ALP national conference – will there be another one of those glorious Gillard defeats that make the country better?

Funny thing about Julia Gillard. The best parts of her Prime Ministership have been the things she’s been rolled on. Her initial opposition to action to reduce carbon emissions, thwarted when the Greens won the balance of power. Her initial scheme to deport refugees to Malaysia where they’d have no real protections, thwarted when the High Court pointed out that it was unlawful.

Here’s hoping her Prime Ministership enjoys another great achievement during the ALP National Conference, that of her being rolled by the rest of the ALP on her opposition to marriage equality.

Great things are possible when Julia Gillard is Prime Minister and she doesn’t get her way.

Advertisements

37 responses to “ALP national conference – will there be another one of those glorious Gillard defeats that make the country better?

  1. jordanrastrick

    Yay!

    Should I repost the Penbo article from the other thread, here?

    Also, since someone must defend the PM around these parts and it usually falls to me:

    Her initial opposition to action to reduce carbon emissions

    Surely “initial” is too strong. She drove giving up on trying to pass it through the Senate in the kitchen cabinet. But there’s zero evidence I’m aware of that she, or anyone else prominent in Cabinet, went hard against the original CPRS.

  2. Yeah, but the CPRS was hardly genuine action to reduce emissions. It gave a stupid amount of money to big polluters to keep polluting.

  3. jordanrastrick

    Absolute filthy lying Green propaganda – the one line they’ve carried that puts them up with Labor or the Libs for spin, in recent times – that I’m continually saddened you genuinely believe, Jeremy. Please believe me when I say that, honestly, I think on this topic you’ve been conned and just don’t know it yet; and I really hope I can convince you, one day.

    When I have time, I will sit down and actually put a number crunch of what the Lower House passed this year, versus what the Senate first rejected under Rudd, into one of those catchy side by side comparison table kind of formats with colours and stuff (amazingly I can’t find anyone who has done that yet.) The differences are…. certainly real, but about as far from this kind of rhetoric as it is possible to get.

  4. jordanrastrick

    Oh, and back OT, since Christianity is pretty much only ever viewed as a negative contributor to the cause of Gay Marriage, this is worth a read:

    http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/12/02/3382170.htm

  5. Thanks for the link, Jordan. Pity most of the commenters don’t appear to have understood the message, perhaps didn’t even finish reading the article before rushing to the keyboard.

    It’s interesting how new translations of the bible increasingly reflect today’s right Christian fundamentalism. For instance, “the first known appearance of [the word] homosexual in print is found in an 1869 German pamphlet by the Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Kertbeny, published anonymously.”

  6. If the ALP doesn’t finally endorse full marriage equality, then it will be a victory for the bigots over the rational.

    It’ll condemn the ALP to more years of infighting on the issue, because it’s not going away until equality is reached.

    If they have any sense, they’ll pass it and make it Tony Abbott’s problem – like with the carbon tax, it’s much harder to oppose something that’s already law than when it’s been passed and people can see that the prophesied doom has not occurred.

  7. “it’s not going away until equality is reached.”

    And even then it isn’t going to go away.

    The current gay marriage ‘progressives’ will just find another fight.

    Prehaps a quota of seats in Parliament.
    Rewrite all childrens book that currently show traditional marriage as a mum and a dad.
    Compensation for living in a mainly hetrosexual society,

  8. narcoticmusing

    Never fear truefamilies, there are still more than enough bigots out there to make being openly gay a liability to one’s prospects of being elected. But then, so is being openly female. So clearly, there is no social problem to be addressed huh?

  9. truefamilies’ intellectual forebears, circa 1950:

    Prehaps a quota of seats in Parliament FOR MEMBERS ACCEPTING OF INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE.
    Rewrite all childrens book that currently show traditional marriage as a mum and a dad OF THE SAME RACE.
    Compensation for living in a mainly SAME-RACE MARRIED society.

    The only reason why the bigots yell about “one man and one woman” is because it is no longer PC for them to yell about “one man and one woman of the same race” or “one man and one woman of the same religion” or “one man and multiple women” or any of the other “traditional” forms of marriage that have been thrown on the scrapheap of history.

    Things change. Wake up and smell the 21st century.

  10. narcoticmusing

    unique – you forgot one man and his property (wife)

  11. Imagine a Wongfaulkneresque Australia….

    Preferential and free IVF treatment for Lesbians wanting children (we need to fix the imballance afterall)

    Gay brothers are finally allowed to marry.

    Step mum discover she really is a lesbian, ditches dad and marries step daughter she has raised for the last ten years.

    Polygamous marriages (in the first instance) for certain cultures are given the go ahead if approved by koranic courts.

    Following 2026 Australian Labor Green Party conference, delegates demand the ALGP adopt the platform plank of supporting polygamous marriage.

    Marriage eqaulity website poses the question “What next?” Someone half jokingly responds “Why can’t a person marry an inanamate object like a car?”

  12. “Preferential and free IVF treatment for Lesbians wanting children (we need to fix the imballance afterall)”

    Which would a completely silly way to “fix the imballance”, given that lesbians make up, what, 1% of the population. So all they can add is another 1% of children compared to all the heteros, even with preferential treatment. Hardly a great plan for world domination.

    “Gay brothers are finally allowed to marry. ”

    No more than brothers and sisters can now.

    “Step mum discover she really is a lesbian, ditches dad and marries step daughter she has raised for the last ten years.”

    Covered under the same laws that currently regulate a step dad marrying his step daughter.

    “Polygamous marriages (in the first instance) for certain cultures are given the go ahead if approved by koranic courts. Following 2026 Australian Labor Green Party conference, delegates demand the ALGP adopt the platform plank of supporting polygamous marriage.”

    Not likely. Polygamous marriage is not “equality” in any real sense, so why would political parties built on equality ever go there? Or if they did, equality would demand that we also reintroduce polyandry (one woman, multiple husbands). Which will cause the support for polygamy to dry up real fast amongst the patriarchal set. Those arguing for polygamy never do so on the grounds of equality.

    “Marriage eqaulity website poses the question “What next?” Someone half jokingly responds “Why can’t a person marry an inanamate object like a car?””

    Because the car cannot give consent. But in a hypothetical future of artificially intelligent sentient automobiles that are capable of giving consent? Sure, go for it. Whatever makes you happy TF.

  13. narcoticmusing

    Ahh, the good old ridiculous extremist floodgate argument. Not one thing on your list may or may not happen – why, because you pulled them all out of your ass. However, have a look at my list of horribles – these ALL happened thanks to attitudes like yours:

    You realise the same stupid arguments were made to try to prevent:
    -women being treated as anything other than property
    -non-white and/or non-land owners having rights
    -universal suffrage
    -inter-racial interaction (including marriage) but any interaction, even a black person using a white person’s toilet
    -rape within marriage being a crime
    -etc etc etc

    Arguments like yours, truefamilies, prolonged things like
    -domestic violence being considered ‘discipline’ providing the husband was doing it
    -a presumption of consent within marriage, even if the hubby had to ‘rough up’ the wife a bit to get it
    -segregation
    -racial vilification
    -etc etc etc

  14. uniquerhys why can’t a polygamous marriage be equitable?

    Why do you seek to deny people who wan’t to freely enter into a relationship.

    Or do you think these women are stupid?

  15. narcoticmusing

    The point, truefamilies, is that polygamy is not, in any way, related to monogamous homosexual marriage. So it is irrelevant to the debate. If someone wants to argue for polygamy then they need to raise it with its own merits. But using something unrelated to gay marriage as an argument against it is disingenuous. Can you give an actual argument about gay marriage or just these foolish unrelated floodgate hypotheticals that have nothing to do with homosexual rights?

  16. Hey I am not against gay marriage. I am also not for or against polygamy

    I just don’t think it is the best thing for Australian society.

    If gay people who live in Australia want to get married to each other they could go and emigrate to Iceland.

    Infact I am surprised more don’t.

  17. narcoticmusing

    I am not against gay marriage I just don’t think it is the best thing for Australian society

    Got any rational arguments as to why it isn’t best for Australian society? You realise that a lot of men thought giving women the right to vote wasn’t best for Australian society either.

  18. “Hey I am not against gay marriage.”

    Then why the insistence on throwing out discredited hypotheticals and strawman arguments against it every time the matter is raised on this blog?

    “If gay people who live in Australia want to get married to each other they could go and emigrate to Iceland. ”

    Or alternatively, people who live in Australia who want religious beliefs to solely determine who can and cannot get married could go and emigrate to Saudi Arabia. “We don’t want your kind here” is never a good way to build a healthy and happy society.

  19. “Then why the insistence on throwing out discredited hypotheticals and strawman arguments against it every time the matter is raised on this blog?”

    Because “truefamilies” is a dishonest troll.

  20. I have never before commented on a gay marriage post on this blog before.

  21. Preferential and free IVF treatment for Lesbians wanting children (we need to fix the imballance afterall)

    Gay brothers are finally allowed to marry.

    Step mum discover she really is a lesbian, ditches dad and marries step daughter she has raised for the last ten years.

    Polygamous marriages (in the first instance) for certain cultures are given the go ahead if approved by koranic courts.

    Following 2026 Australian Labor Green Party conference, delegates demand the ALGP adopt the platform plank of supporting polygamous marriage.

    Marriage eqaulity website poses the question “What next?” Someone half jokingly responds “Why can’t a person marry an inanamate object like a car?”

    Well on your way to a straw football team there, true families.

  22. I wonder if “truefamilies” simply doesn’t understand the fallacy of the “slippery slope” argument, or whether s/he does and is just exploiting others who don’t.

  23. narcoticmusing

    “I have never before commented on a gay marriage post on this blog before.”

    so? And you are yet to give a single reason to back your claim that it is not in the best interests of Australia. You want to make a claim like that, back it up with rationale arguement about gay marriage, not about other shit.

  24. I am not against gay marriage … I just don’t think it is the best thing for Australian society

    Yeah . . um, truefamilies – not to burst your bubble or anything – but that means you’re against gay marriage.

    Others here may give you a hard time but I think you’re very entertaining. You’re a reassuring reminder that no matter how batshit crazy the undergraduate Left gets the Right can easily compete. You remind me what’s out there, and in doing so you re-affirm my commitment to progressive principles. So thank you.

    Also, for some reason, whenever you post I get a mental image of a man shovelling straw out of the back of a moving ute.

  25. narcoticmusing

    Also, for some reason, whenever you post I get a mental image of a man shovelling straw out of the back of a moving ute

    Gold, Mondo.

    I get more an image of banjo style chase music for a good ole fashioned lynchin’

  26. Hi Mondo,

    for what it’s worth I consider myself to be generally of the left. I however don’t like the lazy way that people try to pidgeon hole people like you attempted.

    But what really disappoints me is your attempted personal smear of me.

    C’mon youre better than that.

  27. Believe me TF – I’m not better than that. I strongly suspect that you’re deliberately taking the piss with your posts here.

    But I try to maintain an open mind, and I know what it’s like to be accused of being a Right-winger simply for deviating from the orthodox left-wing position, so I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    However can you explain how your professed leftism leads you to conclude that gay marriage is wrong for Australian society? What principles of progressive/left-wing thought lead you to this conclusion?

  28. Splatterbottom

    Mondo: ” I know what it’s like to be accused of being a Right-winger”

    There is nothing wrong with being called a right-winger. It is a hollow epithet that rings out from empty vessels which are devoid of logical arguments It is also a sure sign that you are on the right track. Far too many people see politics as tribal warfare rather than something to be considered issue by issue. The ability to be logical is not a necessary pre-condition to their having a strongly held opinion.

  29. narcoticmusing

    I’d agree that there is nothing wrong with independent thought / logical rationale and who cares how you are pigeon holed – some people are far too quick to pigeon hole others.

    Neverthless, TF has only said extremist right-wing things on this blog (while the right isn’t an issue, extremism on both sides can lead to poor outcomes) and is still yet to reconcile his claimed progressive stance with his assertion that gay marriage is not in the best interest of Australians.

    TF – over to you, I have asked patiently and not packed you into any side of politics. I haven’t even asked for evidence of your assertion – just a rationale arguement.

  30. There is nothing wrong with being called a right-winger. It is a hollow epithet that rings out from empty vessels which are devoid of logical arguments It is also a sure sign that you are on the right track. Far too many people see politics as tribal warfare rather than something to be considered issue by issue.

    Well, let’s face it – only leftists can be tribal. I’m sure if we all considered things issue by issue as you do, we’d probably end up siding with right-wingers 95% of the time just like you do. Whereas if someone subscribes to most left-wing ideals, that’s obviously tribal.

  31. ” The ability to be logical is not a necessary pre-condition to their having a strongly held opinion.”

    Indeed. Spoken by a gentleman with plenty of experience.

  32. I agree with your point in principle SB, although I do find labels to be broadly useful in terms of giving someone a rough outline of your politics.

    For example I would characterise myself as a Libertarian Left-wing Progressive which, for those engaged in politics, should give a fairly accurate picture of what my position is likely to be on any issue. (as an aside I would describe you as a Libertarian Right-wing Progressive, since your and my disagreement tends to center around things like economics and military/foreign policy).

    But you’re right to point out that those who use terms like Left/Right, Libertarian/Authoritarian or Progressive/Conservative as an identifier of the team to which they belong, rather than as a description of their personal ideology, are the emptiest of all vessels.

    Of course none of this absolves True Families of the requirement that he explain the basis of his view that gay marriage is bad for Australian society. That sort of asserion, particularly from someone claiming to adhere to a left-wing philosophy, shouldn’t go unchallenged.

  33. Gillard knows full well the homo bashers normally associated with The homo bashers normally associated in thought and deed by wingnuttery, are also alive and well in the supporters of her own party. She is being pragmatic is all, this issue (and I could care less what the polls say) is taboo at most meal tables around Oz. She knows this will be electoral poison and is trying to placate the more progressives in the party with the usual B.S. This will fail and she knows it, not because of any firm beliefs, it’s just about getting re-elected.

  34. narcoticmusing

    And wanting to get re-elected is the only arguement against gay marriage for a politician. Which is a pretty sad state of affairs.

  35. Splatterbottom

    “This will fail and she knows it, not because of any firm beliefs, it’s just about getting re-elected.”

    Truly we are the lucky country when it comes to political leadership! Not content with being propped up by a grub like Thomson Labor slithered deeper into the sewer, bringing low a good and decent man in Harry Jenkins and replacing him with a slimebag currently under investigation for abusing his expenses. What is it with Gillard and disreputable men? The young and naive excuse has worn thin. It is now only a matter of time.

  36. ” And wanting to get re-elected is the only argument against gay marriage for a politician. Which is a pretty sad state of affairs.”

    Indeed. 99.9% of them will say and do anything to get re-elected, and normally do. Until we get out of the mould of voting for the two major parties, it will always be, business as usual. When Gillard has reached her used by date it will be ?..!’s turn and the cycle will begin again. Until a new Messiah is again thrown up from the wreck of the Labor party.Twas always so, will always be so. Cynical ? Yep.

  37. “Truly we are the lucky country when it comes to political leadership! Not content with being propped up by a grub like Thomson Labor slithered deeper into the sewer,”

    Gillard will do herself in she needs no help from scum like Thompson. She is strutting the world stage like a Peacock in a thousand watt spot light dazzling the naive and stupid as she dances the “Limbo” How low can you go?. What’s new?

    So what do you want SB your mob? They’re just as bad. They just use an up market vaseline whilst they bend us over a chair to do the same job.Too bad, and I know you don’t like it, the Greens are going to be in government one day, much the pity I wont live long enough to see it.

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