Posts Tagged ‘Gay marriage’

The basic dishonesty of the “No” campaign on #marriageequality exposed. Again.

Posted: August 24, 2017 in Life, Political musings, Popular Culture et al
Tags: , , , , , , ,
5

 

Screen Shot 2017-08-24 at 12.09.51 pm

This is a quotation on the “True Marriage Equality” website – a noisy, and to our eyes offensive and very ridiculous organisation, that has popped up.

This is the Alt-Right/Fake News experience happening right now in Australia. This is the unpleasant, harmful and entirely unnecessary experience – that many warned that Malcolm Turnbull’s weak-kneed inability to stand up to his own right wing as he clings to The Lodge was foisting on us – that has been created by this ludicrous opinion poll.

The quoting of Paul Keating implying clearly that he is against same sex marriage (in an interview from a long time ago, despite the date on the article header being 19th August two days ago, clearly the date the post when up but NOT when Keating said anything) is actually an utterly dishonest taking of quotes out of context and it is promoted as a positive for their biased arguments.

In a desperate attempt to fight back against this crap being promoted by the No campaign – which has included anonymous and deeply offensive posters appearing on Melbourne’s streets, from who-knows-where) here is the actual text from whence the quote was plucked:

RAY MARTIN: John Howard, are you relaxed and comfortable about homosexual marriages in Australia?

JOHN HOWARD: No, I’m not. I don’t believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against. I believe that sexual preference is a private matter. I do not believe that homosexual relationships should be given the same legal status as a marriage. I believe that marriage has a special role in our society. It is a special institution which gives an enormous amount of stability to our community.

RAY MARTIN: So, a gay couple in marriage is not a family unit in Australia?

JOHN HOWARD: I didn’t say that. Look, I am not going to get in to a legalistic definition. I mean, a family is an emotional relationship and it is a commitment of people.

RAY MARTIN: But like Tim Fischer, you are not in favour of homosexual marriages?

JOHN HOWARD: But I do not and I make no bones about it. I am not in favour of homosexual marriages.

RAY MARTIN: Paul.

PAUL KEATING: People live in all sorts of relationship, Ray. You can’t describe a family in any one way. The nuclear family is an important, but nevertheless somewhat ageing concept.

RAY MARTIN: Can you ever be convinced that two men and a cocker spaniel is not a family unit as you once said in Cabinet?

PAUL KEATING: Well, you will never build a society on it. You will not build a nation on it, but it is another thing to discriminate against people. It is another thing to seek to do as the National Party and others have done, is speak in discriminatory terms about people who live in homosexual relationships.

JOHN HOWARD: You really are trying to have two bob each way. I mean, just state your view and get on to the next one.

PAUL KEATING: Oh, excuse me, I can give my own answers, thanks. I don’t need you to interpret them, John.

Presumable he doesn’t need “True Marriage Equality” to interpret them in this way, either. We also refer you to our much-read article explaining why all the arguments posted by Christians in favour of bias against homosexuals is NOT Biblical.

Why is the Church anti-gay if the Bible isn’t?

 

Turnbull Govt set to be defeated on gay marriage vote.

Posted: August 29, 2016 in Political musings, Popular Culture et al
Tags: , , , , , ,
4

Testing times for the Government with its plan to hold a nationwide vote on “gay marriage” (or “marriage equality” as it is better termed).

With the Nick “Team” Xenophon votes in Parliament now definitely against the plan, Labor will be extremely unlikely to back the plan, even if there was ever any rarely chance of them doing so. They could, theoretically, still decide to abstain, allowing the Government to escape with a win on the floor of the Senate by default, but their current rhetoric would seem to make that unlikely, and they would be roundly criticised for allowing a measure to pass that they have stated categorically they believe should be scrapped.

Our view is that the Government will still “test” the Parliament with a vote – judging that a defeat in Parliament will be less damaging to their stocks than just giving up on on their manifesto pledge altogether.

The likely breakdown of votes can be seen below, courtesy of The Age’s neat Senate-working-out interactive map, assuming Family First vote in favour of the plebiscite as their last best chance to get the people to reject marriage equality, and we are basing Lambie’s likely vote on the basis of her earlier statements that Australians should have the right to vote in a referendum on gay marriage but she would ‘fight like hell’ against any changes.

 

 

Looking dicey for Turnbull gay marriage vote.

Looking dicey for Turnbull gay marriage vote.

 

Assuming the above scenario works out then it seems virtually impossible for the Government to avoid a free vote on the topic in Parliament as an alternative to the plebiscite, though when that might be is problematical. They could theoretically take a bill to reform the marriage act to the next election, so they can claim a mandate to make the necessary changes if they win again, but that would seem to drag out what has already been a marathon national debate way too far.

There is clearly a mood in the country for change, even though pockets of strong and principled resistance remain. But the case has now been argued endlessly and surely the reform side has won.

As one caller to talkback radio in Melbourne put it last week to the relevant government minister, “For heaven’s sake, just get it done!”

Yes, that was us.

All of which also frees up a staggering $160 million which was going to be wasted on a non-binding vote to be spent on something else, or at the least chucked back into the empty government pot to go towards reducing the deficit. That sweetens the pill for the Government somewhat: umpteen million taxpayers will be pleased.

Two 90 years olds marry after 72 years together. Oh yes, they’re gay.

Posted: September 9, 2014 in Popular Culture et al, Religion
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0
If stories like this don't explain to the knuckle-heads why gay marriage is right, then nothing will. Gay people don't want to be "partnered", they want the right to be married.

If stories like this don’t explain to the knuckle-heads why gay marriage – we prefer the term “marriage equality” – is right, then nothing will. Gay people don’t want to be “partnered”, they want the right to be married, like everyone else.

 

What a beautiful story. Life affirming. Heart warming. Gentle.

More than seven decades after beginning their relationship, Vivian Boyack and Alice “Nonie” Dubes have been married. Boyack, 91, and Dubes, 90, sat next to each other during Saturday’s ceremony.

old hands“This is a celebration of something that should have happened a very long time ago,” the Rev. Linda Hunsaker told the small group of close friends and family who attended.

The women met in their hometown of Yale, Iowa, while growing up. Then they moved to Davenport in 1947 where Boyack was a teacher and Dubes a book-keeper.

Dubes said the two have enjoyed their life together and over the years they have traveled to all 50 states, all the provinces of Canada, and to England twice. “We’ve had a good time,” she said. Boyack said it takes a lot of love and work to keep a relationship going for 72 years.

Longtime friend Jerry Yeast, 73, said he got to know the couple when he worked in their yard as a teenager.

“I’ve known these two women all my life, and I can tell you, they are special,” Yeast said.

Iowa began allowing gay marriage in 2009. The two women say it is never too late for a new chapter in life.

Amen.

1 Million people have viewed this video in just 2 days – want to see it too?

Posted: November 27, 2011 in Political musings, Popular Culture et al, Religion
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
3

I agree utterly with this video and its message. Long overdue. And its way past time Australian politicians showed some true leadership – especially Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Over thirty years ago, I used to walk around at University wearing a lapel badge that read “Gay Liberation Is Our Liberation”. I was frequently stopped by people asking, sometimes aggressively, “So, you’re a real, live queer, are you?”

I patiently explained that I happened to be straight, but that Gay Liberation would never take place until we – the majority population of heterosexuals – reformed our antiquated and unsympathetic points of view. Yet as recently as two days ago, one of Australia’s major newspapers, the Sydney Morning Herald, published an article by a prominent Roman Catholic arguing that Australia is not ready to say “we do” to gay marriage.

Reporting on a recent opinion survey, Chris Meney, director of something called the Life, Marriage and Family Centre in the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, opined that “ordinary Australians seem to feel that this is a divisive issue, that there are more important issues to be dealt with, that the interests of children must be considered along with the rights of adults and that any hurried change has the potential for unintended and undesirable consequences – some of which strike at the heart of our free and open society.

Well I have news for Mr Meney: not only are you pontificating, pardon the pun, from the metaphorical pulpit one of the most irredeemably conservative Catholic archdiocese in the world, but thirty plus years is not “hurried change”.

What’s more, in June 2004, a survey conducted by Newspoll showed that only 38% of respondents supported same-sex marriage, with 44% opposed and 18% undecided.

But by June 2007, a Galaxy Poll conducted for Get Up measured the opinions of 1,100 Australians aged 16 and over. Just three short years later, now 57% of respondents supported same-sex marriage with 37% opposed and 6% undecided.

In June 2009, another Galaxy Poll measured the opinions of 1,100 Australians aged 16 and over. 60% of respondents supported the recognition of same-sex marriage, with 36% opposed and 4% undecided.  In addition, 58% of respondents supported the recognition of foreign same-sex marriages in Australia, with 36% opposed and 5% undecided.

In October 2010, a third Galaxy Poll measured the opinions of 1,050 Australians aged 18 and over. By now, 62% of respondents supported the recognition of same-sex marriage, with 33% opposed and 5% undecided.

In July 2011 a survey of 543 people conducted by Roy Morgan measured the support for a number of positions on marriage.

That revealed that now 68% of Australians support same-sex marriage, and further that 78% classify marriage as a ‘necessary’ institution, with only 22% opposing.

Homosexual people do not want to “Union” one another. They want to marry one another. And not to allow them to do so is the pettiest, rankest, vilest, most discriminatory blot on Australia’s body politic, and one that should be immediately removed.

Well done, Get Up! Keep up the fight.