It would seem that there could be a problem for Gillard. She has the unique problem of strongly denouncing Same sex unions (gay marriages). Will she remain with this policy If http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ame-sex-marriage/story-fnba0rxe-1226211343279 It really does not matter what she supports. The problem as I see it is, that if the party does not allow a conscience vote, She would have a very difficult decision to make. Should Gillard vote party lines, even though it is against her beliefs? What would happen to her credibility, should this happen? I am sure there is enough support to pass Same sex unions in the Australian parliament (although I could be wrong), However, it would seem for so long Gillard had made it abundantly clear she opposes it. How badly will this effect her politically?
Are you for real?? She lost her credibility a long time ago, when she swore an oath that she didn't keep. AS for gay marriages, i dont see what the big fuss is, maybe its a way to keep the attention away from more serious issues, like uranium sales to india, assylums eeker issue and YES the carbon tax. AS long as gay do what they do behind closed doors i couldn't give a ****. And by the way i do agree that marriage is between a man and a woman - full stop period dot.
It would seem that throughout the world, she has been considered to be leading a failing government the likes that Australia has never seen. Is this another nail? Some would continue to believe, that Gillard did not lie and that she based her entire campaign on those very policies she lied about. Could they seriously believe, if she had to tow party lines, that she actually agreed with the policy? Also If she did not cross the floor, and voted for this policy, would this then mean, she voted under duress? If this was established, could that actually jeopardies any vote that was taken? It is another policy the Greens stood on for years, naturally, something is happening behind the scenes and this slight of hand would be an attempt to cover it. However, would all this be more damaging to Gillard ERGO to the Government?
We're hetrosexual, we're proud, get used to it.....don't hear it too much, hey? Gays should be allowed the chance to get married and be miserable like the rest of us. If the church doesn't want to "marry" them, then so-be-it, that's up to them.
The goverment should not be able to dictate who you can and cant marry... Gay or straight love is love.
If it's a legal institution, government should be able to dictate rules for participation (laws). A more fundamental question is what basis should laws be able to use to discriminate between people. Many basis are acceptable. When our laws start discriminating between folks based on a couples race, religion, or sex... that's where I have a problem. In America at least, we have explicitly promised we wouldn't do that. Sadly we seem to be having trouble keeping our promise.
gay marriages are long overdue, we are writing the 21st century. Sadly however the politcal artificial fights over such a banal subject. But that's how we are, the more conservatives still caught in the medieval times.... And Gillard trying to gain as a leader, all political bull(*)(*)(*)(*) of the lowest kind!
I have no problem with them getting married so long as any law changes dont require church's to change their beliefs about marriage - I dont trust the gay lobbiests not to use it as a platform for discrimination action and I would defend the rights of the church's to marry only those who they think fit into their particular beliefs. My only other problem is the children. Being an adult is about looking after the child and giving it a chance at life, not getting a child because you want a child. So I think adoption is ok, but not 'making' babies through donors and surrogates etc as that is them trying to fill their needs as an adult. With that I agree with the church's, if you are going to bring in a new child to the world yourself, then you should only do so if you are both its parents and thus give it the best possible childhood experience possible. It's a very difficult position for me to take, but if you cant make the boom boom go pop, then you should adopt instead - irregardless of sexuality. Though you'd also increase powers of the state to take away children from reaaly bad parents and put them into adoption but its starting to sound a bit stolen generation-ish, and we're heading into some oldskool morals which this nation has shat on, wrapped up in bad press, and smoked down for cheap thrills.
I hope Abbott allows a conscience vote. What is he afraid of? Could it be that the majority of Liberal party MP's would vote in favor of same sex marriage?
This is what the anti gay rights crowd always says. Its a silly excuse because they refuse to admit that gay couples don't have the same rights at all.
This is more to the subject of the vote for 'Gay Marriage'. I do, feel that this policy would become more of a political football. Gay marriage has been the mantra of the Greens party (for whatever reason). Under this current government, where Labor is looking for something to distinguish themselves apart from The Greens. Will this policy die a political death simply, in attempts, to show they are still leading Australia. A move from the Labor Caucus to support the policy, would also compromise the Leader of the Government, with deliberate statements of never supporting this policy. Although a conscience vote has been decided upon. I guess it could have been a question of BOTH, however, not a reflection on the policy or the ones idea of whether the policy should be considered.
I realize that. However, with Labor showing majority support (subject only to consideration of the attempt to push party policy in support) would suggest it has a better than average chance of succeeding. However, I thought you had a summery of discriminations of the same sex relationships have through current law. I thought you might share.
What rights do normal people have that homosexuals don't have? As far as I knew homosexual couples have the same rights as de facto normal couples.
Not at all. Marriage is a heterosexual institution, therefore heterosexual couples may fulfill the criteria for marriage. This has absolutely no bearing on the fact that race has no influence on a person`s capacity to fulfill the criteria necessary for military service. It would be hysterical, and illogical for a man to cry discrimination for not being welcome in a women`s rest room. We just can`t ALL have ALL of everything, life isn`t like that.
Your argument as to why heterosexual couples may fulfill the criteria of marriage is to say "marriage is a heterosexual institution?" Not very compelling and it provides no basis for excluding a same sex couple.
