Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

gay & lesbian issues

Dec 3, 2011

ALP National Conference backs Gillard on gay marriage

The ALP's 46th National Conference is preparing to debate the hot button issue of gay marriage. Below is the text of the amendment to the platform moved by ACT Deputy Chief Minister Andrew Barr and seconded by Penny Wong.

Share

The ALP’s 46th National Conference has decided to allow a conscience vote on gay marriage, with delegates voting 208 to 184 to permit conservative MPs to discriminate against same sex couples.

A separate amendment to Labor’s platform proposed by Andrew Barr and Penny Wong to explicity recognise same sex tie-ups was carried on the voices. However, that victory is purely symbolic — when a bill on the issue is introduced next year the Coalition will team with ALP Groupers to shoot it down.

The outcome is a sweet one for the national right,who feared the leader’s credibility would be trashed by an open show of defiance. At one point it seemed the PM had been defeated on the voices, however a vote was quickly called for.

Last night, the PM granted delegates a free vote on the issue, despite socially conservative union leader Joe de Bruyn’s attempts to keep his faction voting as a bloc. The National Union of Workers’ seven Victorian delegates had pledged to vote as group against the conscience vote.

The outcome suggests the Left, with 177 delegates, held firm but that the Right, excluding the NUW, ‘binded’ to back the leader. Yesterday, the voting method, involving tellers counting delegates’ raised voting cards from a distance was called in to question when the left appeared to have snagged more votes than their numbers suggested.

Speeches on both sides of the debate were some of the most fiery seen in recent times at the usual tranquilised conference, with frequent heckling, interjections and thunderous applause.

Moving her amendment, the Prime Minster attempted to keep the debate’s tenor civil, calling for a “climate of respect” as the issue gets thrashed out.

“The issue we are about to debate speaks to people in a deeply personal way,” she said.

Seconding the PM’s amendment, Defence Minister Stephen Smith agreed that although a conscience vote was unusual, it was the best way to deal with the debate.

“The best way forward for us is to accord a conscience vote to enable delegates to deal with this issue so everyone with a view is accorded civility and dignity and respect which is tantamount to reflecting the modern Australia, a mature, tolerant Australia,” Smith said.

Moving the platform change on behalf of Rainbow Labor, an emotional Barr said that same sex Australians deserved equality “that’s not only functional and practical but also highly symbolic.”

“This is about dignity,” he said.

His address was met with a rousing standing ovation.

Wong said if her party discrimnated on any other measure, there would not be a person at the conference that would countenance it.

“I say to those that oppose change, there is nothing to fear from equality,” she said.

Opposing a platform change but supporting a conscience vote, de Bruyn was mocked by observers and activists, when he opened by proclaiming the party should use its head, rather than its heart to deal with the debate.

Marriage between a man and a woman had “always been this way since the dawn of humanity in any society and every civilisation.”

De Bruyn cited an Australian Christian Lobby survey that purported to show that voters in marginal electorates may abandon Labor if it changed its platform.

“When middle Australia looks at the images,” of protests surrounding at the conference, de Bruyn said, “they will say ‘that’s not us'”.

Labor Left legend John Faulkner said the issue was one of simple equality.

“It is not for government to to grant human rights but to recognise and protect them.”

“We will rise to the great traditions of our party, the party of reform, the party of inclusion”, Faulkner said, calling on delegates to erase “the limitations and bigotry of the last century.”

Faulkner said that voting in parliament to send young soldiers to war was not subject to a conscience vote and that the gay marriage debate didn’t fit.

“I take the view that a conscience vote on human rights is not conscionable.”

Senator Mark Arbib layed down the Right’s official line, supporting both a conscience vote and the Barr-Wong amendment.

“Views inside the party and inside the community are deeply held and they differ,” Arbib said.

He claimed Faulkner had previously supported conscience votes on a “case by case” basis for issues that intersect with religion.

Left parliamentary leader Anthony Albanese stumped for his faction, calling on the conscience vote to be shot down.

“By giving people rights they have been denied you do not take away rights for other members of the community.

“Let’s have faith in ourselves.”

Tanya Plibersek said she wanted to say to same-sex youth struggling with their identities community “you are just fine.”

“Almost equal is not good enough.”

However, for the moment at least, equality will hve to remain just out of reach.

Below is the text of the successful amendment to the party platform moved by Barr and Wong. Below that is the Prime Minister’s amendment to allow for a conscience vote.

101A – Marriage Equality Proposed Andrew Barr Penny Wong

Further Support Joe de Bruyn, John Faulkner, Deborah O’Neill, Michelle Lancey

Amendment 101A

Chapter: 9 – A fair go for all Australians
Paragraph: 118, 119, 120,
Page Number: 155
Mover: Andrew Barr
Seconder: Penny Wong
Amendment Text:
Amend heading between 114 and 115 by deleting words “against same sex couples”

Delete paragraphs 118, 119, 120 and replace with:

118 Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life.

119 These amendments should ensure that nothing in the Marriage Act imposes an obligation on a minister of religion to solemnise any marriage.

Original Paragraph 118, 119, 120:
118

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

equal rights for all couples in Federal and State laws.

119

Labor will review relationship recognition arrangements to ensure national consistency.

120

These reforms are to be implemented consistently with Labor’s commitment to maintaining the definition of marriage as currently set out in the Marriage Act.

~

515A – Same sex marriage debate Proposed Julia Gillard Stephen Smith

E. REGISTER OF CONFERENCE DECISIONS
9. Same Sex Marriage (decision of the 2011 Conference)
Conference resolves that the matter of same sex marriage can be freely debated at any State or federal forum of the Australian Labor Party, but any decision reached is not binding on any member of the Party.

Original Paragraph 9

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

43 comments

Leave a comment

43 thoughts on “ALP National Conference backs Gillard on gay marriage

  1. Jeremy Sear

    Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families

    Uh, they were comparing families with two parents with families with one parent. The study did not in any way compare children of gay parents with children of heterosexual parents.

    Nice try, but as disingenuously misleading as we’ve come to expect from the anti-equality side.

  2. JamesK

    I’m still waiting for JamesK to provide a single piece of evidence for his fatuous claim that gay marriage somehow harms children.

    Jeez! – nasty has joined lightweight in a strawman field day.

    i guess this is the point that nasty demands “research” that proves a loving homosexual couple’s children are ‘worse off’ than a loving heterosexual couple’s children.

    You fathead Jeremy.

    The US Federal government did put out a report earlier this year which agrees with commonsense.

    Highlights:

    Children in nuclear families were generally less likely than children in nonnuclear families

    • to be in good, fair, or poor health;

    • to have a basic action disability;

    • to have learning disabilities or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;

    • to lack health insurance coverage;

    • to have had two or more emergency room visits in the past 12 months;

    • to have receipt of needed prescription medication delayed during the past 12 months due to lack of affordability;

    • to have gone without needed dental care due to cost in the past 12 months;

    • to be poorly behaved;

    • and to have definite or severe emotional or behavioral difficulties during the past 6 months.

    It can’t be long before the university faculty lounge, hotbed of that particularly virulent form of totalitarian leftist statism evident today starts publishing politicised drivel to show that fathers are no longer needed as the state is the ‘Provider’.

    Why do leftists destroy absolutely everything they control, by the way?

    Arts, schooling, the judiciary, the news media, environmentalism, immigrants (unless from former communist countries), indigenous peoples and now science?

    JamesK. Damn, I wanted to know what constitutes a “great thinker”. Bless…

    Sadly lightweight, that will forever be beyond your ken.

  3. Peter

    JamesK. Damn, I wanted to know what constitutes a “great thinker”. Bless…

  4. Jeremy Sear

    I’m still waiting for JamesK to provide a single piece of evidence for his fatuous claim that gay marriage somehow harms children.

  5. JamesK

    Like Mark ‘Jacko’ Jackson remarked of another interminable bunny – this time powered by Energiser®:

    “He just keeps goin an goin!!”

  6. Peter

    @JamesK “No great thinker has argued for same sex marriage.”

    Oh JamesK, tsk tsk. Modern philosophers engage in the debates of today – including that of marriage equality. I’m uncertain what your notion of “great” means. I assume you realise that this is very imprecise language.

    I understand your aggressiveness, though. Possessing a minority position that demographics clearly shows will be a rather quaint view within a generation must be frustrating. Swimming against history must be tough, eh.

  7. JamesK

    Now throughout the 5000 years of recoerded history great thinkers, philosophers and prophets have described racial, religious and persection of homosexuals as morally repugnant.

    No great thinker has argued for same sex marriage.

    It’s wonderful seeing lightweights like the poorly named Peter, flail about endeavouring to redefine language and meaning in a woefully puerile attempt to escape after been cornered with ideologically driven stupidity.

    Hey lightweight, who was the modern genius who thought of SSM?

    Did he/she write a philosophical treatise?

    Jeremy p’haps?

    Muhahhahahha……

  8. Peter

    @JamesK. “No great thinker has argued for same sex marriage.”

    Just a little date when you want us to stop our intellectual understanding on issues. Don’t keep us in suspense JamesK.

  9. JamesK

    It’d be impossible to parody the spiteful stupidity of our new far-right clown.

    I’ve been posting here for some 6 years Jeremy and taking your inanities whenever you post Jeremy.

    And my handle has never changed in that time.

    One day you might surprise me and formulate a well thought out argument.

    Well…. astonish might be a better word.

    21st Century ideas, terrible you insist.

    I guess when like Peter, you’re not the sharpest tool in the shed – then arguing with a strawman has its advantages.

    Show me where I’ve “insisted” that “21st Century ideas” are “terrible” you clot, Peter.

  10. Jeremy Sear

    I must say it would be impossible to parody the inanity of the pseudo-righteous indignation of the resident leftists here.

    It’d be impossible to parody the spiteful stupidity of our new far-right clown.

    Cheers, JamesK. Every time you post you highlight your defence of unwarranted discrimination for the morally bankrupt, hateful idiocy that it is.

  11. Peter

    @JamesK. “No great thinker has argued for same sex marriage…Suddenly in the 21st Century leftist ‘geniuses’ parade they’re latest greatest new idea.”

    21st Century ideas, terrible you insist. So again I ask, based on your criteria, at what point should we stop intellectual progress?

    I’ll be sure to advise my friend that Cameron is indeed one of these “Leftists” or is it “leftists”? It will come as quite a shock to the Tories. These “leftists” are a frightfully resourceful bunch – infiltrating even the conservatives.

  12. JamesK

    I must say it would be impossible to parody the inanity of the pseudo-righteous indignation of the resident leftists here.

  13. JamesK

    The fear that the very thought of gays marrying invokes in so many people is repulsive. I just wish these closet homophobes would come out and admit they don’t like gays. The hate that dares not speak its name. Cowards.

    Is this all you can do in lieu of an argument Andrew McIntosh?

    Is it possible that you are really that shallow and intellectually inconsequential?

    Pathetic.

  14. JamesK

    Do tell, at what precise point in history would you like us to stop, and engage in no further increase in our knowledge and understanding? 12th Century? 15th Century. 19th Century? I wait with baited breath.

    I can only assume that the misnamed Peter has no insight into just how childish, churlish and facile that response is.

    And why are you confused that David Cameron is no conservative?

    Next you’ll be telling me that Malcolm Tuernbull is a conservative as well.

    Your farcically uninformed lightweight ‘Peter’, Peter.

  15. Andrew McIntosh

    The fear that the very thought of gays marrying invokes in so many people is repulsive. I just wish these closet homophobes would come out and admit they don’t like gays. The hate that dares not speak its name. Cowards.

  16. Peter

    @JamesK

    “No great thinker has argued for same sex marriage.”

    Do tell, at what precise point in history would you like us to stop, and engage in no further increase in our knowledge and understanding? 12th Century? 15th Century. 19th Century? I wait with baited breath.

    I’m also concerned that you seem to quite enjoy providing us with your “knowledge” using a technology that no “great thinker” has argued for – the internet. So does that mean, some increase in our understanding and knowledge, is allowed?

    What shall I tell my friend who remains convinced that David Cameron is a Tory or conservative, but you clearly state that as he supports marriage equality, he is clearly a “Leftist” (with capitals, so it must be serious). This is all rather confusing.

  17. JamesK

    Point me to anything I’ve said that was “nasty”

    I haven’t read your blog drivel for a number of years Jeremy.

    Have you turned over a new leaf?

    The fact is that a gay man or a lesbian can get married just like any man or woman.

    Nope.

    They can’t?

    Why do insist on playing stupid Jeremy?

    Never mind.

    Our society and western aqnd indeed eastern cultute revolves around the nuclear family.

    What a pointlessly vague statement

    Merriam-Webster:
    ‘NUCLEAR FAMILY’: a family group that consists only of father, mother, and children

    What’s “vague” about that you clown, Jeremy?

    And “pointlessly”?

    You’re a farcically poor interlocutor Jeremy

    This debate really is about the nature of family and what is in the best interests of children but that doesn’t suit leftists.

    It should not be about why astonishingly stupid and superficial people demand the legal use of a word – whilst carrying on like pork chops as if they have been suffering the sorts of evil discrimination seen only in the modern world in Islamic societies – and thus undermine a core, if not the core, idea of civil society that has functioned for at least 5000 years.

    One of the implications would be that there is no difference between homosexual civil unions and married people for the purposes of adoption for example.

    Another would be that only state or non religious institutions could function as a adoption agencies.

    Another would be that no legal birth certificate could use the terms ‘Father’ and ‘Mother’ but use Orwellian terms like in Spain: ‘Proginator A’ and ‘Proginator B’.

    Religious people would have their legal status as ‘man and wife’ changed.

    Etc after nauseating etc.

    And none of this has been explored or discussed.

    I wonder why?

    And what of the ‘unintended consequences’ in 10 years, 1 generation, 2 generations?

    The sad thing is that to nasties like you Jeremy that all sounds fantastic.

    Moreover I have no doubt that is why you are an activist on this issue.

    It’s certainly not because you care deeply about the down-trodden supposedly miserable plight of the western culture’s oppressed homosexuals.

    You phony.

  18. Jeremy Sear

    Sorry, that last one should be parents/children could not marry, obviously, same as now.

  19. Jeremy Sear

    So under the changes to 118 Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life does this allow brothers and sisters, cousins, fathers and daughters, mothers and son’s, are they not loving individuals ?

    Siblings – no, they could not marry – the same rules would apply as they do now.
    Cousins – yes, they can marry – the same rules would apply as they do now.
    Parents – no, they could not marry – the same rules would apply as they do now.

    It’s not complicated. All that’s being changed is the part of the Act that discriminates pointlessly on the grounds of gender.

  20. Jeremy Sear

    Ur a clown Nasty

    Point me to anything I’ve said that was “nasty”.

    The fact is that a gay man or a lesbian can get married just like any man or woman.

    Nope. I was permitted by the law to marry my wife. If I were a woman I would’ve been blocked. And what do we call it when the law prevents a woman from doing something she’d be allowed to do if she were a man?

    Discrimination on the grounds of gender.

    The fact that in a same-sex union they can’t legally describe themselves as ‘married’ but otherwise enjoy all the legal rights of married spouses is indeed ‘unfair’ but, frankly, so what?

    So a great deal. I suspect you’d mind it if you were arbitrarily blocked from marriage for no good reason by the law.

    Children are optimally brought up by a mother and father

    There is no such research, that is a lie. Children are optimally brought up by TWO PARENTS, research has indeed shown that. It did not show that they were worse off if their parents were of the same gender.

    gender roles are not a matter what an individual feels like deciding..

    In reality they are, sorry mate. There are plenty of fathers who do the traditional “mother” role at home, and plenty of mothers who do the traditional “father” role in a career. Welcome to 2011.

    Our society and western aqnd indeed eastern cultute revolves around the nuclear family.

    What a pointlessly vague statement. There are plenty of childless married couples whose existence doesn’t threaten “our society and western and indeed eastern culture”.

    But nastiness alternating with or as a core of vacuous platitudes is your norm Jeremy… [the man marrying his dog] looks a lot like Jeremy, doesn’t he?

    Welcome to just one further reason why people like JamesK are losing the debate, badly.

  21. JamesK

    Hold ur horses Williamson!

    Polygamy first then and maybe then incest.

    And since male and female are no different and all leftists know humans are equal to animals so interspecies marriage will be next cab off the rank:
    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/toowoomba-man-marries-dog-20101201-18g5o.html

    Joseph looks a lot like Jeremy, doesn’t he?

  22. Davies Ben

    Common law is Common law and we share laws with England but hey Murdick makes more money attacking England its people and its heritage than obeying their LAWS!!!!!!

  23. Davies Ben

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4493094.stm

    Take it to the Supreme Court like Murdoch and Fraser did to overthrow SIR GOUGH!!!

    Common Law is Common Law only Herald Sun (ANDREW THE LORD’S CREATOR BOLT) readers and the CHINESE COMMUNIST MURDOCH FAMILIES ARMY ARE AGAINST THIS!!!!!!

  24. Williamson Adam

    So under the changes to 118 Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life does this allow brothers and sisters, cousins, fathers and daughters, mothers and son’s, are they not loving individuals ?

  25. JamesK

    my more substantial rebuttals

    Ur a clown Nasty

    Gainsaying and inane appeals to emotion doesn’t amount a “rebuttal”

    Moreover I wrote earlier:
    “The implictions on society or not discussed just leftist code words like ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ which like ‘progressive’ and ‘liberalism’ are almost the exact reverse.”

    The fact is that a gay man or a lesbian can get married just like any man or woman.

    The fact that in a same-sex union they can’t legally describe themselves as ‘married’ but otherwise enjoy all the legal rights of married spouses is indeed ‘unfair’ but, frankly, so what?

    Children are optimally brought up by a mother and father and gender roles are not a matter what an individual feels like deciding..

    The differences between the sexes aren’t just a matter of “undercarriage” as James Valentine stupidly argued in an Oz op-ed on this topic some months back.

    And the argument that it’s “no skin off my nose” misses the point.

    Our society and western aqnd indeed eastern cultute revolves around the nuclear family.

    What sttaggers me is the inanity of the debate which always favours destructive leftist activism.

    But nastiness alternating with or as a core of vacuous platitudes is your norm Jeremy

  26. Jeremy Sear

    PS “aka ‘Nasty’ Sear”? Hilarious.

  27. Jeremy Sear

    On this issue, JamesK, the marriage equality side is full of people who are “great thinkers” compared with you.

    I note of course that you ignored my more substantial rebuttals, because of course you have no response. But everyone else noticed, too.

    The fact that the pro-discrimination side has such a weak case is, of course, why it is inevitably losing it.

  28. cane greiggs

    unfortunately as soon as “gay marriage” (lol as in “gay lunch”) is passed we’ll have people like jamesk trawling all and sundry waiting for the slightest hint of marriage difficulty, “see? see? i told you it wouldn’t work!”. i pity the the poor couple who get the first “gay divorce”.

  29. david wootton

    We have 2 versions of marriage in this country. State sanctioned legal marriage and the church marriage. As long as the appropriate paperwork is completed, both are legal.
    The wording of Labor’s new platform does not force the Church to perform same sex marriages, so why is it an issue?
    The Church doesn’t have to recognise “gay marriage” but the State certainly should.

    I’m a gay male who doesn’t particularly feel the need, at age 34, to marry my partner of 5 1/2 years. But down the track for legal reasons it may become important. Or I may just want to do it because I can. As a law abiding and tax paying citizen, why can’t I marry (under law, not God) the person I love?

  30. JamesK

    Oh, well, if you don’t think so, then that’s settled.

    And thus Jeremy aka ‘Nasty’ Sear reponds derisively to my observation that no great thinker in 5000 years of history has argued for same sex marriage.

    Just one name from Nasty would have won a definitive rebuttal.

    Presumably that’s too crassly ‘hoi polloi’ for pseudo intellectuals like Jeremy.

    If you claim homosexuality is so evil

    I didn’t. You dingbat.

  31. michael r james

    A remarkable thing in today’s The Australian. They have run a strong piece by their Weekend Mag deputy editor Greg Callaghan in which he demolishes last week’s toxic hom*phobic piece by Angela Shanahan.

    ((theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/a-normal-man-who-just-happens-to-be-gay/story-e6frgd0x-1226212589971))

    Points to the Oz for publishing this but no bonus points for not allowing comments.

  32. Subterranean Homesick Alien

    JamesK- how dare you lecture all and sundry about “perversion of language” when you can’t even get basic english right. As for the noble ideas, what is so noble about thousands of years of persecution of ostracism one group of people over their lifestyle, when those people are not hurting a single soul with what they are doing? Or are you talking about marriage? I really thought the best requirement for a good marriage is two people who love each other. Shame there’s not more of it- otherwise we wouldn’t have a 50% divorce rate.

    If you claim homosexuality is so evil and destructive to the social fabric, prove it- with a little more than quotes from the bible as well, thanks.

  33. Jeremy Sear

    “No great thinker has argued for same sex marriage.”

    Oh, well, if you don’t think so, then that’s settled.

    What “great thinker” is arguing against marriage equality? Have they found a rational basis for maintaining the discrimination yet? What is it?

    “The unit of society is individual and family.”

    Yup, including gay individuals and gay families.

    “But ‘discrimination’ is a word pregnant with meaning.

    We discriminate apples from oranges. man from woman, up from down or right from wrong for example.”

    Nice sophistry, but clearly what we’re talking about is discrimination against citizens by the law and without a good reason. I think you’ll find that the law is not supposed to discriminate between men and women without a very good reason.

    Got a single very good reason why it should allow a man to marry a woman but prevent a woman from doing so?

    If you do, you’re several steps ahead of all the advocates we’ve heard from the anti-equality side so far.

  34. AxeEugene

    “It would mean that Party, Parliament and Government no longer considers people like me to be sick, and a danger to the health of society.’

    Bang on Jimmy. Would have to be suffering denial disorder on grand scale to not see the truth in those words.

  35. shepherdmarilyn

    And the gutless cowards vote for a crime against humanity with so-called offshore processing of those who seek asylum in this country just as Bowen is on his way to Geneva.

    What will it take for the morons to understand once and for all that it is not fucking legal and cannot ever be legal.

  36. Michael Rogers

    Wonderful ‘double think’ on the part of the ALP that a law regrading what is in essence a civil property partnership between two people needs a ‘conscience’ vote because it is a supposedly a ‘moral’ issue.

  37. JamesK

    It would mean that Party, Parliament and Government no longer considers people like me to be sick, and a danger to the health of society.

    That bollox as well as being trite JimmyDoyle.

    You should be ashamed of yourself and not your fellow homosexuals.

  38. Peter

    @JamesK – I didn’t realise that UK Tory PM David Cameron was a “Leftist”. Gosh.

    “Yes, it’s about equality, but it’s also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don’t support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative”.

  39. Suzanne Blake

    Which means it will fail if taken to a vote in lower house

  40. JimmyDoyle

    JamesK – your view is an example of why marriage for same-sex couples HAS to be allowed:

    Consider what same-sex marriage means to people like me. It is not about the piece of paper or the taxation benefits. Its legalisation would signal a categorical rejection of naked bigotry by not just the Labor Party, but by the country. It would mean that Party, Parliament and Government no longer considers people like me to be sick, and a danger to the health of society. It would be open recognition of my humanity, my dignity and my self-worth. It would mean an opportunity for me to truly commit myself to the man I hope to one day meet and fall in love with.

    That’s what progress is about, and I, for one, am intensely proud that the Labor Party has taken this step. Let Australia be the one to take the next.

  41. JamesK

    Why do leftists pervert language and noble ideas?

    Harley Dennett asserts opposing the redefinition of marriage is “discrimination”.

    In a sense his right, of course.

    But ‘discrimination’ is a word pregnant with meaning.

    We discriminate apples from oranges. man from woman, up from down or right from wrong for example.

    Discrimination is loaded with race and religious persecution of course.

    So Harley Dennett cheapens that word to a same sex couples who want to have the use of a word where no other discrination exists.

    Now throughout the 5000 years of recoerded history great thinkers, philosophers and prophets have described racial, religious and persection of homosexuals as morally repugnant.

    No great thinker has argued for same sex marriage.

    The unit of society is individual and family.

    Our civilization has the thses as the cornerstone.

    Suddenly in the 21st Century leftist ‘geniuses’ parade they’re latest greatest new idea.

    The implictions on society or not discussed just leftist code words like ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ which like ‘progressive’ and ‘liberalism’ are almost the exact reverse.

    And notice the arrogant condescension of leftists embodied in Harley Dennett’s drivel.

    Its utterly ignorant and not based on any consequential thinking on what’s good for the future.

    That’s also what leftists do.

    Steal from the future of others for immediate their onanistic immediate gratification.

  42. Harley Dennett

    Is it clutching at straws to cheer the mere fact we’re not talking federal civil unions anymore? If nothing else, I’m glad it’s now full equality or bust. Let those opposed justify continued discrimination and not pretend the back of the bus is something to still be proud of.

Leave a comment

Advertisement

https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/12/03/text-labors-gay-marriage-stoush/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/

Show popup

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.

Free Trial form on Pop Up

Free Trial form on Pop Up
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.