Prime Minister Julia Gillard said in a Austereo radio interview on Jun 30 that the Labor party's policy on same-sex marriage will remain the same under her prime ministership.
"We believe the marriage act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognising that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples," the 48-year-old self-professed atheist said.
The news has prompted immediate criticism from same-sex marriage advocates in Australia.
Openly lesbian Australian model and MTV presenter Ruby Rose Langenheim, better known as Ruby Rose, launched a Twitter attack against Gillard's comments.
"This morning Julia Gillard said there will be no changes to the marriage act as it is only appropriate a man and woman get married. When asked her personal opinion she stated yes, she also believes this and it reflects community views... she has not asked the community for their views _ we didn't even elect her!
"Australia elected her mate she screwed over," referring to Gillard's predecessor Kevin Rudd who stepped down as the leader of the Labor Party on June 24 before a leadership ballot could be held after Gillard, then Deputy Prime Minister, challenged him for the top spot. Rudd was similarly against same-sex marriage.
Senthorun Raj, policy and development co-ordinator of the Gay & Lesbian Rights Lobby, wrote in a column in the Sydney Morning Herald on Jul 1 that while "legal entitlements between de facto and married couples are virtually the same, a lack of symbolic recognition for same-sex couples is troubling."
"Denying same-sex couples access to marriage, promotes a hierarchy of relationships. Couples are granted equal rights and entitlements but different statuses, essentially situating same-sex relationships as "inferior" or "lesser than" heterosexual ones. Such an argument is reminiscent of the segregationist policies that separated whites from blacks in the US in the 1950s. Is this the same logic we want to use to think about same-sex and heterosexual couples?" Rai wrote in his column "The PM had a choice on marriage. Why not gays?", referring to the PM's de facto relationship with her male partner.
Meanwhile, Australian Marriage Equality national convener Alex Greenwich was quoted as saying in Melbourne's Herald Sun that the group had written to the PM asking for her support of a Parliamentary conscience vote and to implement the findings of last year’s Senate inquiry into marriage equality.
"Ms Gillard needs to not just say: 'It's Labor Party policy not to support marriage equality', she needs to explain why," Mr Greenwich said. "That’s what we really need to find out."
A survey commissioned by lobby group Australian Marriage Equality in 2009 showed 60 per cent of Australians support gay marriage, up from 57 per cent in 2007.
列印版本
RSS Feed: 
讀者回應
Australia likes to promote herself around the world as a relaxed, easygoing, laid-back country...
However, many of her actions through several recent administrations underline what a right-wing, tough-as-nails state it is, with various questionable decisions regarding human rights and the promotion of equality - this new angle by the new PM is in keeping with Australia's austere character... (Shrug.)
Unfortunately her counterpart is even worst, fanatically catholic who was studying to be a priest ... from the fire onto the frying pan .. no hope of any changes here ... and before some start screaming we going into right direction, Centrelink recognise same sex relationship, sure it does .. benefit for couple is lesser than two single guys :))
A government does not need to alter the definition of a social institution such as marriage in order to put in place similar legal protections afforded by marriage, much as she indicated. ("we have as a government taken steps to equalise treatment for gay couples,").
I am not familiar with the status of things, but I will take the statement at face value for accuracy. I have not researched to see if it is accurate.
We do not need activist governments. We need governments to leave us the hell alone and let us live our life freely as we see fit.
Let the churches marry who they wish.
The article states"...... she has not asked the community for their views _ we didn't even elect her!". I am really annoyed whenever I see that comment and it has been flung around a bit over recent weeks.
Since when in Australia did the people elect any Prime Minister? I'll tell you when - NEVVVERR. We do not have the same electoral system as USA in which the voters (if they can be bothered voting) do directly and separately elect both their President through some weird sort of collegiate method, and also their local Congressman.
The Australian People have never ever ever directly elected any Prime Minister. They did not elect Rudd. It is not allowed in the Constitution. Under the Australian system of government the eligible voters elect only their local representative who is most often a member of a party but can be an independent. The party with the most winners is THE winner and then as THE winners, in this case the ALP, their internally elected Parliamentary leader becomes the Prime Minister. The ALP elected Rudd as Prime Minister because he was their Parliamentary leader going into the elections and he won his local seat so he remained their leader at that time. People might also forget that they also internally elect a Party Leader who is often not the same as the Parliamentary Leader.
With regard to electing Gillard, can I also remind everyone that the ALP went into the elections with Gillard as the deputy leader. She became the Deputy Prime Minister. She has at various times acted as the Prime Minister. And now I hear so much bleating that she was not elected? Come on people. Pull your head out of your collective arses and try to understand our system of government in this country rather than thinking in terms of the USA (OMG are people really that dumb as to overlay everything American onto our own situation? Do you really watch too much yankee television?)
Going back a few years, I never ever heard the media or the public whining that we never elected Keating when he deposed Hawke and took over the Prime Minister-ship back in 1991. Why not?
Secondly and equally importantly, in regard to "...... she has not asked the community for their views ..." I wonder where everyone thinks she was when the issue was raised and canvassed under Rudd? I'll tell you. She was in his office and in the Cabinet room and in the Parliament. As an elected MHR she was in touch with her electorate and the party and the general feeling of the major lobby groups - including the GLBTQ lobbyists.
What she is doing now is toe-ing the party line and preparing the party for the next election. Then there will be another three year term in which her more inclusive consultative approach and lack of religious-allegiances might just "change her view" to reflect the majority of all Australians rather than the moral-minority that Rudd and Abbott have served.
Speaking of Abbott; are you aware of his support of right wing Catholics and the Exclusive Bretheren? They are a dangerous right-wing extremist Catholic group that had influenced the then PM John Howard and claimed as a member that crazy Bill Heffernan (the one who tried to sink Justice Kirby using Parliamentary privilege sprouting outrageous claims that he was using Commonwealth cars to ferry money-boys to his home)
http://lobbyocracy.org.au/index.php?title=Exclusive_Brethren
http://www.bewareofthegod.com/?paged=3
The new Liberal Party leader, Tony Abbott has boasted publicly that the eight Catholics in the Howard cabinet were influential in stemming the tide of secular humanism through that Government’s decisions to overturn the Northern Territory’s euthanasia law, ban gay marriage, stop the ACT heroin trial and try to reduce abortion numbers through [Christian] pregnancy support counselling. For Abbott, the [Catholic driven] DLP is alive and well and living inside the Liberal/National Coalition. http://www.sunshinecoastatheists.com/2010/04/06/we-didnt-start-the-fire/
http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/Pages/Article.aspx?ID=2267
What same sex couples need are the same legal rights as their married peers... if all it takes is a piece of paper then give them a piece of paper... but for fxxx's sake dont go on with all the rubbish that is associated with marriage
For those of you who have made adverse comments about Australia maybe you would be pleased to know that all Australian states, and I think now the Commonwealth, give ALL defacto couples the same legal rights as their married peers
However, if I were to choose between her and Abbott, she would win my vote.
Abbott makes me feel threatened...
For years we thought/assumed you were gay and fully accepted you and even the media left you alone and respected your manbag.
Ms Gillard, what if you are so wrong. Australia (like other nations) has made mistakes in the past - exclusion of Aboriginals as citizens of Australia (changed 1948), exclusion of women from voting (not changed until 1908 in Victoria), criminalisation of certain consensual adult sexual acts and accepted assault homophobic assault and so on. These policies and laws were wrong. Excluding up to 20% of the community from public expression of their love for each other which is already afforded to all heterosexual Australians is wrong. I really want to support you Ms Julia Eileen Gillard. Wake up, smell the flowers and oppose discrimination. I'd rather get voted out at PM than stand by and hurt and vilify such abhorrent exclusion, how about you. P.S. Thanks to Fridae for posting this article and the other posts you display. Cheers, Ben in Sydney
There are many within the governing labour party who are 'pro-gay' everything, as I am sure there are in the opposition party. Only those elected members who represent their constituents can lobby other members of their party or the government for change.
Any Australian who really wants their vote to count on gay rights/marriage should vote 'greens' party and stop whinging and whining.
The passage of time has seen many victories for gay rights here in Australia, and I'm sure there will be many more in the years to come. Although it seems to me 'gay marriage' is the last battle. ???
Regardless of how strongly some of us feel about the introduction of gay marriage, there are many important issues to consider at an election other than just the view of the prime minister or the opposition leaders view of gay marriage.
It would be bizarre if she was really against equal marriage rights, as she is a rationalist, so I agree with those that say she is most likely being cautious just before an election.
The opponent sounds more worrying; it's a huge backward step if it's true that Australia's other main party is being headed by what sounds like a religious fanatic.
Marriage is at it's root a religious ceremony. There are other non-sectarian ways to publicly acknowledge your love and commitment to your partner. Equality in law is the aim dear friends of Dorothy. So let's not get too lost trying to "get married" but rather let us work on achieving equal rights.
This is, of course, a bad move.
And if the LGBT community of Australia truly wants to push this through, the best way to get to PM Julia is to host that poll and see where it leads.
every australian is calling kevin rudd back from his position
that's like the coup in the parliament
While all Australians would lose out, some of the most marginalised and vulnerable would be the first to be impacted. IN Oz as in other nations, some in the GLBT community are from the most marginalised of all groups. Let's focus on real possibilities here.
Re Marriage..... in all nations where same-sex marriage has been the goal, they have had a staging point mid-way in Civil Unions or Relationship recognition. This period has provided proof positive that same sex relationships help build society just as hetero marriages (and defacto relationships) do.
What we are seeing in Oz is a small section of our GLBT community ignoring the success of Civil Unions/Relationship Recognition and trying to move straight to marriage - and in doing so, they are only too willing to pick a fight with people of faith and their religions who have not made the journey with us in the same time.
Some of the pro gay marriage lobby interests have other agendas too. Equal Love in Victoria has been taken over by some creative yet reactionary socialist and marxist students... their interests are to (1) campaign straight for marriage and by pass any other alternative, and (2) fight the current government whatever position they take and whether or not knocking off government MPs in marginal electorates delivers government to the conservative parties led by Tony Abbott (..hey if this happens, then we can have more campaigns, more protests... yay!!)
There is a third point: (3) the gay and lesbian community has been crying out for consultation about whether we want to be chasing hetersexual concepts of "marriage" as the defining point for our relationships. Many of us rushed our and embraced Relationship Registration and the equality under law that came with it.
There are aprroximately 440,000 GLBT individuals in our state of Victoria and the BEST that have attended a same-sex marriage rally has been 8,000 people. Surveys have been taken and petitions written and slowly the rhetoric of how much of the populations supports same-sex marriage has increased to where claims are made that 75% of people want change.
Well I haven't been asked. None of my gay and lesbian friends have been surveyed nor have signed petitions. I've visited the tiny presence that the socialists and marxists have in our Bourke Street mall each week, and the same people are signing the petitions each week. Most gays and lesbians walk well around the protesters that scream and yell at passers-by - pushing people away from our cause faster than they can engage them to come on board.
And many on our GLBT community say that the argument about same-sex marriage is less about "marriage" being the institution that delivers equality to us, but more about small groups playing university politics trying to get politicians from fringe political parties (the Greens, etc etc) elected after never wanting to fully engage the GLBT community on whether we'd like a cooling-off period with say Civil Unions to bring the Australian Society around us rather than the division created through fighting religions for the naming rights to "marriage".
Having had the opportunity to journey there, I have no doubt that Oz is a wonderful place. However, I know for a fact that I would certainly not. I suggest you crank your outburst of nationalism down a notch.
On a different note, I hope for our Aussie friends that Ms Gillard's proclaimed stance merely conceals a hidden political agenda, as someone above suggested it may be. Ensuring the same civil rights enjoyed by married heterosexual couples to de facto couples is all good. But then again, marriage needs not be religious. And last time I looked, Australia was a secular state. So I fail to understand the "...between a man and a woman" nonsense.
At the next election, I won't be voting for Labor, Liberal or the Greens.
Regarding post #25 & 26, Australia is the arse end of the world according to Paul Keating and I agree with him.
I hope someone will bring this issue to challenge the Australian constitutions of human rights. What do human rights mean to people? Can the Australian law makers come into your bedroom and tell me what is right for sex? The fundamental of human rights is clear to protect anyone even majority to against the will of others even they are minorities. COME ON. Fuck your own wife and you don't have to tell me I should not fuck man ass.
Keep on fighting. Someday, Australia will be like Canada.
lets hope one day gay marriage will be legalised all over the world though it will be a tough battle but WE All Stand United as One :)
請先登入再使用此功能。