What is it about gays and lesbians that scares Rudd so much?

The nation’s “leader” won’t even rule out vetoing a lame civil ceremony law in the ACT. Even that might be too much for our homophobic PM:

KEVIN Rudd has not ruled out a veto of new laws to legalise civil ceremonies between same-sex couples in Canberra.

The ACT parliament yesterday passed laws allowing gay and lesbian couples to formalise civil partnerships through a legally-binding ceremony.

That’s going well beyond merely pandering to the homophobes because you’re gutless and are afraid that standing for principle might lose you the “Bible belt” (I don’t think it would, if you stood for ACTUAL principle, but anyway) – this is actively encouraging them.

Sarah Hanson-Young at Melbourne Marriage Equality Rally 2009
At least the Greens are fighting against reasonless discrimination

Ah well, we’re a fortnight out from the Senate Inquiry report and the November 28 rally. Hopefully this will prod some people out of their apathy.

ELSEWHERE: Not to be outdone, the Liberal National Party in Queensland is busy trying to stop gay mums and dads.

UPDATE: Looks like misdirected fundies have been busy spamming MPs with form letters:

Nearly two in every three submissions considered so far are opposed to the Bill but the final count could change because of duplicate submissions.

Australian Marriage Equality, which is campaigning for gay and lesbian marriage, is concerned many of the submissions opposing the Bill were formula emails sent by Christian groups.

There’s a slight error there – they clearly meant “groups calling themselves Christian despite being obsessed with an issue the person they call “Christ” never spoke about”.

Advertisements

54 responses to “What is it about gays and lesbians that scares Rudd so much?

  1. i believe it’s pronounced. “teh gays and lesbians

  2. Great quote from the [i]West Wing[/i].
    ” Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.
    Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
    President Josiah Bartlet: Yes it does. Leviticus.
    Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.
    President Josiah Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here. I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? One last thing: while you may be mistaking this for your monthly meeting of the Ignorant Tight-Ass Club, in this building, when the President stands, nobody sits. “

  3. Damn you, unfamiliar editing format *shakes fist*

  4. That was one of my all-time favourite scenes in West Wing, Damien.

  5. Me too! Thanks Damien.

  6. Where’s Turtle?

  7. Hey! Where’s Turtle?

  8. Zippy the Pinhead

    Turtle in 3 … 2 … 1 …

  9. Hi everyone,

    it might surprise you all but I actually support civil unions between same sex couples.

  10. There you are, Kevin. You’re more of a homophobe than Turtle.

  11. philip travers

    Um!That coat that woman is wearing in the photo,Jeremy!?And the fellows in the band wearing T-shirts,Jeremy! Is she a hottie or what!

  12. This IS a day of surprises!!

  13. Not really. There are a lot of homophobes who will support “separate and unequal” in the hope it will lessen pressure for actual equality.

  14. Yes, I remember reading an argument on a US website about the treatment of ‘coloured’ people years ago. The arguer said if there are two toilets or two bubblers and one’s marked ‘whites only’ and the other’s marked ‘coloured’ how can you say there’s any discrimination?

  15. The fundies get mobilised…

    A SENATE inquiry into same-sex marriage has received more than 26,000 submissions, a record for an Upper House investigation.

    Nearly two in every three submissions considered so far are opposed to the Bill but the final count could change because of duplicate submissions.

    Australian Marriage Equality, which is campaigning for gay and lesbian marriage, is concerned many of the submissions opposing the Bill were formula emails sent by Christian groups.

    fuckers!

    http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26340446-421,00.html

  16. it might surprise you all but I actually support civil unions between same sex couples.

    Indeed – it’s only when those unions are given the name ‘marriage’ that our whole society falls apart. Straight men will suddenly become gay, families will disintegrate and the whole basis of western civilisation will crumble.

    It’s all about the terminology, don’t you see?

  17. If the only thing differentiating marriage and civil unions is the terminolgy – then what are you worried about? Civil unions can be for same sex couples and marriages can remain defined as they are.

    After all it is only terminology.

  18. It’s not just terminology, it’s entrenching discrimination. You think the government treating gay people as second-class citizens is a good thing. We don’t.

  19. We don’t.

    Whoa!!! Whats with this ‘we’? You got a mouse in your pocket?

    Cos if you support civil unions your now discrimating against gay people- is that right?

  20. If you oppose marriage equality for gay people you’re discriminating against them. Kind of by definition.

    “We” is pretty much every commenter here apart from you.

  21. I’m amazed that Kevin Rudd and just about every other politician can’t (or maybe it’s refuse) to see the hypocrisy whenever they blab on about “equality for all Australians” and yet continue to perpetuate discriminaton against gays and lesbians as if it’s some God given right.

    What are they afraid of? That the sky will fall in if same sex couples are allowed to have their relationships recognised??

    First class taxpayers. Second class citizens.

    Although I see that Centrelink will now recognise our ‘partnerships’ because that means they can pay less benefits.

    Fuckers. The lot of them.

  22. “marriage equality”

    It’s nothing more than a recently invented buzz phrase.

    Marriage, real marriage is and can only ever be between a man and woman who love each other and freely enter into this lifelong commitment.

    You can see a clear racheting up of evocative language….. “second class citizens”, “relationship aparthied” etc.

    What’s next ‘Marriage denialists”?

  23. ““marriage equality”

    It’s nothing more than a recently invented buzz phrase.”

    It’s an accurate description of what we’re talking about.

    “Marriage, real marriage is and can only ever be between a man and woman who love each other and freely enter into this lifelong commitment.”

    Says who? Why?

    “You can see a clear racheting up of evocative language….. “second class citizens”, “relationship aparthied” etc.”

    That’s what the current, Howard-amended version of the Marriage Act is.

    “What’s next ‘Marriage denialists”?”

    You are denying marriage to people based on their gender. Including denying marriages from overseas.

  24. “Marriage, real marriage is and can only ever be between a man and woman who love each other and freely enter into this lifelong commitment.”
    – Turtle

    Says who? Why?
    – Jeremy

    Yes I have seen a lot of this with the pro marriage destruction lobby recently. They want to totally re-invent marriage.

    ‘Why cant marriage just be for a couple of years’ they say. ‘Why does it have to be between a man and a woman for ever?’ Or “how about people living in polygamous relationships? Why can’t they marry’.

    I reread the original article that Jeremy linked to and the pro marriage destruction advocates don’t care about Civil Union’s. They have a bigger scalp on the agenda – Marriage.

    They say –
    ‘Marriage can be whatever we say it is’.

    We say –
    ‘Marriage is sacred.

  25. “Yes I have seen a lot of this with the pro marriage destruction lobby recently.”

    Who? We’re talking about the pro-marriage lobby here. The people who want the government to recognise a commitment for life between consenting adults – you know, a marriage.

    The anti-marriage lobby are those seeking to keep it from committed adults.

    ” They want to totally re-invent marriage.”

    “Totally reinvent”? In what way is “two adults committing to each other for life” a “total reinvention” of marriage?

    “‘Why cant marriage just be for a couple of years’ they say.”

    Who says?

    ” ‘Why does it have to be between a man and a woman for ever?’”

    Why does it have to discriminate against people on the basis of gender? That’s an entirely reasonable question. It’s in no way incompatible with what most people understand marriage to mean.

    ” Or “how about people living in polygamous relationships? Why can’t they marry’.”

    Who’s asking that? I’m yet to hear anyone propose a workable “polygamous marriage” regime, so there’s a good argument against it – no-one’s shown how it could work.

    “They say –
    ‘Marriage can be whatever we say it is’.”

    No – they say “Marriage is as it has always been the union for life of two adults.”

    “We say – ‘Marriage is sacred.”

    What do you mean by that? Clearly there’s a lot of non-religious marriage going on. Do you propose to ban it?

  26. The fundies play politics with homeless and other disadvantaged groups in their quest to stop laws to prevent them discriminating against gay people:

    Church officials say that unless the city alters a proposed same-sex marriage law, the archdiocese will discontinue its social service programs.

    Washington – The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it would be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District of Columbia if the city refused to change a proposed same-sex marriage law.

    The threat could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and healthcare.

    Can the modern church possibly get any further away from its philosophical origins?

  27. Let me clarify the use of the term ‘sacred’ in my last post.

    I didn’t mean to give the impression that only weddings performed in a church or other religious marriages were valid marriages.

    I used the term sacred in a secular sense.

    I probably could have choosen a better adjective to describe the significance and importance of marriage.

  28. The gay people who want to get married appreciate the significance and importance of marriage, as do those of us who object to the government arbitrarily and indefensivly locking them out of such a meaningful institution. It’s a great tragedy that the anti-marriage crowd of which Turtle is a member – those who’d seek to deny it to people purely because of their gender – doesn’t understand what’s so special about Marriage.

    Ultimately, their position boils down to arrogance and spite. It’s very sad.

  29. Jeremy argues for same sex marriage but is against other variations of marriage… “I’m yet to hear anyone propose a workable “polygamous marriage” regime, so there’s a good argument against it – no-one’s shown how it could work.” Like polgamous marriage being a new thing.

    See instead of the Australian Government, Jeremy is the arbitratior of who and who cant have their relationship recognised as a marriage in Australia. Only ‘teh gays’ may marry.

    Two men from Prahran who met a couple of months back at a nude ‘bears and twinks night’ in a dance club may marry but not the people who are in polygamous relationships in their homelands of the Northern Territory. A form of relationship that their community has recognised for thousands of years.

    Jeremy wants two women from Northcote who met on the internet to be able to get married but seeks to deny the fraternal polandry relationship of a Tibetan refugee family.

    A 66year old gay Muslim from Broadmeadows should be able to marry his 18 year old gay lover but an Egytian businessman with two wives or infact any Islamic polygamous marriage is not a valid marriage according to Jeremy.

    So what does your position ultimately boil down to Jeremy? Arrogance? Spite? Xenophobia?

  30. Confessions,

    Following on from your comment (what a disgraceful action by the Catholic Church), and following links from it, I came across this:

    http://americansfortruth.com/

    As I’ve before here and on PP, I do not understand opposition to gays being upgraded from 2nd class citizens to equality with heterosexual citizens.

    Why the almost maniacal obsession with this one topic by churches and religious groups to the exclusion of almost everything else Christian?

  31. Daphon:

    Why the almost maniacal obsession with this one topic by churches and religious groups to the exclusion of almost everything else Christian?

    It’s bizzarre and self-defeating – they are becomming more and more fundamentalist and will surely isolate their more moderate, thinking congregation with these absolutist crusades.

  32. “See instead of the Australian Government, Jeremy is the arbitratior of who and who cant have their relationship recognised as a marriage in Australia. Only ‘teh gays’ may marry.’

    Um, no. Two consenting adults committing to each other for life, with no discrimination on the grounds of gender (something our equal opportunity act supposedly prohibits). That’s not “redefining” marriage at all. It’s straightforward, entirely consistent with what marriage is today, and requires no amendment of the current laws save removing the parts that specify gender.

    Polygamy – well, I’m yet to see any suggestion for how that would work. I’ll consider that proposal on its merits when someone puts one forward.

    The only reason Turtle is raising it is because she doesn’t actually have any rational arguments against gay marriage. Not a single one.

  33. That site is amazing Daphon. I had no idea the homosexual agenda was so dangerous!

    Appently its not gays being harrassed and assaulted by homophobes, but suppoters of “family values” being bullied mercilessly and attacked by violent homosexual extremists.

    People are not being denied equal rights because of their sexual orientation, but decent hardworking bigots are not being permitted to persecute the minority of their choice.

    Shame, shame, shame…

    Its everyday i open the paper and see YET ANOTHER innocent bigot hospitalised by a gang of homosexual activists. And regularly i see news reports about abortion doctors bombing churches, and lone homosexual gunman brassing up a sunday school.

    What a pack of dickheads.

  34. “The only reason Turtle is raising it is because she doesn’t actually have any rational arguments against gay marriage. Not a single one.”

    No I raise it because you seek to deny some people the right to have their relationships recognised as civil unions.

    You are prepared to deny recognition of the complex kin relationships of some within Aboriginal communities of Northern Australia because….
    “well, I’m yet to see any suggestion for how that would work. I’ll consider that proposal on its merits when someone puts one forward. ”
    – Jeremy

    Yeah like several hundred generations of polgamous relationships around Maningrida and Borroloola isn’t enough for Jeremey.
    These relationships will only be valaid when a proposal is put forward on his blog and he has weighed up the for and against and decides in the affirmative.

    Until then let’s ensure we deny social security benifits to the children in some of the most disadvantaged communities in Australia.

  35. So – you’re conceding you’ve lost the debate about gay marriage and you want to have one about polygamy now?

    Fine. What’s the specific polygamy proposal you want us to consider? How does it deal with adding partners, or partners leaving?

  36. Long time irregular lurker here…

    I think the whole thing could be easily solved.

    Take the term “marriage” out of secular law. It’s a spent term, if you ask me. We should have done away with it a long time ago.

    Change the name for the government recognized union to “Secular Civil Union” (or even just Civil Union), and open it up any pair of consenting adults regardless of gender.

    Turtle – I think you need to go back to school and study the history of Marriage. It hasn’t always been for one man and one woman (plenty of societies have polygamous marriage even in this day and age), and it DEFINITELY hasn’t always been about love (mostly it was about property, inheritance, and succession).

    Marriage being about love is a very very modern concept.

  37. Thanks for delurking! Welcome.

    I have no problem with the word “marriage” – it does mean something beyond just a mere “union”. I’m quite happy with the Law calling relationships that are clearly marriages (regardless of the participants’ gender) “marriages”, because really, that’s what they are.

    The only reason people like Turtle really object to gays calling their marriages “marriages” is that they want gays to be considered “lesser” than the rest of us. It’s time the law stopped pandering to them.

  38. No I dont concede anything regarding “the debate about gay marriage”.

    “Gay (homosexual) marriage” is counterintuitive. You can’t have one.

    Real Marriage is and can only be between a man and a woman who love each other and enter into it freely.

    Civil Unions, rightly so are the pinnicle of the relationship heirarchy for same sex couples.
    These events should be celebrated between the family and friends of the couple. Exchange tokens, kiss, cut a cake – have a great day!

    But recognise that your relationship is not a marriage. And it shouldn’t be called a marriage any more than you would call a dog a cat.

    What’s the specific polygamy proposal you want us to consider?

    I don’t support polygamous relationships any more than I support gay relationships. However I am aware that these relationships exist and that the community needs to discuss how to manage the outcomes from these relationships.

  39. Real Marriage is and can only be between a man and a woman who love each other and enter into it freely.

    But turtle, you are prepared to deny recognition of the complex kin relationships (including arranged unions) of some within Aboriginal communities of Northern Australia because…. Real Marriage is and only can be between a man and a woman who love each other and enter into it freely.

    What about the hundreds of generations of relationships around Maningrdia and Borroloola?

  40. “No I dont concede anything regarding “the debate about gay marriage”.”

    Oh. Well, let’s stick to the issue then, shall we? Why confuse things by trying to argue about two entirely separate issues at once? In clear contrast to polygamy, there’s a specific proposal on foot for gay marriage – removing the parts of the relevant legislation that specify gender. We can discuss that on its merits.

    You’re yet to show a single problem with gay marriage.

    ““Gay (homosexual) marriage” is counterintuitive. You can’t have one.”

    Why? You haven’t a single reason.

    “Real Marriage is and can only be between a man and a woman who love each other and enter into it freely.”

    Why? You haven’t a single reason.

    “Civil Unions, rightly so are the pinnicle of the relationship heirarchy for same sex couples.”

    Why? You haven’t a single reason.

    “But recognise that your relationship is not a marriage. And it shouldn’t be called a marriage any more than you would call a dog a cat.”

    Why? You haven’t a single reason.

  41. Confessions – I wouldn’t bother. Turtle is just trying to conflate two very different things – a specific proposal for gay marriage with a vague unspecified consideration of polygamy. The former is very straightforward, and Turtle can’t find a single argument against it. The latter is impossible to reach any meaningful agreement on because there’s no proposal to consider.

    Turtle is just trying to mix the two up – to smear the very workable gay marriage with the possibly unworkable (who knows?) polygamy. She is not doing this out of a desire for honest debate on the issue of gay marriage.

    She will of course now completely ignore my challenge to give a single reason why a marriage between two people of the same gender is not a marriage.

  42. confessions regarding your nonsense comment at 11:32 am

    “But turtle, you are prepared to deny recognition of the complex kin relationships (including arranged unions) of some within Aboriginal communities of Northern Australia…”

    I am not denying that these relationships exist or that they are often arranged.

    Your a fool. Try and keep up.

  43. So predictable. Turtle will now ignore the challenge to provide a single argument against gay marriage.

  44. Jeremy you are right. She appears to be one of those who simply wants to handwring and moan about the End Of Days if gays are given marriage equality.

    Turtle: your hypocracy is laughable. You raise the issue of aboriginals and their “complex kin relationships” to suit your whingeing, yet walk back from it when it no longer supports your view.

  45. Confessions, I actually believe that ‘gay marriage’ will be permissable in the next twenty years in Australia.

    Just like a tattoo on your neck it will be fashionable at the time amongst a subset of the Australian community but the rest of us will see it for what it is. A regretable decision, a blight, somthing that ‘if they want to do – just let them’.

    And re my supposed ‘hypocracy’ in relation to Aboriginal people – what exactly was hypocritcal?

  46. “Just like a tattoo on your neck it will be fashionable at the time amongst a subset of the Australian community but the rest of us will see it for what it is.”

    Still not a single reason why it isn’t marriage.

    It’ll be a tiny subset of the Australian community that will still have a problem with it, not the other way around.

    “And re my supposed ‘hypocracy’ in relation to Aboriginal people – what exactly was hypocritcal?”

    I suspect Confessions meant the lame attempt to pretend that we were being as bigoted as you by not advocating for polygamy, when of course you weren’t advocating for it either.

  47. No what I seek is recognition of people’s relationships. I may not agree with them – but I acknowledge that they exist.

    You are prepared to except that a couple of blokes can have their relationship recorded and acknowledged but anything more complex than this cant be.

    I don’t agree.

    I believe that polygamous relationships should be acknowledged. Possibly using the same service we extend to gay couples – Civil Unions.

    Why do you seek to deny recognition to a family in Arnhem Land but seek and advocate for a higher status to a couple of gay blokes from Yarraville?

  48. I actually believe that ‘gay marriage’ will be permissable in the next twenty years in Australia.

    One thing has always puzzled me about your posts. If you accept that same sex marriage is inevitable why do you spend so much effort moaning about it? And why this blog when

    a) there are hundreds of other blogs where your whingeing will be appreciated and responded to in kind, and

    b) after all this time you haven’t changed the views of the pro marriage equality people who comment here?

    It seems a pointless, go-nowhere game to me.

  49. “Why do you seek to deny recognition to a family in Arnhem Land but seek and advocate for a higher status to a couple of gay blokes from Yarraville?”

    I haven’t said anything about denying recognition to a family in Arnhem Land. Specifics, please. What are you suggesting? What are they suggesting?

    I’m happy to consider a proposal as to whether the state should consider a polygamous relationship as being a marriage – if someone can tell me how that would work. None of these imaginary polygamous marriage proponents are here to explain what polygamous marriage would entail and how it would work. You certainly can’t.

    But of course not. You’re not actually interested in the polygamy issue at all – you’re just throwing it around as a distraction from what we’re actually talking about, being gay marriage.

    The gay marriage proposal is straightforward. It’s clear. You know what it entails. It is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage – all we have to do is remove the parts of the legislation that discriminate against people on the grounds of gender. And you are yet to find a single argument against it.

    Everybody can see why you keep bringing up polygamy. Because you haven’t any actual arguments against gay marriage itself.

    You’re obsessed by the issue, and you can’t come up with a single argument against it.

    Surely it’s time to concede.

  50. Time to concede?

    I have already said that I believe that there will be same sex ‘marriages’ in Australia in the next two decades.

    The pink lobby is head strong, indulgent and cashed up. Decent society members are begining to wain. ‘Gay marriage’ will come into being through apathy of broader society. A shallow victory for your side.

    You repeatedly sprout that I haven’t put forward one argument blah, blah but I have. Dozens of time. So here it is in bold…

    “Real marriage is and can only ever be between a man and woman who love each other and freely enter into this lifelong commitment.”

    And deep down you know I am right!

  51. “Real marriage is and can only ever be between a man and woman who love each other and freely enter into this lifelong commitment.”

    That is simply a statement of your opinion Turtle, not an argument.

    An argument has to have some sort of …. well.. argument.

    The argument for gay marriage is simple (a little like yourself, actually)

    All people, regardless of sexual orientation, race or religion have the right to be treated equally in a civil society.

    All people, regardless of sexual orientation, race or religion have the same rights and responsibilities in a civil society.

    It really isn’t that complicated Turtle, i don’t quite understand why you can’t grasp the concept.

    (unless of course you do “get it” but are just a spiteful bigot and homophobe)

  52. ““Real marriage is and can only ever be between a man and woman who love each other and freely enter into this lifelong commitment.””

    That’s not an argument! That’s an assertion. It is in fact simply a statement of your position. You haven’t provided one single argument in support of it, one single reason why it’s not utterly false.

    “And deep down you know I am right!”

    Not even close. I’ve rarely come across somebody more absurdly wrong – and so determined to discriminate against others for no reason whatsoever.

  53. “Real marriage is and can only ever be between a man and woman who love each other and freely enter into this lifelong commitment.”

    Turtle, you have been asked more than once to outline the reasoning behind this statement, and you keep avoiding it… I’m really interested to know what the reasoning is behind your statement, but I don’t think I’m going to hold my breath waiting, do you?

    So, I’ll ask you a question instead. What is the difference between a same sex couple who love each other dearly, and an opposite sex couple who love each other dearly?

    Can you answer that at least? I’m really curious about your answer.

    Jeremy –

    Polyamorous marriages could quite possibly have a simple solution. Each party to the relationship must freely agree to the inclusion of a new party, otherwise it cannot happen (consent is important). If a party wants to leave the relationship, they take what they bought to the relationship in the first place, plus a reasonable portion of (all of it?) what they have contributed to the relationship since their inclusion. Similar to the way divorce works right now (at least, that’s kind of my understanding of how it works, I could be completely off the beam here!). As for children, priority should be given to each child’s biological parents (if they have one or more in the partnership/group relationship), or partners who were present when the child was adopted in the case of adoption.

    I don’t understand the intricacies of the law, so this might not actually work… But it seems to me, as a non-legal professional, that there wouldn’t be much difference between a polyamorous marriage or divorce, and a monoamorous marriage or divorce. (I avoid using “gamous” because that means female spouse, which is definitely sexist and exclusive of other types of combinations that are possible.)

  54. Good article by Adele Horin in today’s The Sydney Morning Herald about this issue.

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 )

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