Howard Pushes To Ban Same-sex Unions

Discuss news and current affairs. Please enter with an open mind. Strictly no personal attacks.
User avatar
Secret Life Extra
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:34 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
Location: Lost in thought
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:56 am
I was watching the news which is an odd thing for me to do, and up comes a news story on gay marriages. I for one am completely for them but our prime minister's comment on gay marriages "not in my backyard" infuriated me so much i ended up throwing the remote control at the t.v. First of all he is only one man and does not own Australia and secondly because gay couples are people too and if they want to be joined in matrimony they very well should be able to.

[quote:6d9b259c4f]President George Bush this week stepped up his campaign to amend the US constitution to ban same-sex marriage as the Senate began debating the issue.

The Senate was expected to vote on the proposed amendment on Wednesday night (after Sydney Star Observer went to press). However, political commentators predicted the motion would fail, as it did last time the issue was brought before a Senate vote in 2004.

Speaking at the White House in front of anti-gay lobbyists on Monday, Bush said the amendment was necessary because “activist judges” had struck down publicly supported state marriage bans.

“This national question requires a national solution. And on an issue of such profound importance, that solution should come not from the courts but from the people of the United States,” Bush said, CNN reported.

“A constitutional amendment is the most democratic method by which our country can resolve this issue.”

Bush made three public addresses on the topic of gay marriage in the past week.

The president has been accused of using gay marriage to distract from issues like Iraq and petrol prices and to boost his sinking popularity.

According to Democrat senator Hillary Clinton, there was a long list of things the American people were worried about, but “what we’re going to do this week [debating gay marriage] is not on the list”, she said on Monday, Fox News reported.

Even the president’s wife, Laura Bush, said last month she was against gay marriage being “used as a campaign tool” and that the issue needed to be discussed with sensitivity.

Gay Republican group, Log Cabin Republicans, wrote to Bush denouncing his stance.

“Your effort to codify discrimination against our families, including men and women in uniform while the nation is at war, is offensive and unworthy of the office of the presidency,” executive director Patrick Guerriero said.

In 2004 the proposed amendment fell 19 votes short of the 67 it needed in the Senate to pass. America’s ABC News said this week’s vote was also unlikely to see the amendment passed and that the government was simply trying to rally right-wing support.

North of the border, Canada’s new Conservative Party prime minister Stephen Harper announced the issue of overturning gay marriage would be debated in parliament before the end of the year.

While it was unlikely there would be enough MPs in favour of such a ban, Harper is said to hope that discussing the issue will garner him support.[/quote:6d9b259c4f]

[url]http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=5427[/url]

John Howard and George Bush seem to be making a lot of similar choices in how "their" countries are to be run and how "their" citizens are to be treated in terms of sexual preference. John Howard should stop trying to copy George Bush and make decisions without being swayed by others thoughts.
User avatar
Logie Nominee
Posts: 291
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 4:30 pm
Cash on hand: 5.00
Location: Melbourne
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 11:41 am
::shakes head::
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the sooner we vote Johnny and his narrow-minded, Christian right, stuck-in-the-19th-century opinions out of office, the better this country will be.

[quote:8e7ad8f892]John Howard and George Bush seem to be making a lot of similar choices in how "their" countries are to be run and how "their" citizens are to be treated in terms of sexual preference. John Howard should stop trying to copy George Bush and make decisions without being swayed by others thoughts.[/quote:8e7ad8f892]
I agree, and it makes me so angry I just can't describe it. Dubya should be the LAST person we should be aligning ourselves with. Oh well, Johnny's going to have to find himself another f***buddy once Dubya's run ends at the next election. God bless the USA and their two-term limit :dance:
Image
User avatar
Secret Life Extra
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:34 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
Location: Lost in thought
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:09 pm
[quote:24cdfe9d93="veggie"]I agree, and it makes me so angry I just can't describe it. Dubya should be the LAST person we should be aligning ourselves with. Oh well, Johnny's going to have to find himself another f***buddy once Dubya's run ends at the next election. God bless the USA and their two-term limit :dance:[/quote:24cdfe9d93]

:pray: Thanks God.....wait :shifty: I don't have a religion..... :lol:
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 5671
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:44 pm
Cash on hand: 11,013.00
Location: Brisbane
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:13 pm
[quote:db1793e577="veggie"]::shakes head::
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the sooner we vote Johnny and his narrow-minded, Christian right, stuck-in-the-19th-century opinions out of office, the better this country will be.
[/quote:db1793e577]

cry me a river :boohoo: (does every political thread have to be spammed with howard bashing?)

howard has been an amazing leader of our country. granted, he is conservative, but that is nothing new. i'd take the economical and political stability over less conservative views any day of the week. besides, there's gee, about NO guarantee that whoever is running for labor in the next election will actually want to change a single thing.

i want things to change, but i don't think voting in a labor government is the way to make it happen. i also don't think the term "gay marriage" should ever be used again. as i've said, it's counter productive. anyone who mentions it and wants it to happen is just shooting themselves in the foot.
[img05]http://i38.tinypic.com/2yoocbo.jpg[/img05]
User avatar
Secret Life Extra
Posts: 45
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:34 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
Location: Lost in thought
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:32 pm
[quote:da83e6c9d2="sherry is alive"][quote:da83e6c9d2="veggie"]::shakes head::
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the sooner we vote Johnny and his narrow-minded, Christian right, stuck-in-the-19th-century opinions out of office, the better this country will be.
[/quote:da83e6c9d2]

cry me a river :boohoo: (does every political thread have to be spammed with howard bashing?)

howard has been an amazing leader of our country. granted, he is conservative, but that is nothing new. i'd take the economical and political stability over less conservative views any day of the week. besides, there's gee, about NO guarantee that whoever is running for labor in the next election will actually want to change a single thing.

i want things to change, but i don't think voting in a labor government is the way to make it happen. i also don't think the term "gay marriage" should ever be used again. as i've said, it's counter productive. anyone who mentions it and wants it to happen is just shooting themselves in the foot.[/quote:da83e6c9d2]

Howard has been leading this country into war and I for one am not impressed. He is involving Australians in affairs which are not our own.

I'd gladly shoot myself in the foot if it meant that gay people were happily married....gay people are not animals they deserve their lives to be exactly the same as anyone elses and they should not have rights such as marriage taken away from them. It's just like saying women have to work at home and look after the kids while their husbands go to work, it's pure crap. The world has undergone many evolutionary stages and I certainly hope that gay marriage will one day be fully accepted instead of slandered and opposed.
User avatar
Simpsons Guest
Posts: 870
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:40 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:56 pm
I'm sorry, but coming from a country where civil union has been legalised... I find this topic to be so "dinosaur-esk"... for want of a better word.

I am so sick of politicians, force feeding us politically correct bs, while all the time playing the ultimate hypocrite!

Being homosexual is not a lifestyle choice, as with heterosexuality.

Not all have to like it, but those whom don't should realise that it is something natural all the same. There is even evidence which proves that homosexuality, has been around for as long as we have... if it weren't a natural occurrence in our species... would there be cave paintings depicting homosexual relationships? No.

We are told its unnatural by the people we trust to prevent such human rights injustices; but by taking a stand such as Howard has here, they are just keeping that last, tightest most, grasp on the close mindedness that breathes fuel into the fire.

Saying no to same sex union is not even stone-age... no our hunter/gatherer forefathers were far more open minded and accepting of the differences that make us unique. They were not shunned but accepted as anyone would be... because... THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT FROM YOU OR I!!

I am not gay, but I feel for those whom are.

We claim to be so ahead, so smart... yet when it comes to things like this; we can be as thick as p** s***! :snooty:

Please excuse the astericks, this topic, well it stirred me up a bit :shifty:
Last edited by Kirstern on Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You are getting sleepy... SLEEPY!
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 5671
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:44 pm
Cash on hand: 11,013.00
Location: Brisbane
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:00 pm
keep talking about "gay marriage" romantic tragedy, and nothing will probably happen for a good 50 years. marriage in australia and america will probably always be between a man and a women. it has a very strong religious history, and i can't see any government blatantly disrespecting that. civil unions on the other hand, are far more likely, and should be legal now. as for war, it's been discussed at great length in other threads, i don't what to get into it again.
[img05]http://i38.tinypic.com/2yoocbo.jpg[/img05]
User avatar
Oscar Nominee
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:47 pm
Cash on hand: 15.00
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:53 pm
[quote:aaaa8e6bff="sherry is alive"] until gays/lesbians completely dissociate themselves from the word "marriage" and leave that as is, no change will come. there needs to be a strong push for civil unions, entitling same sex couples to the same rights as heterosexual couples. the very words "gay marriage" when used together are simply hurting the cause imo, and won't make any positive change.[/quote:aaaa8e6bff]
It's the conservative liberal party members who are equating the ACT enactment to allow civil unions with the institution of marriage because the enactment recognises and formalises a homosexual couple's union and gives them rights resembling those of a married couple.
[quote:aaaa8e6bff] Despite claims the legislation would allow teenagers to celebrate civil unions at a younger age than heterosexuals are allowed to marry, [b:aaaa8e6bff]Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the fundamental concern was the attempt to equate civil unions with marriage[/b:aaaa8e6bff]. He accused the ACT of being "deliberately provocative" with the legislation.

"The Marriage Act makes it clear that marriage is a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others," Mr Ruddock said.

"That definition reflects the traditional understanding and was supported bipartisanly in 2004. The ACT's Civil Unions Act creates a statutory scheme in recognition of relationships which bear a striking resemblance to the commonwealth's regulation of marriage."
[/quote:aaaa8e6bff]
If teens would be eligible to celebrate civil unions, despite legally being too young to marry, that would suggest an acknowledged fundamental difference between marriage and civil union to begin with. If the ACT's Civil Unions Act bears a striking resemblance to marriage, it would be in aspects [i:aaaa8e6bff]other[/i:aaaa8e6bff] than the [b:aaaa8e6bff]religious institution[/b:aaaa8e6bff] of marriage, particularly in regard to formalising a union between two people and their rights as a couple.
The objection that [i:aaaa8e6bff]civil unions[/i:aaaa8e6bff] are an 'attack on the institution of marriage' is irrational and therefore a non-argument.

As for those homosexual couples who would like to enter into the formal, religious institution of marriage, rather than a civil union, perhaps one day the Marriage Act itself will be overhauled, and discrimination among religious sects against people wishing to marry on the grounds of their sexuality will be internally reviewed.


Many heterosexual couples enter the institution of marriage via civil ceremony, rather than a religious church wedding. Isn't that the same as being allowed a [i:aaaa8e6bff]civil union[/i:aaaa8e6bff] as an alternative to [i:aaaa8e6bff]religious marriage[/i:aaaa8e6bff] in the formal sense? To disallow homosexual people the same option, is discriminatory.
User avatar
Oscar Winner
Posts: 2808
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:10 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
Location: New South Wales
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:37 pm
[quote:523509ea54="Fridgedweller"]
Many heterosexual couples enter the institution of marriage via civil ceremony, rather than a religious church wedding. Isn't that the same as being allowed a [i:523509ea54]civil union[/i:523509ea54] as an alternative to [i:523509ea54]religious marriage[/i:523509ea54] in the formal sense? To disallow homosexual people the same option, is discriminatory.[/quote:523509ea54] I absolutely agree.

The values that gay couples have are no different to straight couples. They are as loyal to their mates and partners just as much as heterosexual couples are. Same sex attracted people still pay taxes, like everyone else and everyone has the right to be treated equally under the law.

Marriage has evolved and reformed over time to allow mixed-race couples to marry and should do so for same-sex couples.

[quote:523509ea54]Give to every human being every right that you claim for yourself. ~Robert Ingersoll[/quote:523509ea54]
User avatar
Cecil B DeMille Life Time Achievement
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 6:30 pm
Cash on hand: 3,728.30
Location: Perth, WA
PostPosted: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:09 pm
We have the odd situation in Australia where the electorate is centrist and the historically dominant party in federal Australian politics is further to the right of the electorate. Canada and New Zealand have precisely the reverse situation. It's interesting that now that Canada has elected a precarious minority conservative government, they're trying to ban gay marriage too - but it won't happen primarily it's one of the few issues that can unite all the other parties.

I notice that Howard is radicalising on a few issues in what could be his final term in office (he'll pass his 70th birthday in office if he runs again and wins, which if I remember correctly hits a constitutional limit, but I could be wrong). Maybe he's looking for an ultra-conservative legacy to hit the history books with.

I actually agree with Sherry on the use of the words "gay marriage" - my own quite conservative upbringing is no doubt partly responsible but I do find it strange that gay people would actually *want* to imitate something that's failed so badly for straight people in the last two generations. I was looking at a bunch of 1962 newspapers for another reason recently and it amazed me the number of very young people (18-20), judging from photos, getting married. I'm 28 and only one of my friends in their 20s is married, and only one other is in a long term relationship. Personally I feel that in 30 years the situation will be quite different as the concept of marriage as it now stands very much belongs to a past era that will die out with the baby boomers.

With the wording, however, this was never an issue with the ACT legislation as it always was expressly civil union legislation which had borrowed from existing European, US and NZ models which don't recognise it as a "marriage".

At the end of the day if two people wish to be legally recognised as committed to each other, and they love each other and support each other and are both capable of making that call, it matters little to me personally.
PreviousNext

Return to News, Current Affairs & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests