8,000 was a start – but it’ll take more than that to prod a cowardly ALP into action

logo

Early notice: on 28 November, two days after the Senate hands down its same-sex marriage report, there will be a second set of rallies around the country to tell the nation’s politicians that Australians do not approve of discriminatory laws enacted in our name. That the oppressive bigots do not represent the majority.

Full marriage equality is well overdue.


What will you say when your kids ask, “What ? They used to ban gay people from getting married? You stood up against that, right?”

We were there on 1st August, and we’ll be there again on 28 November. This is the civil rights issue of our day: if you weren’t able to stand up against prejudice and discrimination last time, please don’t miss this opportunity to make your voice heard.

IN THE MEANTIME: Please sign the National Same-Sex Marriage Petition. Its message is short and to-the-point –

I call on the Australian Parliament to legislate for same-sex marriage immediately. I reject all discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation.

Bloody oath I do.

49 responses to “8,000 was a start – but it’ll take more than that to prod a cowardly ALP into action

  1. Lynda Hopgood

    I’ve been doing some euthanasia research and come across a woman called Margaret Somerville who is a medical ethicist. Not surprisingly for an ethicist, she expresses some pretty strong views around the right to life etc.

    Whilst I don’t agree with her, I do respect her intelligence and her considered and reasonable position.

    What I wasn’t prepared for was to discover a submission she wrote for parliament that strongly opposed gay marriage based upon the fact that, in her eyes, marriage is all about “potential for procreation” and that same-sex couples are, by definition, non-procreatory and therefore not suitable for marriage.

    She then goes on to argue that the same rule doesn’t apply to couples who choose not to have children, who are infertile or who are past child-bearing age because the nature of the male/female means that the potential is still there, even if it can’t happen in reality.

    So after making marriage all about heterosexuals either having/having the potential tohave children, she then goes on to argue that gay marriage shouldn’t even apply to gays who already have children because, somehow, this sullies the instituation of marriage for everyone else by normalising something that isn’t normal.

    Amazingly and without a hint of irony, she states at the beginning – and then reiterates – that she is personally in favour of ending discrimination against gay people and she has no problems with same sex couples … provided they don’t try to marry each other.

    Jesus wept.

    You should read it. I’m hopeless at links, but if you put her name into Wiki you can follow the link to her paper from there

  2. This maybe the link Lynda:

    (Note small PDF file)

    Click to access somerville.pdf

  3. If you support this agenda make sure you attend one of these rallies. Prehaps 20,000 people might turn up.

    However if you don’t support this agenda – stay home with the other 21,999, 980 of us.

  4. Turtle’s got a point. Every single person who doesn’t attend must agree with Turtle. Newborns, infants, the sick, those who don’t live anywhere near the major cities, those who’ll starve if they don’t work – failure to attend equals support of discrimination and prejudice.

    And why shouldn’t Turtle lay claim to the number of people in Australia minus those who attend? Just because it’s moronic?

    I’m going to hold a rally tomorrow for all Australians who don’t think Turtle’s marriage should be dissolved. If 22 million people don’t attend, then clearly 22 million people think Turtle’s marriage should be dissolved.

  5. Jeremy-same time, place etc?

  6. I expect there’ll be more details in the next few weeks. Early notice.

  7. The problem isn’t gay marriage – It’s marriage. What part of the separation of the church and state did they not understand when conferring tax breaks and conferring other legal rights onto a man and woman who reckon they love each other and are comitted for life and can go to church or the registry office to get a bloody certificate to prove it. What if I want to enter into this arrangement with multiple partners? What if I don’t? Go and get married all you want, in a proper democracy this would be some private ceremony with all the legal significance of weeaboo. Screw you christian family values stinking up my utopia, my family values mace. Homosexuals are being discriminated against because they can’t be a part of this ridiculous space jesus scam?? Where to begin . . . maybe the gays will want to get married in the Westboro Baptist Church . . . is that it?

  8. Yeah sick, infirm and infants. Oh yeah.

    But really were all expecting at least a minimum of a million maybe up to five million people to turn out and support these rallies across Australia.

    The ground swell is growing so much that every small town is mobolising. Wycheproof and Ouyen have already signed on for this day of action. People working? Nah wont be able to – streets will be clogged, besides why wouldn’t you give up a day’s pay anyway and be out marching?

    Afterall this is the civil rights issue of our day.

  9. What’s the largest attendance at a rally in Australia ever?

    After all, the Vietnam moratorium rallies, which were about Australians being conscripted to fight in a war they didn’t want, didn’t top 200,000. The anti-WorkChoices rallies, against the loss of basic employment protections by each and every Australian, didn’t top half a million. So of course it’s reasonable to ignore the marriage equality rallies unless they hit a million.

    Nice ludicrous standard, Turtle.

    Will I see you at Federation Square tomorrow for the pro-allowing Turtle to stay married rally? Along with the other 22 million Australians? You know what your opponents will say if 22 million don’t attend – that they stayed home to support your losing your marriage rights.

  10. By the way, anyone noticed how Turtle only appears when it’s a debate about equality for gays? Denying equality for homosexual people is the only thing that inspires her to comment. Why is she so fixated on the subject?

  11. What are you afraid of turtle? That some people might actually have the same marriage rights we do? And what do you care whether people turn out at a rally anyway – you won’t be there so what does it matter what other people do?

  12. Was going to post the same thing as soon as I read Turtle’s first comment, Jeremy.

  13. It’s more, a LOT more, than just tax breaks, connect4:

    http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/case.htm

  14. And check out the right-hand menu at this site:

    http://www.coalitionforequality.org.au/

    It’s more than just tax breaks.

  15. Inequality is the only thing Turtle is passionate about.

  16. I mean more people turn out to street parades for winning Grandfinal Footy teams then have attended previous marches held about this issue.

    People seem to be more passionate about footy than this.

  17. I’ve never understood how people can be so against other people getting married. I’ve never seen a sensible argument against gay marriage.

    Usually people against something have some sort of reason, but opposition to gay marriage seems to boil down to “I don’t like it, so I’ll stop others from living their lives they want”

  18. Signed the petition, was in Atherton NQ for the last rally and Townsville NQ for this one. Given this city is something of a Redneck wonderland i can’t imagine there’s one here I can attend either but it has my full support

  19. Meh. Whilst I’m all for the righteous cause etc etc – why shouldn’t gays be as miserable as the rest of us – in one respect Turtle is right;
    Rallies don’t work. They don’t. Neither, for that matter, do petitions. It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise intelligent people waste their time with either – instead of doing something more useful. Tactics need to change Jezza – if you really want to win this one, DO SOMETHING USEFUL

  20. Can we please just ignore Turtle and stop him/her from hijacking yet another gay marriage thread?

    Apart from that I don’t really have anything meaningful to add to this conversation other than that which has already been said.

  21. OH, alright. But if Turtle makes a new point I’ll let it through. I won’t say “if Turtle makes a point that’s not utterly moronic” – that’d clearly be setting the bar far too high for her.

    Galford – they’re not sufficient on their own, but they’re certainly something concrete that makes politicians realise there is support in the community, if poll numbers aren’t convincing enough. It’s much easier to vote against a politician on an issue than it is to attend a rally; they’d be wise to count on every rally participant representing several others.

  22. @Daphon – But why should the state be in the business of saying who can and who can’t marry in the first place?

    Why do we need marriage licenses at all?

  23. Jeremy makes reference to the ‘poll numbers’ which apparently show that nearly everyone wants gay marriage and that gay marriage is really, really great (and yes the poll was paid for by thoose advocating for gay marriage).

    But these push polls really mean nothing. And as someone pointed out the marches and petitions mean next to nothing.

    If you want gay marriage you have to vote in candidates that support this agenda.

    Prior to the next federal election we need to ask every candidate the following:

    Will you vote in favour of allowing gay marriages.

    Will you vote in favour of polygamous marriages.

    Will you vote in favour of abolishing age restrictions relating to marriage.

  24. They really are shameless, these prejudiced bigots, aren’t they? Check out Turtle’s comment for a series of lies and misrepresentations.

    The Galaxy poll that showed more than 60% of Australians support full marriage equality was not “push polling”. It was a respectable survey that reported the views of Australians on this subject – show us a better poll Turtle, that justifies the continued discrimination.

    And then Turtle tries to add polygamy and sex with minors to the list, as if they’ve got anything to do with same sex marriage.

    A shameless, contemptible smear.

    Turtle’s right that we need to be demanding candidates make their position on this issue clear, but it’s also the case – which Turtle knows very well – that because this doesn’t directly affect most voters, many ignore it when voting on issues dearest to their wallets. The people historically most fired up over this issue are the people like Turtle who just want to deny gay people the same rights they enjoy – which is why the politicians, in the absence of increasingly large shows of popular support from the equality side, have sided with the minority fundamentalists and their discriminatory, oppressive position.

    We need to show that there are more votes to be lost discriminating against gay people than there are to be gained. Then the major party politicians will suddenly rediscover principle.

  25. Turtle tries to add polygamy and sex with minors to the list, as if they’ve got anything to do with same sex marriage.

    Opponents of gay marriage always try to derail the discussion with these two red herrings don’t they, as well as bestiality, which I’m sure Turtle is saving up for next post?

    Simply because there is NO logical, rational, realistic or fair justification for opposition to it.

  26. But these push polls really mean nothing.

    Push polls? Really? You are deluded by your hate and fear.

    Polls are useful to get an idea of a general view in the population. But I don’t need a poll to tell me what is right and what is wrong. I am never surprised to find myself in the minority on asylum seekers or harsher penalties for offenders, but I know that taking the strong arm approach is wrong, and counterproductive. – just because a ‘majority’ of those polled think we should be strong arming asylum seekers or mandatory locking up first time offenders doesn’t make it effective policy, or policy that is in the national interest.

    In the case of same sex marriage, institutional discrimination is wrong – in ALL cases, and hypocritical given our society seems to pride itself on a fair go for all. It is in the national interest that we do not have the State discriminating against sections of the population. Trying to hide behind, or in this case discrediting polling that doesn’t substantiate your opinion doesn’t justify your view that continued institutional discrimination is right. It simply means that YET AGAIN you are failing to make a cogent argument to back up your opinion.

    I am yet to see you provide any substantive case against same sex marriage, yet most people here are able to articulate an argument why it is wrong. Instead of trying to discredit public polling and pretending that prospective MPs even care about the issue, why dont you try arguing meangingfully why you think ending discrimination against same sex couples would be the wrong thing to do?

  27. yet most people here are able to articulate an argument why it is wrong.

    That should read ” are able to articulate an argument why it is right.”

  28. The issue at stake here is equality before the law. Some couples are denied the right to marry. Currently the law discriminates against those couples purely on the basis of the gender.

    It does not matter if one or one million people demonstrate, there is no sane reason why the law should discriminate in this matter.

    The fact is that in a pluralistic society the rule of law trumps religious prejudices. The liberty of citizens should not be constrained by theocratic laws.

  29. And so say all of us, SB.

  30. Agreed SB.

  31. Turtle really is quite a useful illustration of just how irrational and deliberately dishonest the anti-gay marriage argument is.

  32. Try this: every time Turtle writes something, read it out aloud in a thick Southern American-style accent, and at the end, add the words “Prayyyyze the Lawd!”.

    Somehow it works; and it actually contextualises his point of view extremely well.

  33. “Turtle really is quite a useful illustration of just how irrational and deliberately dishonest the anti-gay marriage argument is.”

    I must confess, that is why I let her bigoted crap through. It might be unfair to the other bigots, but you know.

  34. “The fact is that in a pluralistic society the rule of law trumps religious prejudices. The liberty of citizens should not be constrained by theocratic laws.”

    Huh? Who said anything about religious reasons? Theocratic laws?

    Not me.
    I have never argued this

  35. Simply as an observation, looking at poll numbers that indicate support/opposition for a position means absolutely nothing when you put this into the political realm, and quite possibly is counterproductive.

    The simply reason for this is that poll numbers that indicate support/opposition for something mean nothing unless they are vote-changing issues.

    To use a simple example: You could commission a poll which finds 95% of Australians think people should eat more apples. So, you run your entire election campaign on how people should eat more apples. And you get 0.00001% of the vote. Why? because whilst people might believe in this, it simply isn’t a vote-moving issue for them.

    This is why – on this very topic, but from the opposite perspective – in the US MA passed gay marriage legislation, despite the fact that a clear majority of voters were opposed to it. They just don’t care enough to change their vote, so the legislature just went ahead and did it.

    I think many campaigners on many issues just fail to get this, which leads to much frustration and fruitless activity.

  36. 95% support for Apples eh?

    Well imagine if a lobby group for the fruit Durian realised that Apples were so popular that they demanded that be re-classified by the government and from now on all Durinans were now to be known as Apples.

    It might happen – but they still wouldnt be real apples.

  37. Jesus, you’re not Iain Hall are you? What a stupid analogy.

    If you’re trying to say that a “marriage” is an “apple”, then an “apple” is a union between two consenting adults committing to each other for life. So gay marriage is not a “durian”, it’s an “apple”, too.

    A closer analogy would be if you were going to refuse to call red apples “apples” because they’re not identical to green apples.

    Tim – that’s very true, and one of the reasons civil rights are very difficult to protect through simple majority voting. Many people vote on their hip pocket, and would vote for a party that oppresses a minority that’s not them if they thought that party would help their mortgage or something. It’s sad, but true.

    Still, the discriminatory parts of the Marriage Act are still there. We’ve got to fight to remove them – it’ll be difficult, but we’ve overcome even tougher fights in the past.

  38. I don’t think anyone realistically thinks that a rally is going to change the politicians mind in isolation, but to make it clear that there are people out there who WILL vote differently because of this issue, and keep this issue in the forefront of peoples minds. Not to mention in the media.

  39. Jeremy, you should have done the “Prayyyyze the Lawwwd!” thing.

    “Apples is apples!! Prayyyyyyyyyyyyze the Lawd!”

  40. Hello Returned Man,

    I wrote a post refuting that my stance is based on any religious belief I may hold.

    But Jeremy has left that post hanging in a moderation queue.

  41. “Huh? Who said anything about religious reasons? Theocratic laws?

    Not me.
    I have never argued this”

    You’ve never actually argued anything. You’ve just thrown up a bunch of shit and run away whenever challenged on why exactly you’re so determined to ensure that the government discriminates against gays.

  42. Absolute gold, Zoot.

  43. I think the suggestion that I am determined that the government discriminate against gays is wrong. It gives the inference that I want to see them discriminated against in every aspect of their lives.

    My problem is with the proposal that gay marriages be recognised in Australia.

    Despite this I have actually said that I believe that in the future they will become a reality in Australia.

    But you know as much as me that these marriages wont be held in the same regard by the community as a real marriage between a man and woman who love each other.

  44. “I think the suggestion that I am determined that the government discriminate against gays is wrong. It gives the inference that I want to see them discriminated against in every aspect of their lives.”

    One’s enough.

    “My problem is with the proposal that gay marriages be recognised in Australia.”

    You’re yet to explain what’s wrong with that, and why the government should recognise heterosexual marriages but not gay marriages.

    “But you know as much as me that these marriages wont be held in the same regard by the community as a real marriage between a man and woman who love each other.”

    That’s the most meaningless and empty appeal to mindless prejudice I’ve ever heard. You’ve no evidence for it, and even if it were true, that would hardly be a reason for the government to pander to it.

  45. Then there’s always:
    http://graphjam.com/2008/11/19/song-chart-memes-consequences-of-gay-marriage/
    But I think we’ve all seen that one before

  46. Pingback: Funny, I’ve lived in this “Bible Belt” for years and I’ve never once voted for a bigot « An Onymous Lefty

  47. Pingback: What is it about gays and lesbians that scares Rudd so much? « An Onymous Lefty

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s