Although they reported this week that “Tony Abbott embraces gays“, fear not, fundamentalists and other social conservatives. The “in principle” support for anti-discrimination legislation addressing sexuality* that he expressed yesterday to a gay radio station will be incredibly easy to wriggle out of (that’s what those cagey two words are for), and he continues to support – and insist on – discrimination against gay people in the law. He repeated the assertion-as-argument that “marriage is, dare I say it, between one man and one woman” without being in any way concerned that he doesn’t have a single argument as to why that must be. He “completely agreed” that gay couples are “perfectly capable” of doing the right thing by a child, but of course didn’t in any way commit to amending the parts of the law that discriminate against gay parents such as in the area of adoption for, he apparently concedes, no good reason.
When he met with teh gays, Tony made sure he was wearing much more than budgie smugglers. (Image edited for the benefit of readers who may be eating.)
So, fear not, he’s just trying to carve off a few ALP votes from easily-hoodwinked gay people who aren’t paying attention, for the conservative cause. It doesn’t mean anything. If it was an “embrace”, it was at arms’ length, awkward and uncomfortable, and he wiped his hands on an aide afterwards.
*Frankly, it seems to me, discrimination against gay and lesbian people already runs afoul of the existing Sex Discrimination Act – specifically section 5:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person (in this subsection referred to as the discriminator ) discriminates against another person (in this subsection referred to as the aggrieved person ) on the ground of the sex of the aggrieved person if, by reason of:
(a) the sex of the aggrieved person…
the discriminator treats the aggrieved person less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person of the opposite sex.
Which is, of course, precisely what happens every time a woman is prevented by the law from marrying her female partner on the grounds that she’s a woman.
ELSEWHERE: Brian Greig isn’t impressed by either major party.
Moved On 
Thanks for blocking out that awful chest fur!
A download/podcast of the interview can be found here. I don’t think listeners would buy Abbott as sincere. The early part of the interview is cringe worthy.
There are parts of a Mad Monk interview that aren’t cringe worthy?
Jeremy
Your piece is terrible, not because you have flat out just used the interview to Pan Tony Abbott (that is no surprise from you), but because you have failed to look at any of the things that he actually said about the particulars of the issues. On the issue of Gay marriage what Tony said was both reasonable and well received by the interviewer. You may think that your stance that the only solution is to bring gay relationships under the auspices of the marriage act when it is bound to upset a large number of people by doing so but what Tony is suggesting allows Gay unions to be recognised in law under a separate legal instrument can allow your lesbian friends to have the legal protections that they may find comforting.
Over all what you have done here is attack the man and ignored what he has been saying here , a fair minded piece would have played the ball rather than the man sadly you have let an opportunity to demonstrate that you are fair minded slip through your fingers so that you can play to your gallery with a cheap shot.
Oh yeah, if you take the time to listen to the interview(thanks for providing the link confessions) on the pod cast you can not deny that Tony is both affable and sincere and what he says is warmly received by the interviewer.
Abbott is sincere on anything? I seriously doubt it. I would have thought that someone who started out wanting to be a priest and professes to still have a faith would know something about sincerity. But apparently not. And I think Brian Greig is probably right – neither party is really committed to significant reform in this area, at least at the national level. The fact is the world is not going to go to hell in a handbasket if a couple of women or a couple of women get hitched under the law. The fact that we’re still debating this is frustrating at best, and, quite frankly, embarrassing.
Oh no not section 5 of the Sex Discrimination Act!!!!
Well there are a couple of undisputable laws that trump that.
Mainly a real marriage can only be between a man an a woman who love each other.
QED
Turtle, you keep using the word “undisputable”. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Nor does the word you think it is, “indisputable”.)
Iain (oh no! You think my post is “terrible”!) –
“You may think that your stance that the only solution is to bring gay relationships under the auspices of the marriage act “
Equality is the only solution, yes. Anything short of that is discrimination. “Separate but equal” didn’t work in apartheid and it won’t work now. There is no reason the Marriage Act should continue to discriminate against gays and lesbians – that it might “upset” some people is completely irrelevant. It “upset” some people giving women the vote.
Explain why gays don’t deserve full equality before the law.
And I’m sure Tony was “affable” – to gays’ faces. I didn’t expect him to stand there on JoyFM and call them sick perverts who should be taken out and set on fire. But so what? He still thinks they’re unworthy of equality before the law, and he supports laws that discriminate against them. If someone was trying to tell you you couldn’t be married to your wife because your relationship was just “different” in some non-identifiable way, would it matter that they told you so in a personable, friendly manner?
The issue is full equality, and no “solution” short of that is a solution at all.
PS In what way was this post not “playing the ball”? You do understand what that expression means, right?
Abbott was entirely insincere. How do I know? Because he’s once again flipped on a policy stance. It was only 2 years ago that he was chiding the government for allowing the ACT government to introduce civil unions, and when in government he was a firm backer of Howard in retaining financial discrimination against same sex couples. IIRC he even spoke out against the government removing that final vestige of discrimination FFS!
The man has no sincerity *on anything* let alone social issues such as marriage and partnerships. And I didn’t hear any warmth from the interviewer. I heard doubt, which is evident from the way he questioned Abbott.
“…someone was trying to tell you you couldn’t be married to your wife because your relationship was just “different” in some non-identifiable way”
in some non-identifiable way?????
A man marrying a man??? – that is pretty identifiable.
Two brides at the marriage ceremony??? – that is pretty identifiable.
What ever other perversion to the norm that is sure to follow – they too will be pretty identifiable.
Am I being unfair to the anti-equality side by letting turtle’s comments through? They clearly show what is underneath what Tony is saying. This is the stupidity and bigotry he (and, to be fair, Rudd) represent.
Turtle – in what identifiable way is a gay marriage or a lesbian marriage not a marriage?
(That means come up with a reason, not simply repeating that under the Howard Marriage Act it’s defined so that it’s not.)
“Turtle – in what identifiable way is a gay marriage or a lesbian marriage not a marriage?”
In what way is a marriage between two brothers not a marriage?
In what way is a marriage between a 20 year old Filippino mail order bride and a 60 year old man not a marriage.
Well you know the answer to all these questions is that they aren’t real marriages based on a man and a woman who love each other.
That is the only thing a real marriage can be.
All the things that you suggest are just sideshows and they deride real marriage.
“In what way is a marriage between two brothers not a marriage?”
The law presently protects against incest. If there’s no good reason for this, then that might be something incest advocates might seek to argue. A debate for another time, when someone’s actually proposing it. (I presume those opposed will be able to come up with some argument against it other than just “it’s not the status quo”.)
In any case, we can’t evaluate that quite different issue now because no-one’s put such a proposal forward for us to consider on its merits.
“In what way is a marriage between a 20 year old Filippino mail order bride and a 60 year old man not a marriage.”
It is under our law, right now.
We’re talking about marriage under the law, Turtle, and your second example is one that’s presently protected by Abbott, and Rudd, and all the conservatives.
And I see you’re reduced to assertion. You have no actual argument as to why “real marriage” requires one man and one woman, you just keep claiming it’s so as if that answers the question.
It’s just pointless discussing this with you. All you can do is repeat the contention for which you’re supposedly arguing as if that’s an argument in its support.
You might as well say “real voters vote for Family First”. Why? Because “real voters vote for Family First”. Why? Because a real vote is a vote for Family First! Why isn’t a vote for another party also a real vote? Because a real vote is a vote for Family First!
It’s like arguing with a three year old.
‘It’s like arguing with a three year old’. Or it’s like trying to have a rational discussion with The Flat Earth Society.
Am I being unfair to the anti-equality side by letting turtle’s comments through?
Why bother letting them through? It’s not as if her comments bring anything new to the discussion, just the same old arguments we’ve all heard before, and so we end up having the same discussion with the same debunked talking points. Again. And again. And again.
Do you realise just how rigid and bigoted your argument actually is?
I suspect that you do this in an effort to sound more sincere but rather than persuade anyone all you end up doing is looking antagonistic and silly.
Anyway lets go to first principles shall we?
What is role of the law as it pertains to relationships in general and Marriage in particular?
Now I would argue that be big ticket items are all about property, inheritance, each party to the union being recognised as “next of kin” to the other for things like medical consent, and how to acknowledge children of that union. Do you think that is a reasonable summary of what we understand a marriage to be in law?
Now if these issues are treated the same way under a separate legal instrument that is not called marriage as Tony is suggesting How is that discriminatory? The outcome fro gay couples will be that they would enjoy the same protection and obligations in law as everyone else The only thing is that they won’t be able to call those unions “marriage”. Quite frankly Your invoking apartheid is a shameless attempt at distraction and as Ray pointed out at my blog The Apartheid laws were clearly intended not to treat people of different races equally.
No, you have invested so much in making a song and dance about this being an issue about “equality” that you have lost sight of what the real issues are here, and they are to address the property issues the “next of Kin consent issues” and the inheritance issues, If you want to take the whole of the country with you then you have to accept that there is a far greater number of people here who will happily accept reforms along the lines suggested by Tony Abbott but are unwilling to see the marriage act changed to achieve it.
Jeremy do you realise the scope of your intellectual dishonesty here? Do you have any proof what soever that Tony Abbott is being duplicitous in his very public statements here? You clearly don’t have anything other than your bigotry and your prejudice.
If that was true then why does your post not address what Abbott has said about the issue in the interview?
Two people can drive on the road and if one is in a bus and one is in Semi they both have an entirely equal rights and responsibilities with regard to the traffic act, yet they each have a driving lice that is specific to the class of machine that they drive. Under your definition this is discrimination, every one else would think that it is just good sense that the licence fits the machine, the same argument goes for treating Gay marriage under its own separate instrument under the law.
Equality is “bigotry” and “prejudice” to Iain Hall.
Where to even begin?
The issue here is treating all people equally regardless of gender. Setting up a parallel system for gay people is not treating them equally, even if you try to specifically give them similar protections.
There’s one very simple way of giving them the same protections – remove the parts of any legislation that discriminate against them. The only reason to do it your way, or Tony’s way, is because you want to enshrine in law that they’re somehow not as good as you.
Apart from that, it’s also a total waste of public resources, setting up two “identical” systems. If they’re the same, and have the same protections, why separate them?
The law should treat everyone the same, regardless of gender. The Howard Marriage Act offends against that principle.
PS your license analogy is so risible I can’t be bothered responding to it. Sorry.
Where to even begin?
I began by laughing.
This is the tortured contortions bigots find themselves in by defending the indefensible. They invent all kinds of logical fallacies rather than just admit to their prejudice. And so we have a new argument against same sex marriage: denying people equality is actually the kinder, less prejudiced option.
What a joke Iain is.
Iain, it’s really, really simple. If the only reason you are preventing someone from marrying someone else is their gender, then it’s sex-discrimination.
If you set up a separate union under law, regardless of how similar it is to the marriage, it’s still discrimination to forbid someone marrying someone else based purely on their gender.
You can talk about how that’s the way things should be, how it’s the traditional thing and whatever other facile arguments you care to throw out, but you’re still arguing that a form of discrimination be enshrined in law.
At least Turtle is honest about it.
Jeremy
You know very well that I did not say that at all.
No the real issue is how to address the legal needs of Gay couples when it comes to their domestic arrangements, You want to make it a simplistic argument about “discrimination” so that you can more easily reject the politically achievable solutions to the problem like the suggestions made by Tony Abbott.
No, who says that there is any negative value judgment in wanting to have a separate legal instrument to cover homosexual unions? Not I and certainly not Tony Abbott
There are lots of things that we do in law through separate legal instruments and the sky does not fall as a result. You have to be desperate if you are starting to use an economic justification for your position rather than any overriding principle.
No it doesn’t what it does is define just what a Marriage anyone may marry as long as the meet the criteria of the act.
Nah, you won’t answer because you realise that the analogy is good and you have no valid counter argument.
confessions
Thanks for recognizing that Jeremy’s position is bigoted and full of prejudice, 😉 🙂
The Joke is that like Jeremy you care more about symbolism than you do about addressing the practical matters of this issue.
Keri
Even in England they have created a separate instrument to recognize homosexual unions so why should it be any different here?
Repeating yourself does not make your case Keri
I am like a lot of conservatives very keen to see enduring , faithful monogamous relationships encouraged and recognized in law but I reject your “one size fits all” paradigm. It seems to me that the real agenda here is that You and jeremy don’t give a toss about the practicalities here what you are really wanting is the symbolism of calling homosexual unions “marriage” well it seems to me that this will always be a bridge too far in Australian politics so you are really pissing into the wind and denying the real and practical reforms to those who would benefit from them by doing so.
When desperate why do lefties like your self always want to insist that their interlocutors are being dishonest and hiding some darker agenda?
Iain, your analogy is fatuous because the reason we have different licenses for different vehicles is that they require different training. A person who can drive a car cannot automatically drive a massive truck.
That’s not the case for gay couples. They require no “different training” to heterosexual couples.
In fact, you are yet to identify a single reason why a gay couple committing to each other for life, identical to a heterosexual married couple in all respects except for the gender of the participants, is not a marriage.
You are also yet to provide a single reason why there should be a separate system to describe these marriages.
“what you are really wanting is the symbolism of calling homosexual unions “marriage” well it seems to me that this will always be a bridge too far in Australian politics”
You know as well as I do that you’re in a minority on this, and increasingly so. The only reason it hasn’t happened already is that whilst the religious fundamentalists are fewer than those who believe in equality, the religious fundamentalists are located in key marginals that the major parties fear they could lose.
But that’ll change.
And we don’t want all homosexual unions to be called “marriages” – only the ones that are marriages.
The Joke is that like Jeremy you care more about symbolism than you do about addressing the practical matters of this issue.
Removing discrimination is the most practical thing that can be done. Fluffing about the edges tweaking things here and there is only symbolism.
“When desperate why do lefties like your self always want to insist that their interlocutors are being dishonest and hiding some darker agenda?”
Irony is just something you do to your shirty to you, isn’t it, Iain? You’ve accused Jeremy of exactly the same thing in this thread. Are you coming out of the closet, Iain? Are you admitting you’re just a big ol’ lefty?
“Even in England they have created a separate instrument to recognize homosexual unions so why should it be any different here?”
Because – listen closely, Iain – it’s still discrimination. And it’s throughout the United Kingdom, not just England.
“No the real issue is how to address the legal needs of Gay couples when it comes to their domestic arrangements, You want to make it a simplistic argument about “discrimination” so that you can more easily reject the politically achievable solutions to the problem like the suggestions made by Tony Abbott. ”
No the real issue is actually that marriage is a sacrament.
Its making “love” sacred.
And so as long as that love doesn’t fit an accepted definition then, by definition, it isn’t sacred.
Thats why there is resistance to allowing marriage in any form other than between a man and a woman presumably under strict regulation for life.
I don’t think those Pagan weddings, leading to marriages that by definition only last a year – then the couple then decides whether or not to renew their vows, are recognised either. Despite the fact that some of those relationships appear to be lifelong.
This just shows how strong the irrational hold of Christianity is over our culture. Tho we often don’t like to admit it.
Cos as far as God is concerned marriage is only acceptable between a man and a woman. Well at least according to the Christians. Tho whether God actually feels that way is another issue.
I don’t think he has the time at the moment actually, to care about the trivial details of love. Gods been really busy trying to acquire enough of that newfangled quantum string so he restring every angel’s harp. (God moves with the times too you know.)
I think these days what matters to God is that the people getting married view their love as sacred, and want to share that with the entire world. (Including the wind, the critters, the sky and the land and the whole lot of the world.)
Arrogant, religious fundy busy bodies want to deny same sex coupes the right to actually share this, and they know they can’t actually stop people carrying out their own ceremonies anymore, but they can actually stop society recognising that as valid.
So thats just another layer of discrimination underneath the others. Ultimately the Christians that don’t like same sex couples don’t like the thought that any sexual love that isn’t a monogamous married relationship ratified by their partiular church could possibly be sacred. This is the last vestige of control they have over society, and they are not going to let go without a fight.
Thats the basis of your argument Iain, and turtle’s tho she is more honest about it.
I don’t think the Christians approve of secular marriage, either.
I’ve never been able to understand the “same, but different, different but equal” arguments of conservatives against gay marriage.
Reading the posts by Ian has not made this any clearer.
The law should be one size fits all, unless it breaks the Golden Rule.
Here, there is no: social, economic, lawful, master chef australia, animal, mineral reason why two people making a comittment to eachother are at all different to another two people making the same comittment.
So why invent one?
Iain,
My twin brother and I both met our respective partners at about the same time (8 years ago). The only difference between us is that I’m gay and he is straight.
My brother and his wife have been “married” in a non religious ceremony at the registry. Why is that not possible for me and my partner?
I’m fine for the church to not want to let me in the front door of their establishment but in Australia there is supposed to be a separation of church and state.
Other than the fact that in my case we both happen to have a cock there is no difference between our respective relationships. The sky didn’t suddenly come tumbling down when they allowed same sex marriages in Canada many years ago do you seriously think that’s going to happen here?
This silliness needs to end sooner rather than later.
I’ve never been able to understand the “same, but different, different but equal” arguments of conservatives against gay marriage.
Me either. The other illogical position they take on this issue is that of ‘preserving the institution.’ If they were serious about this however, they’d be wanting as many couples as possible to marry, not seeking to exclude people.
Conservatives really do have the strangest arguments, don’t they?
Jeremy
I reckon that there are some rather significant difference between Gay and straight relationships Jeremy, and if you think other wise you are seriously mistaken.
Are you sure about that?, Hmm I think that the lessons of history would contradict you there.
Quite simply it is unachievable politically for all kinds of reasons for either the Labor party or the Coalition to support Gay unions being recognized as “marriage”and as such you should be taking Tony Abbott at his word and recognizing that what he is prepared to support is the best offer on the table from either of the major parties it is achievable and it will address all practical concerns.
Because it is achievable whereas what you are advocating for isn’t, then again I think that you are more interested in having a cause that you can grandstand about rather than any worthwhile results where it matters which is in the lives of real people.
Am I really in a minority? I don’t think so but lets put it as referendum question then, Oh thats right you love claiming that yours is a majority position but when there is a vote on the issue like the one on California that ended Gay marriage in that state you just whined about the oppression of a minority by the majority. 🙄
No problem then because under the Australian legal definition NO homosexual unions are marriages.
“I don’t think the Christians approve of secular marriage, either.” – Jeremy
No they don’t. But they have no control over the issue. Cos we are a secular society. And we have a separation between church and state.
My point was this is all about discrimination and control over “marriage” based on the idea (to christians, and many other people,) that marriage is a sacrament. A ritual and there’s ‘something special” about it. Even secular marriage’s have that vibe, without the dogma mostly.
Its not just about the legal rights and responsibilities wrt next of kin, kids , property, etc etc. Its also about society viewing everyone’s marriages the same way. And allowing anyone the right to be married, with all the special implications that it has for all of us straight couples who have done it.
“I reckon that there are some rather significant difference between Gay and straight relationships Jeremy, and if you think other wise you are seriously mistaken.”
And yet you can’t name them. I will ignore any further comments from you until you do.
Tell us – what is it that applies in all heterosexual marriages that cannot apply in a homosexual marriage?
What’s the difference between one couple and another couple Ian?
I might have missed the memo, I can get pretty tunnel visioned when there are people being discriminated against for no reasonable reason.
Apart from Iain just asserting things like:
“I reckon that there are some rather significant difference between Gay and straight relationships Jeremy, and if you think other wise you are seriously mistaken.”
and
“Are you sure about that?, Hmm I think that the lessons of history would contradict you there. ”
without actually providing examples I find it interesting that Iain doesn’t have the guts to respond to boynxdor.
Iain – own up to your prejudices and tell boynxdor why you think he should be discriminated against, why you think your relationship is more valid than his.
Jeremy – I got bored of the old nick name so using a new one now.
Just noticed this addition to your last comment addressed to me
I just know that you are going to cite those who marry knowing that they can never have children But the continuation of the species is the obvious answer here Jeremy.
So… you see why your answer doesn’t follow, but you insist on giving it anyway.
You know and agree that children are not an essential condition of marriage, but then when we’re talking about gays you suddenly suggest that they are.
Can you not see how ridiculous that position is?
Is that all you’ve got? You’re adamant that heterosexual marriages and gay marriages are fundamentally different, so different that the law must discriminate between them, and yet all you’ve managed to list so far is procreation, which you concede is not an essential element of marriage.
Perhaps your difficulty here Iain is that your opposition to gay marriage is not based on any rational concern, but is simply a gut discomfort with gay men that you’re trying vainly to justify without admitting that you’re prejudiced?
Can you not see how ridiculous that position is?
I suspect Iain can, but will steadfastly refuse to admit it. At least I hope he can see it that is.
“Continuing the species” doesn’t require marriage. Now if Iain had studied human biology at high school he might know that. 😛
“The Joke is that like Jeremy you care more about symbolism than you do about addressing the practical matters of this issue.”
This implies that you believe gay marriage is no more than symbolism. Therefore, to oppose it you must care more about symbolism than the practical matters.
If you do not, then you must have no objection to gay marriage.
So which is it? That you feel out-dated symbolism trumps practical considerations, or that gay marriage is A-OK?
“I just know that you are going to cite those who marry knowing that they can never have children But the continuation of the species is the obvious answer here Jeremy.”
Can you tell us how the continuation of the species is in doubt by allowing Gay marriage, Iain?
Or where you draw the line? Do people who cannot have children – older people, or people with fertility issues, for example – are somehow exempt from this? Or why gay couples who fully intend to have children are not?
I like how Iain avoided my simpler question of what is different between two couples?
Iain, does that mean you wouldnt allow a woman who has survived ovarian cancer to marry, ever? Or a man who was born sterile?
You have yet to state a single reason, at all, that adresses marriage and why gay people shouldnt be allowed to marry.
Yes marry. Unions, partnerships, commitments are all nice names, and for the description of the act they’re fine, but why not just call it marriage?
In that way, yes, the symbol is important, because those other terms now have businesslike, cold, uncaring over tones, where as marriage, in the zeitgeist, means two people bonded in love and companionship for life (or until they’re sick of eachother).
How dare you look into somone elses eyes and tell them they dont have a right to love.