In June, Prime Minister Julia Gillard declared that she does not personally support legalising gay marriage in Australia and that her party's policy on same-sex marriage will remain the same under her prime ministership.
Last Friday she told The Australian newspaper she rejected same-sex weddings because "the marriage act has a special status in our culture", adding that she appreciated "our heritage as a Christian country".
"My position is – and it's the Labor Party's position – that for this nation, with our heritage as a Christian country, with what's defined us and continues to define us, the Marriage Act has a special status in our culture and for our community. My position appreciates that," she said.
Australians go to the polls on Saturday in what is predicted to be one of the closest battles in decades. Some analysts have raised the possibility of a hung Parliament – an event not seen in Australia since 1940. The latest Newspoll showed a 50-50 percent split between Gillard’s Labor Party and opposition leader Tony Abbott’s Liberal-National coalition.
Gillard, an unmarried atheist who lives with her male partner, became Australia’s first female prime minister by seizing control of her party from her former boss Kevin Rudd on June 24 and called elections weeks later.
She faces Abbott, a former trainee priest who is said to be a staunch Catholic family man, also opposes same-sex marriage and that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
Australian Marriage Equality National Secretary, Peter Furness, said Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Mexico and all other countries that allow same-sex marriages have a much longer "Christian heritage" than Australia.
"We demand Julia Gillard explain what Australia's "Christian heritage" has to do with same-sex marriage – does she believe discrimination is acceptable because some people think homosexuality is a sin, or because a minority of couples still marry in churches even though marriage is a civil, secular institution in Australian society?" Furness said in a press statement.
He added: "We demand to know how far Gillard will go in the name of our "Christian heritage" - will she outlaw divorce and interracial marriages, recriminalise homosexuality and abortion, suppress atheism, and remove herself and all other women from leadership roles?"
"Anyway you look at it, Gillard's statement is offensive, ridiculous and extreme and must be explained or withdrawn."
Meanwhile former Labor leader Mark Latham last week said he regretted supporting the Howard Government’s ban on gay marriage in 2004 for fear of being denounced by parish priests.
Speaking on the Austereo network on Monday, Latham said it was the power of churches that compelled him to not support marriage equality.
“I regret the fact that in 2004 I didn’t tell the churches to go get nicked and Labor had a policy of allowing gay marriages. Most people who are reasonable about it recognise that love is the important thing,” Latham said.
“Unfortunately parties are scared of the churches. If you’re running for office, you don’t want some parish priest denouncing you from the pulpit on Sunday before the election ... It’s that power of the churches that holds it back.”
Australia currently has civil unions in the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and Victoria.
列印版本
RSS Feed: 
讀者回應
Add that to the fact that that there is a definite attitudinal shift in Asutralian. It has been reported that surveys indicate that around 60% of the population either support or do not oppose the legal recognition of gay marriages.
It just goes to show how well the churches are able to get their opinions supported by the "traditional" politicians however the tide is slowly turning in politics.
A number of people in the major parties are lobbying their own parties to change their policy towards gay marriage. Some that come to mind in the Labour Party there is Cath Bowtell openly disagreeing with her party and behind closed doors Penny Wong is also lobbying for change but as a cabinet member has to publicly toe the party line.
In Melbourne, the Greens candidate Adam Bandt is poised to be the first Green to win a seat in the House of Representatives and taking the seat from Labour.
The winds of change are picking up. We just have to keep working toward the point where everyones human rights are recognised in this country.
Personally I'd believe it would be far more palatable to the politicians if we could come up with an alternative term to the words 'marry' and 'marriage'. I don't like them because of the religious connotations but everyone knows that it's far easier to ask some one to marry them than to 'civil union' them and to tell their friends that "we are married" rather than "we are civil unioned".
Is there some term that means the same that we can "own"? I'd love to be able to be "somethinged" in preference to being "married"
compared to other progressive societies......... australia: backward
What upsets me recently is this case of father performing sexual activities with his 9y/o son here in Australia. First, i assume this guy has sexual attraction towards males, and second, i believe he did it to his own son because he has no where to turn to. But what shocked me the most was, his wife assisted in the whole process, and even joined him in some cases. What will happen to this little fella when he grows up? I believe there are many similar cases in the past, and still happening nowadays. What a shame!
I think by letting everyone knows that same sex attraction is ok, and we can be open about it is significant. That brings my point to why i suggest we should legalise same sex marriage. Regardless if anyone of you wants to go down the path of marriage (same with some heterosexual couples did - de facto they call), it is all about educating ppl out there, who still hide in their closet and undertake this "cowardly" approach to deal with their sexuality by picking those that are helpless and innocent.
I want to get this through the whole society out there, not just us who use this website. Let's help educating ppl about us, and about who we are. :)
while the rest of the world is continuously defending the separation of religion from state ..it seems that Australia is heading the other direction ...perhaps if they really want to do that bring back all the Christian heritages in the Dark Ages ...I think they forbid woman from being a priest so how can a woman be Prime Minister ...I think she should gracefully step down too to preserve the holy heritage, no ?
... but to have someone who doesnt really live up to the teaching of Christianity to harp on Christian heritage is probably the biggest joke around ...but if you say that this is what her party wants ? then why on earth do her White Al Qaeda party members elected her in the first place ? shouldnt they find someone so-called holier like Tony Abbott ?
" do not judge or you too will be judge , with the measure you used, it will be measured to you, Julia "
As important as it may be, 'same-sex marriage' is not an important, election winning issue for government party's anywhere, and there are more important issues facing the world today.
As 'andy370' post #1 points out over 60% of australians do not oppose same-sex marriage. Same -sex marriage will eventually come, but today I'd rather know that the world wont burn up, or I will be thrown on the streets in poverty because of a mismanaged economy, and that compassion would be shown to refugees, the mentally ill, sick, and the rights already won are safegaurded,etc, etc etc.
Some of us need to be more than one-track minded and grow up a bit.
Australia is not ready for same sex marriages as yet, though if any major party would combine it with any reasonable policies on economy, immigration and other issue it will be adopted. Unfortunately we have no choice, we have to choose between bad and worst ..... there are much more important issues as far as running the country is concern - economy, immigration etc. Its not about two queens tying the knot in the registry office. Even Bob Brown who is openly gay knows that.
If we want gay marriage, we need to give more Senate seats to the Greens, led by another out homosexual, Bob Brown. Only then will we see real change.
and i welcome comments on the issue from non-Australians. Because god knows we're certainly not averse to offering our own opinions about politics in other countries.
as for the issue itself - personally, i am an Australian and i love this country. But sometimes i wish we were a little less effing provincial.
Of course, indeed informed comments about politics in Australia from non-australians is welcomed, but as a person who also loves my country I do take exception to comments such as:
our Australian politicians are "whackjobs" and....
" compared to other progressive societies australia: backward"
Give me a break. I dont welcome those type of comments. Who would ? Do you ?
They actually sound racist.
Gillard, an unmarried atheist, lives with her male partner.
Enough said.
I agree with #12 DiskoDan's comments about marginal seats. It is a reality that we have to acknowledge and work to convince them that we're not going to eat their babies or burn down their church. It's a pity they seem to think that we should all live our lives the way they do. How can we make them understand that?
Thanks Thayt #2 for your suggestion of a PPC but it doesn't really roll off the tongue and sounds more like a substance you might take to make your night out rather more enjoyable.
To Kaido #5. Whilst I agree with the first part of your post, I think it is amusing that an American should so indignantly tell Australia we shouldn't allow candidates to vote with a religious agenda. Can I respectfully suggest that the US of A has far more extreme religious fanatics in government than we do. Plus we don't print "In God We Trust" on our money either.
I take great comfort in seeing a predominantly Catholic country such as Spain has changed their laws to grant all of their citizens the dignity to marry. There seems to be an increasing acceptance of the idea of gay marriage in Australia even though most politicians have not yet grown the balls to admit it. I am confident that the winds of change are growing stronger and as long as we keep pushing, Australia will soon come into line with the progressive countries who have already allowed gay marriage.
My sister who live her not-married white husband and has a kid in Australia. I asked her y not married, she replied, if divorce, hand clean but both wrote WILL. Make sense, rather then spend $$$ and time for divorce lawyer.
Don't get me wrong, I m not oppose yr marriage. lol
thanks for highlighting to people that we are not trying to ignore world hunger etc but exactly what this forum is all about...but if people think that gay issues should be left till we solve world hunger, poverty , world peace ...then perhaps we should only discuss this in 3010....dont you think so ?
If people think that only Australian can comment on issues in Australia ? thats worst than absurb ...it is really 'backward' opsss ..."I did it again"...come on which century are we in ? Or maybe we should reserve the right to native Australians only ...which disqualify all of us ...or mayb Fridae should set the site so that only Australian can comment on articles about Australia ? ....
I quite like a good debate that addresses the issues and gives constructive criticism and suggests new ideas or courses of action. However it gets a bit much when people are blind as to what's happening in their country when they slag off at what the see wrong in Australia.
What I am suggesting is that posters should make there comments intelligent and add to the discussion and refrain from making comments such as posts #7 & #8 by maxmillian who seems to think that saying the same thing twice adds credibility.
Are you suggesting that once a woman hits a menopausal age, where her fertility declines/ceases, she becomes a sexless person and unattractive?
We are talking seriosu issues here, you always come and annoy this chat room.
As a non-Australian not residing in Australia, I feel adequately informed to say that this Gillard woman is a joke. Living in concubinage herself, yet this atheist finds pride in her country of adoption's Christian heritage and the sanctity of marriage. Now, that is precious.
There's more yet to come though. Our wee Welsh lady is bound to provide us with much to marvel at, immigration-wise. We shall then see how far hypocrisy can stretch, shan't we?
For the political situation in Aust, gay community has to decide to either play the situation to their advantage when there IS an opportunity or fall for other political pawn play some other day I suppose.
And while we're at it, why not move foward with the current and seize the day, come up with a new gay marriage term to add to the Oxford dictionary when 'Vuvuzelas' can get in and make history already. I'm sure any political party would love to lay claim to be the 'father' of one, starting Down Under?
You complain about "chauvinistic comments pervading these forums"... yet you yourself just did a big chauvanisitc job on "this Gillard Woman"
Yes indeed "we see how far hypocrisy can stretch"
For your information, and my pleasure:
Chauvinism. n. (definition as intended in my previous post and in context with the don't-you-dare-besmirch-our-glorious-nation-if-you're-not-local comments preceding it) :- Militant devotion to and glorification of one's country; fanatical patriotism
So you see, accusing me of being chauvinist just because I voiced out my opinion of the Gillard woman, oops I meant Ms Gillard, was way off the mark. Never did I put forward my own country and claim it was better than yours; not that I'm not proud of it but rather that I deemed doing so would be unnecessary and silly.
Since you didn't make it clear which part of my criticism of Gillard was a "big chauvinistic job" and offended you (each part differs in nature and essentially can't constitute a big whole, as you would suggest), I would assume this is ample reply to your post.
On another note, I now bury the hatchet. Does nothing for me to have never-ending online vitriol exchange. You are entitled to your freedom of speech, as am I. You are welcome to find fault in UK politics, teenage pregnancy or whatever; you don't need my permission nor my approval.
In return, I don't feel like sugarcoating my words whenever I mention Australia, and I won't.
After being enlightened to the true meaning of this word, it makes my post seem illogical.
I'm sorry for that.
Did I say my sister lives in Melbourne, VIC? That I feel strongly about Oz should come as no surprise to you now.
Oh well, if I may say: Advance Australia fair! ;o)
請先登入再使用此功能。