I understand there’s a variety of community views on same sex marriage and I suspect what I’m going to say now is going to disappoint you but I’m going to just tell you the truth and the truth is that the position, my position, the position of the Labor Party, which we worked out at our national conference, is we believe that the Marriage Act should stay in the same way that it is now, so marriage would be defined as marriage between a man and a woman but we also, as a government, have said there are all sorts of discriminations that have been in place against same sex couples that we’ve wanted to fix and take away and so we’ve gone through federal legislation and worked to take those discriminations away. It means a really practical difference. Just, you know, one example would be, you know, the Medicare Safety Net or the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Safety Net, whether you can count your expenses together as a couple or not. We’ve changed that so a same sex couple can count their expenses together the same way that a married couple could or a de facto heterosexual couple could. Superannuation, to make it clear that superannuation benefits can flow to same sex partners in the way that they flow to other partners. So, you know, we’ve done those things. I know from your perspective it’s not enough but that’s the things that the government has viewed to be really important.”
Tony Jones: “All right, there’s a long debate there …”
Gillard: “Sorry.”
Paul Lowe, Head of the ABS Population Census Branch, announced in an email to Australian Marriage Equality (AME) that “the count of people in same-sex relationships who tick the ‘husband or wife of person 1′ box at question 5 will be made available as a part of the standard output from the 2011 Census”.
 |
|
“In the past, if someone reported that they were married to a person of the same gender, we would then change that response to indicate ‘de facto‘,“ said Lowe.
“From 2011 we will record their response as married, and release this information in what we call our standard output – in other words, the publicly accessible, standard census info
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
I was totally unconvinced by her ramblings on this subject, “I hold this position because this is the position I hold”.
As the recent Californian case showed, there is no rational basis to oppose same-sex marriage under US law, and I suspect the same could be said of Australia.
If Labor win, expect to see a lot of movement on this issue, she knows she can’t hold her shaky ground on this forever. Or she could stay to the right of Arnold Schwartzenegger.
Dear apeman,
It would be good if she’s unconvincing because she doesn’t believe it, or she will have failed at both presenting personal convictions and conviction politics.
Rodney Croome says that because Gillard has no children her position on gay marriage can,t be because of the link with marriage and procreation. So a person has to live a lifestyle to have an opinion on it ? I take the view that if gay couples are not discriminated in law with things such as wills or super marriage is not an issue. To treat them the same as heterosexual couples who are partners but not married. You dont have to be religious to have a view on religion. You dont have to be a doctor to have a view on medical ethics. Croome,s assertion is totally bogus on that point.
Dear geomac,
Yes there is that point of view.
But let’s add this. If — if — one accepts that gay sexuality — same-sex attreaction to use the current term — is not a choice (thought experiment: I’m a “normal” teenage boy growing up in the western suburbs/rural town and I ‘m gonna choose to be an out gay. Poofta-bashing doesn’t worry me at all”)
… then insisting that gays not be allowed to marry without a rational reason — Gillard has presented none — would be analagous to saying that people with the biological luck of being under 103 cm will not be permitted to marry.
Or, people with one blue and one brown eye will not be allowed to marry.
Or, albinos will be prevented from marrying.
Or … aborigines.
I don’t make this last comparison lightly. Indigenous folk make up about 2.4% of the Australian population. The percentage of gay people in a population is intensely contested — see this brief Gallup report — but let’s say is somewhere between 1% and 6%.
The thing about gay people as far as we know is that they are in every ethnicity; in Australia even 1% would indicate 240,000 people. At 6% that would be 1.44 million folk.
How is it okay, based on prejudice (on “tradition”) to discriminate against them?
Julia is clearly hemmed in beyond belief. The churches have always had the parties by the throat in this Country, and progress on gay marriage shows no signs of even the allowance of a conscience vote on this issue. The difficulty here is that we do not even have the same basis for a High Court challenge in relation to the Constitution as exists in the US, basically because we do not have a Bill of Rights. The closest we have is anti-discrimination legislation, which in relation to there being no illegality for gay union in the community, is a lesser instrument of protection than a Bill of Rights.
There is not the collective will of parties, for the churches reason I have suggested, for rights to be voted up, and it would clearly not succeed at Referendum. The only course is for a party in a landslide position, to take the matter to the floor of Conference, for it to form part of the policy platform. Gay marriage has featured more prominently at this election than ever before. The clear demographic battle ground is the seat of Wentworth in Sydney, where polling is free to assess the pull and push of the gay marriage issue, in order to better inform the parties where this issue actually stands in that key seat.
In addition to this, of course a more general push in the broader community should deliver progress of the gay marriage issue post this election as Labor, in particular, wakes up to smell the roses on changing community attitudes, and particularly the onus that will be placed on Labor, to reassert it’s relevance to social justice principals that they, of necessity will need to be seen to be walking away from, in order to with this right wing election.
Until then, what can you expect from Julia? She is walking an ideological tightrope this election, as the nation watches in silent awe. She has demonstrated in recent weeks how very good she is at this balancing routine. It is plainly what she needs to do to win. What issues will she champion once in the Lodge, you may ask. If you have to ask, you haven’t been paying attention. Gay marriage will again be on the agenda at ALP National Conference. I see the issue ascending this time, but again there will have to be the will to take it to the next election. The landslide victory needed to bolster that will, will come, but not this time around, clearly not from the polling. It’s a basic reality of this issue at this election.
W H Chong
Frankly I couldn,t care less if gays were able to marry or not. I have no position on it in the political sense. On another level I dont see it as a reason for angst because I feel the marriage certificate is over rated. Discrimination because of ones life style or inclination is different entirely and I would be against that. I just dont see marriage as important to a couples commitment to each other. If marriage for gays was legal how many would take it up after the initial celebration died down ? Probably the same as the hetero population do you think ?
Well geomac,
It doesn’t “matter” but then again it matters to a bunch of people.
In this context it’s simply about community recognition, to use Gillard’s key phrase. She uses it about climate change politics too, that she wants the community to come along on it. If she’s playing politics then it’s because in her judgement (or rather,according to internal Labor polling) the voting dempographic she is interested in are not with the program.
Otherwise … she’s a homophobe. And that would be irrevocably cruddy.
@Geomac
It’s easy to be cynical, I think, about marriage as a modern heterosexual – everyone’s been choked with statistics about marriage failures, and in many cases confronted with evidence rather directly. But there are assumedly a large number of same sex couples who whom marriage is “important to a couples commitment to each other”.
Dear Mollyarabella,
I confess I don’t trust politicans very far. All of us have experienced our own non-core promise moment when we realise that politicians are always playing the Game. Or as you generously put it, the balancing routine. And that sets up its own expectations — which is that we can never truly trust a pollie’s promise or statement. All we can do is wait and see what the person with the power will choose to do.
The reverse fantasy is that Abbott, having made clear his social conservatism, wins the election and allows s-s law change to take place. The Libs’ policies on this are not troglodytic. Listen to Joy FM’s Doug Pollard interview the shadow AG, George Brandis here (go to 5 August 2010 podcast).
What about Tony Abbotts view? Why doesn’t the media scrutinise his view of SSM? Why don’t people ask him as much as they are asking Julia and Co.? Yes they’re the government but Abbott is the potential leader and I want to know why!
Dear robot1,
I guess he’s made his attitudes well-enough known. Big time Catholic, mates with Cardinal George Pell. In his book from last year, Battlelines, Abbott talked about the possibilty of “covenant marriages” — which is marriage with stricter rules, less secular, restrictions on no-fault divorces …
On the Kyle and Jackie O show, Abbott, badgered by Kyle (Why don’t you let the gays get married, for god’s sake … Just let them get married, who cares?!) had only this to say:
“I guess I’m old-fashioned, marriage is about a man and a woman … I just think that if you’re going to call it a marriage as such — it’s about a man and a woman.”
Jackie O: “So you accept same-sex relationships, you just don’t support the marriage part.”
Abbott: “That’s putting it pretty well.”
Which sounds barely any different from Julia’s schtick, except for her all important proviso of “community values.” When the community changes its mind, Julia will lead us where we already want to go.
W H Chong, Tony Abbott making clear his conservative views shifted the policy debate to the right. Julia has risen to meet the challenge to the extent that her party would allow, and even marginally beyond that, if you also consider that Julia’s founding power base was located in the left wing of the Labor Party.
We have seen the left to right wing transition before, if you think back to 1983 and the ascendency of the Hawke Labor government. Hawke, also hailing from a traditional left power base in the union movement, demonstrated his ability to filter left wing policies through a right wing power base, upon alignment with Centre Unity. In fact, the most notable Labor politicians have demonstrated this cross-over ability where ultimately community values change, has called for leadership to take social issues back to the people.
Tony Abbott I again say, has moved the ground in this election to the right. It is where he comes from, and where he has shown he intends to remain. Julia on the other hand has “form” on social justice issues. They are what her alma mater faction has always stood for, though admittedly not to the effect of overriding more conservative agendas in Labor.
The Right faction is clearly where the power in Labor is located, but it is NOT the social policy engine! You go to the Right faction to get things voted up. You go to the left to have something that’s worthy of getting up! Less simplistic than that, is an assessment of Right wingers and left wingers who see a vote in it. If no one gives a damn, there is no vote in it.
On the issue of gay marriage, clearly more people have come out of the woodwork this election to give a damn than ever before. You can trust an opportunistic party to be opportunistic on this. You can’t count on a conservative party, by definition of it’s conservatism, to change with the times. It is clearly not where their power base lies. I’ve seen Julia walk the tightrope of Labor and Liberal’s power base this election on every conceivable issue going. If anyone has “form” to bring gay marriage to the people in terms of address that will neither alarm nor offend, it’s Julia.
Dear Mollyarabella,
Perhaps it takes insider understanding to be forthrightly optimistic about it — however you have seen her do it before, and I hope your experience is validated. And, of course, that she be given the chance to prove it.
I rather like the whole idea of Julia Gillard, with her unusual attributes for a person in her position. (Quite unlike, say, Anna Bligh, whose persona and circumstance is thoroughly conventional.)
However, it prompts me to think that dog whistling is entirely a negative activity. Nobody whistles for Lassie.
W H Choong, I can show you how Julia is moveable according to the goals and aims of the Labor Party and the collective good of the Australian electorate.
You don’t topple a man like Rudd on a whim. Think of how long she bit her tongue until her party came to her on it’s knees. Rudd ruled, by all accounts, his own outfit with an iron fist. Again you don’t topple one despot, only to replace them with another.
What you’re seeing in Julia is a combination of what was voted up at the last National Conference (now woefully out of date and unresponsive to new ground on gay marriage), coupled with the debate shift to the right ascending with Tony, who brought the discourse with him.
When a party leader is able to appeal to the lowest right wing denominator, it’s almost impossible to look the other way. You try to meet them on that ground to the extent of your party’s incredulity, and pray that what you use to fight them, doesn’t jeopardise all you are fighting for.
Surely all can see for themselves Julia’s struggle and all that is at stake in this election. I only commented here because that very observation, seemed to have escaped the article’s author. Is Julia homophobic? Ask yourselves how homophobic a referendum would reveal Australia to be!
She clearly has to lead on this issue and I can tell you W H Choong, just as she was fed to the wolves this time around, Labor will do her no favours in getting gay marriage over the line. Is she up for it, you have to ask. Well there’s only one way to find out, sadly. I would have preferred Julia to take the issue to this election, but considering a no from Conference and the way the ground has shifted to the right, it would have been political suicide. She rises to rule first. Nothing gets anywhere until she gets to rule first and foremost.
You got it in one.
Just look at her pandering to the religious, or Wongs statement that she doesnt believe she herself should have the right to marry her partner.This is all a cynical attempt to get voters, but even more cynically, those voters that hold these views are not going to believe her, religious and/or homophobic.
Oh Mollyarabella,
It hasn’t escaped the article’s author. She stoops to conquer, in the famous title of Oliver Goldsmith’s play. Yes, politics is nasty and I wish her luck. And truly, I’m not going on about it because I dislike whoever the real Julia Gillard is. But it takes a lot of guesswork to parse the truth to a politician’s reality and there’s the rub — they want us to believe them and we know we have to keep handy large amounts of salt.
As a beneficiary of the no fault divorce laws introduced by the Whitlam government I see no benefit in going back to the early seventies. Abbott has a DLP Santamaria style agenda but like Howard before him has portrayed himself to be something he is not. Whatever you might accuse Julia Gillard of or suggest as to her motives one thing remains true. She has had the same leanings on politics and social policy since her youth. No dramatic conversions such as parental leave or workchoices that Abbott has displayed. His recent book battlelines canvasses what his line is yet that is not the line he is campaigning on. He is a fraud but worse than that he is a person that thinks his brand of belief should be imposed on people who dont share that creed. In saying that I,m a catholic raised and schooled adult who believes in live and let live.
O geomac, the irony!
“Live and let live” is the very phrase Abbott used to Kyle & Jackie O: “I’m all in favour of live and let live, so to speak, I mean, you’re absolutely right, there’s lots of great relationships that people have and let’s encourage them.”
I guess my problem with Julia is simply this: she is playing realpolitick. And, honestly, I don’t know what else she can do.
But – here’s the but.
– She has announced that she is now displaying the “real” Julia.
– And she has volunteered, several times, her personal (and presumably “real”) opinion that she agrees with the Party line — that is, for no rational reason that anyone cares to explain, Labor does not agree with same-sex marriage.
So, unless I knew her personally and knew her views were in fact different to what she has said publicly, I must by default accept that what she says here is a faitrhful reprresentation of her beliefs — in the same way I should believe her when she says she wants to improve the school system or any other promise.
With Abbott at least what you hear from him on cultural and moral matters is transparent: which is why it would be almost impossible for me to vote for a party under his leadership.
With Gillard — like Scully and Mulder in the X Files — I want to believe, because she is a most interesting personality and has a marvellous historical moment as the first female PM. The Obama lesson though is that we can’t invest too much faith in a politician. Let’s inspect their words — it is campaign mode, after all — and challenge them if necessary or possible.
There is an exactly parallel here between Julia’s stance on SSM and her stance on the ISP level internet filter. If you unpacked this one you’d come to terms with the power of the Christian lobby.
Another interesting parallel is between Julia recognising community values in terms of “social” issues and her approach to an ETS (or something like it) where she talks about bringing the community with her. I actually give her full marks for this and condemn the people who mock her citizens assembly. The reality is that whilst the science of global warming was well accepted before 2007 and there was majority support for change, the forces of darkness succeeded in confusing a lot of people over the science and the sad reality is, an ETS taken to an election now would be a vote loser. I also remember Tanner when asked about this also spoke of the need to “bring the community with us”.
It is a real shame that we live in a society where the best advice you can give to someone who is running for election as PM is to “appease the Christians and cop it sweet”. It is also a shame that it is very very difficult to be completely honest and say “its a sad fact that party policy is the way it is because if we changed our policy on this issue (filter/SSSM) then while most people would be happy with us few would change their vote in favour of us, but a small minority of highly motivated people opposed to gay marriage in any form, would”.
What would be really really nice is for the media to constantly shed light on this. To interview individual Parliamentarians of both sides and try to expose who is personally for or against these issues (not just pick on the PM). What would be really nice is for the media to campaign against such minorities and expose them for what they are. A minority pushing their views about how we as adults should act, or what we should think or see. Its not just up to the PM to fix everything, its also important that everyone act against the silent secret lobbyists. At least the mining industry isn’t afraid to do it in public. But the Christians know they have to hide.
One last thought. This also brings me back to the very first Q+A when Rudd was asked about gay marriage and obfuscated saying he was there as a secular PM. Had I been there the question I would have asked is “is this about evidence based policy as you promised? Are you going to obtain evidence about the support for gay marriage in our community, or is the evidence you work on the real or implied threat of the extremist Christian voting block.”
You know in retrospect you could take Julia’s words that she agrees with the Party line as it is to really mean she agrees with the Party process. Worth a thought.
Dear cud chewer,
Nicely put. Still it’s crummy that we’r en a situation that we can’t have leadership, because the leader is intimidated by these extreme elements — which is the best and most charitable case scenario in the cntext of same sex marriage.
Why is it that The People of Australia cannot recognise for themselves what is an obvious point — “What would be really nice is for the media to campaign against such minorities and expose them for what they are. A minority pushing their views about how we as adults should act, or what we should think or see. Its not just up to the PM to fix everything, its also important that everyone act against the silent secret lobbyists. At least the mining industry isn’t afraid to do it in public. But the Christians know they have to hide.”
*sigh*
Just a technical point. On this end it appears my longer post above is still waiting on moderation.
I’ve been thinking this for a while and after reading your post, and the comments, perhaps we can work through it together.
My take on this issue is that many people who oppose ss marriage are opposed to the use of the term marriage being used in that sense. I believe that everyone should be able to live their lives, and if that means ss marriage, then so be it, you have my support. But as a straight woman, I don’t understand the desire for marriage, meaning the religious institution that the word invokes, let alone why some in the gay community want it. If I were offered an alternative option, with no religious connection/history/meaning, then I’d take it because I am an atheist, in a long term hetero relationship, and defacto is so ugly a label! Perhaps there should be another category of relationship, without the religious affiliation but with equal legal rights, that was offered gay AND straight people who don’t necessarily wish to enter into “marriage” in the religious sense, but want to join with their partner in a way that is recognised in the same way. I’m not saying civil unions for straight people (or gay), but we need to come up with another term to use (state marriage?).
I suppose what I’m saying is a separation of church and state, which we know isn’t going to happen because religion is a big player in Australian politics but we could begin to work towards it by not recognising “marriage” as the be all and end all of relationships.
I hope I’ve made sense, it’s difficult for me to articulate this without gauging reactions… get back to me please!
Dear Spotty, thanks for that. Lemme have a think. Anyone else? Pls join in.
3 Trackbacks
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.