Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Gay marriage'

Tag Archives: Gay marriage

Extracting teeth the truth on Gay Marriage

(by Ray Dixon – possessor of own teeth)

This is what I learnt @ the Dentist in Wodonga yesterday:

1. My teeth are still in pretty good nick for someone my age

2. But a check-up, scale and X-rays costs what ?!!!!?

3. Thank f*ck I have Medibank Private ‘Dental extras’ (it only cost me $40)

4. There are a lot of fat people in that town

5. And violent people (there was a bullet hole in the plate-glass window!)

But the biggest thing I learnt (from reading a magazine while in the waiting room) was this:

6. There doesn’t seem to be a big need for gay marriage

(Fact sheet from the 2011 ABS census)


So let’s get this straight (no pun intended).

As of the 2011 census there were a total of 4,684,700 couples in Australia, of which heterosexual couples made up 4,650,986 – i.e. 99.3%.

While the total number of same-sex couples is only 33,714 (a mere 0.7%).

So that means only about 67,000 gays & lesbians are living together.

Yet there are how many gays & lesbians in OZ?

Who knows, but if we go conservative and say that only about 5% of people are homosexual, that would mean there are over 1,100,000 of them.

Yet only 67,000 are living with a partner?

While the other 1,033,000+ – the other 94% – are doing what for sex, playing the field?

No doubt. It’s the gay lifestyle ain’t it?

Let’s face it, monogamy is not exactly high up on the agenda for most gays.

So where then is this great push for ‘Gay Marriage Now!’ coming from?

Who or what is driving this meme – or this political agendaif only a tiny percentage of gays are cohabiting?

The ABS figures look pretty black & white to me.

But I think another ‘colour’ might be running interference here:

Stunts that don’t work hurt the Gay community

During the course of the last government we saw the rather unedifying spectacle of the Labor party trying very hard to distract attention from its failings by letting the polity be distracted by the Greens long held desire to change the marriage act. With all kinds of silliness we saw MPs asked to consult with their constituents about their feelings on the subject we saw several doomed to fail private members bills presented to the parliament and we saw the Canberra town council try to create same sex marriage in their jurisdiction even though they knew that their efforts would be quickly torn down by the high court. So it should surprise no one that the high court has  in fact ruled that the whole edifice created by the Canberra Town council is null and void.

click for source

click for source

 The problem with political stunt flying is that those sort of aircraft are bound to come back to earth with a very unpleasant crash and sadly people get hurt. Some how I think that the sad Gay couples pictured in the Canberra Times’ picture gallery will direct all of their angst at the wrong players in this bit of legal theater.  They will undoubtedly blame the current government instead of both the Labor party and the Greens who gave them such false hope that there is any substantive mood for change of the Marriage act in the Australian polity. At best its a fringe issue a long way down the political agenda  of most people. The general public are more than OK with homosexuality per se I would venture that the reforms to various acts to remove discrimination against same couples made by Labor under Rudd is generally endorsed  and that within the greater Australian  community* being Gay is of no more consequence than having a particular hair colour. That is something to give ourselves a collective pat on the back for  but Gay marriage? Forget it, its not going to happen in this country any time soon because there are far more pressing fish to fry than the vanities of that small proportion of the community who bat for the other team.

Cheers Comrades


*Our Islamic community is a notable dissenter when it comes to social acceptance of homosexuality within our society and that the Koran insists that being Gay is a capital offense.

Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? or the proper way to nurture social acceptance

As its a fine Saturday morning and I think that such days are perfect for a change of pace I offer a new topic that I have come across from my subscription to “Spiked”. It concerns the refusal of the St Patrick’s day marches in New York and Boston to allow Gay activists to march under Gay themed banners in their parades. Of course our friends of the pink persuasion are screaming “discrimination” with a great deal of vim and vigour so loudly that you would think that the march organisers were planning to burn a few homosexuals at the stake as part of the celebrations. What I find most worrying about the whole thing is the same “if you don’t support the Gay agenda 110% then you are a bigot” mindset from those homosexual activists who want to hijack the ostensibly Catholic festival to promote their own cause .


irish_gay_protestThere have also been reports of people losing employment after it was discovered that they do not agree with gay marriage. A common theme in these reports is that the individuals involved do not appear to dislike gay people, but they have nonetheless been labelled bigots due to their objections to same-sex marriage. Rather than encouraging a live-and-let-live attitude, it appears that some supporters of same-sex marriage seek to find and root out anyone who won’t publicly accept this relatively new institution.

When lawmakers in Arizona introduced a bill last month that sought to clarify whether small business owners like wedding photographers can refuse work on religious freedom grounds, there was little consideration in the media of the legal pros and cons. Few highlighted that the existing law allows private vendors to refuse work on the grounds of sexual orientation, and thus continues after the governor vetoed the bill. Instead, the proposed law was greeted with a hysterical campaign to label it ‘anti-gay’ and ‘Jim Crow’ (an historically illiterate comparison, beginning with the fact that Jim Crow was enforced by state law and businesses that refused to obey it could be prosecuted).

These tendencies to demonise dissent are visible in the campaign against the St Patrick Day parades. There is a rush to label any disagreement with gay marriage or gay culture as out-and-out ‘bigotry’. There is a desire to not simply state that certain views of gays are wrong, but to have those views silenced. And there is an operation to target and scare corporations that are associated with such views. Gay activists threatened a campaign against corporations in Arizona, including the National Football League for holding the Super Bowl in the state, if the recent bill passed. Similarly, they pressured St Patrick’s Day sponsors like Samuel Adams and Heineken to withdraw support. This is the top-down, elite-led politics of name and shame, rather than a properly liberal campaign that draw upon popular support.

What we are witnessing is an attack on those who don’t share today’s pro-gay outlook. Some may want to opt out of this Culture War, but the war increasingly won’t allow there to be any bystanders. Instead, there is pressure to conform. Even if it does not spill over into the political or legal world, such conformism is problematic for the free flow of ideas.

The sky will not fall if gays and lesbians are allowed to march in the Boston and New York St Patrick’s Day parades. But we will create a conformist, intolerant and unfree society if we do not allow space for the expression of different views, including traditional religious teachings about homosexuality and same-sex marriage.


The title of the article asks Who are the real bigots in the St Pat’s spat? and I can’t avoid concluding that its the very noisy Gay activists who are using every possible way to bully people into “endorsing” to their position. I can’t help thinking that this may well back fire on them and lead to a backlash that seriously damages the hard earned public good will towards homosexuality that has been steadily been accruing over the last few years. Social acceptance can be most fragile flower that needs nurture and careful cultivation and it can be oh so easily lost if you start tearing up the field with loud and noisy tractors instead of well directed hand tools.

Cheers Comrades


No Gay Marriage unless the Federal Parliament says so

This result is precisely what I expected when I wrote may earlier post on the overreach of the Canberra Town council>

The High Court determined that the federal parliament has the power under the Australian constitution to legislate on same-sex marriage, and that whether or not same-sex marriages are legalised is a matter for the federal parliament.

“The Court held that the object of the ACT Act is to provide for marriage equality for same sex couples and not for some form of legally recognised relationship which is relevantly different from the relationship of marriage which federal law provides for and recognises,” the summary judgment said.

“Accordingly, the ACT Act cannot operate concurrently with the federal Act.”

It said because the ACT does not validly provide for the formation of same sex marriages, the whole of the ACT’s Marriage Equality (Same Sex) Act 2013 has no effect.

Supporters of gay marriage were dismayed at the ruling.

“This is devastating for those couples who married this week and for their families,” Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome said shortly after the decision was handed down in Canberra.

However, he said the ruling was just “a temporary defeat”.

Australian Marriage Equality spokesman Ivan Hinton was one person who took advantage of the ACT laws, marrying his partner Chris Teoh in Canberra last weekend.

“I don’t want to be unmarried this afternoon,” he told reporters outside the High Court.

The Australian Christian Lobby said the ruling upheld the uniformity of marriage laws across the country.

“Marriage between a man and a woman is good for society and beneficial for governments to uphold in legislation,” managing director Lyle Shelton said in a statement.

“It’s about providing a future for the next generation where they can be raised by their biological parents, wherever possible.” Mr Shelton was concerned for same-sex couples who thought they were married under the ACT legislation.

“Understandably they will be disappointed at the decision handed down today and it is unfortunate they were put in this position,” he said.

Human Rights Law Centre spokeswoman Anna Brown said the ruling was a blow to the same-sex couples who had tied the knot in the ACT.

“The outcome has laid responsibility for advancing marriage equality squarely at the feet of the federal parliament,” she said.

ACT Chief Minister Katy Gallagher said her government had no regrets about pursuing marriage equality.


There are no short cuts to bringing about such a substantive change to our society and anyone who thinks that its a good thing to try to make such changes through the back door opened by an  overblown town council are clearly deluded. The high court has spoken and made it clear that the definition of marriage is entirely within the remit of our FEDERAL parliament and the activists that pursued this bit of street theatre should be hanging their heads in shame that they have given Gay marriage advocates  such empty and  false hope,

Well I’m Cheering a good decision Comrades


“Gay marriage”, the rainbow distraction for a very bad government

One of the ironies of living in a society that is now largely indifferent to those who bat for the other team is that when someone with a public profile “comes out” its more yawn inspiring than anything else:

click for source

So she has told the world that she is Gay?

Sweetie, we just don’t care who you want to sleep with…

That said the “gay marriage” side show continues with not one but two destined to fail private members bills having recently been introduced to the parliament. You know if I didn’t know better I would be thinking that this whole  sideshow was being used bay a very on the nose government and a deeply in the shit Prime Minister as a diversion to distract a rather over her public from her appalling performance in the top job. If you think about it for just a minute you would realise what a perfect distraction it is. You have a whole swag of “talented” folk who are happy to let their emotions run wild for the issue and make a big and ostentatious noise for “equal love” while the PM has stated publicly that she does not want change so she knows that it won’t have to be delivered.

  All the while  screaming queens and  fag hags can be utterly full of righteous indignation that they can’t  make “marriage equality” happen yet they can continue to endorse the left for  trying to get it up in the parliament and nobly failing  in the good cause…

  Can’t you just see that someone is going to write some excessively sincere screenplay for the tele-movie? “Gay marriage, we almost made it in OZ”  financed by the useful idiots from “Get up” it will be a tale of what might have been if only good sense and the general indifference of the Australian people to the issue could have been bypassed after all in this country we just no longer care who you want to set up home with, just as long as all parties are consenting adults and you do it in private…

As for the useful idiots who support this cause (Hi Jezza!!! 😉  ), well no matter how often they insist that its all about  “equal rights” the people and more importantly the parliament are just not for turning and the sooner that you stop pretending other wise the sooner that a bad government won’t be able to hide behind your colourful distraction.

Cheers Comrades




Union of sameness versus union of difference

This is an essay by  David Palmer posted to Online Opinion and I reproduce it here under the terms of its creative commons licence , oh yeah and because I think that its well argued 😉

Cue spluttering and  fuming from our learned friend 😉

Cheers Comrades:

If a recent report in the Sydney Morning Herald is to be believed, the intensive lobbying of coalition MPs over the Summer months by same-sex marriage advocates has failed to secure their support for a conscience vote on the issue.

According to this report,

…the gay marriage debate in Parliament will be pushed back to later in the year to give advocates for change more time to garner enough support to have legislation for same-sex marriage passed.

Instead of the debate being held immediately – which would have seen the bill defeated – the gay marriage campaign has changed focus to increase pressure on Tony Abbott to change his mind and allow opposition MPs a conscience vote.

There are several things worth saying about this matter.

The first is that August 24 last year Adam Bandt and the homosexual lobby scored a spectacular own goal over the issue of just how well supported same-sex marriage is in the Australian community last year.

At the end of 2010, Parliament approved a motion proposed by Bandt calling on all parliamentarians, “consistent with their duties as representatives, to gauge their constituents’ views on ways to achieve equal treatment for same-sex couples including marriage”.

Well what happened on August 24, 2011?

When thirty members of Parliament stood to give an account of their constituents views on same-sex marriage, it was discovered opinion in Coalition and Labor seats was overwhelmingly against legalising same-sex marriage, with only 6 out of 30 MP’s indicating their members were in favour of change. Most of the numbers being reported were very lopsidedly against same-sex marriage. Especially striking was the failure of the progressive left organisation, Get Up!, which likes to describe itself as a movement of almost 600,000 members, to get its members to sign their petition in favour of same-sex marriage. In fact on the morning that MPs were reporting their findings it was found that the Get Up! numbers had been trumped by the Australian Christian Lobby numbers – less than 10% of Get Up members had signed the petition. Next day, Matt Akersten on the gay and lesbian lifestyle website, samesame, wrote “We’re not going to sugarcoat this – yesterday’s MP feedback session in Parliament on the gay marriage issue was a tough setback for marriage equality”.

Given the far reaching nature of a decision to extend in law marriage to same-sex couples, a reasonable question to ask is, “what principled reason has been advanced for such a change in the law of marriage?”

We get arguments like, “it’s time” or “my homosexual daughter (or son) wants to marry her (or his) partner” or “they can do it in Massachusetts or Holland or Spain, why not here?”.

But what’s the principle? What is the rational, logical argument that carries sufficient weight for such a significant change in the law of marriage?

Last year former NSW premier Nick Greiner reportedly said, ”(s)elf-evidently (it is) a matter of natural justice”.

It is no such thing.

It is simply wrong and misleading to depict the case for same-sex marriage as a case for ending discrimination or for equal legal recognition of relationships. The Federal Parliament amended 84 pieces of legislation after the 2010 election to place homosexual rights and entitlements on the same basis as others. The push for same-sex marriage is therefore largely ideological, because there is clearly no intention in any jurisdiction that they be subjected to any substantial discrimination on entitlement.

Peter van Onselen shortly before Adam Bandt’s show and tell argument in Parliament, like Greiner, argued for same-sex marriage as a human right but as is always the case with this assertion never actually demonstrated why it was a human right, choosing instead, typically, to construct a series of pejorative straw men and ‘stacking the deck’ arguments to hopefully convince us that same-sex marriage was the natural consequence of a long evolutionary development in marriage. Of course, having gone down this path he might have considered a further evolutionary development – the Greens’ bill for same-sex marriage still limits marriage to two persons, itself arguably discriminatory to those favouring polygamy or group marriage. How long would we have to wait for that example of discrimination to be addressed?

If a human rights basis is to be developed for same-sex marriage then it is first necessary to determine whether same-sex couples actually qualify for marriage. What is it about marriage that determines who may enter into marriage?

What we can say about marriage is that despite varying cultural expressions, it is seen as the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other, of the type that is fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. This concept of marriage, allowing for variations in customs and ritual, is consistently found across cultures throughout history. Marriage involves a comprehensive union of spouses, with norms of permanence and exclusivity. These combine to create a special link to children, for their sake, that protects their identity and nurture by a mother and father.

It is the link to children that gives marriage its special character.

But why a man and a woman, and not two men or two women?

With one exception a person is complete within themselves as to bodily organs and their functions: heart, lungs, stomach and so on. In other words, to fulfil any of these functions a person does not require a contribution from anyone else. The one biological function for which individual adults are naturally incomplete is sexual reproduction. In sexual intercourse, and no other form of sexual contact, a man’s and a woman’s bodies are joined by way of their sexual organs for the common biological purpose of reproduction. Their bodies become one, thereby securing future generations at the same time as they are giving unique expression to their love for each other.

Marriage is deeply and uniquely orientated to bearing and nurturing children. Marriage ensures children access to both their mother and father and the security of the love between the parents. It provides for them a role model of human love of the parents relating as man and as woman, and its complementarity also ensures the unilateral love of each parent to the child and the necessary differences between motherly and fatherly love.

The fact that divorce happens, or one spouse dies early, or some couples are infertile and perhaps circumvent that lack to conceive through artificial reproductive technologies, including the use of donor gametes and surrogate mothers, or a couple beyond the years of child bearing marry, does nothing to change the reality of marriage. Same-sex couples simply do not qualify.

At its deepest level, marriage is the union of difference, the combining of a man and a woman to make one flesh, a union that is physical, emotional and as well, mystical.

To the contrary, same-sex marriage would be the union of sameness, with the distinctive and historical orientation towards the bearing and nurture of children dissolved. In its stead is to be offered a view of marriage which places sexual choice and emotional commitment at the centre.

So, let’s be clear on this: extending marriage to same-sex couples would represent a radical revision of the public understanding of marriage as a social institution. To go down this path would be for the law to teach that marriage is fundamentally about adults’ emotional unions, not complementary bodily union or children. Because there is no reason that primarily emotional unions (any more than ordinary friendships in general) should be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two, these norms of marriage would make less and less sense. Less able to understand the rationale for these marital norms, people would feel less bound to live by them, to their own detriment, and especially to the detriment of children.

According to the newspaper report I began with, the supporters of same-sex marriage claim through the national convener of Australian Marriage Equality, Mr Greenwich, the existence of “an unstoppable momentum for a reform that continues to win hearts and minds in the wider community and the parliament”. Well this remains to be seen. To be sure, their efforts will not go unchallenged. Same-sex marriage in law is by no means inevitable.

No Poofters…Hmm not so much today

I vividly remember laughing heartily when I first saw this skit in the early seventies, in fact calling each other Bruce, to avoid confusion, was a  running gag between my late father and I for quite a while, as Pommies living here we sort of got the parody of Australians in this sketch they were loud brash and often intolerant of difference. However over the last thirty odd years I have seen them change to be far more inclusive tolerant and welcoming of diversity. Its also clear that the attitude to homosexuals has changed a great deal over the intervening years since this sketch was made and now we live in an age when a homosexual person can be entirely open about their sexuality and that the law recognises their unions for all of the practical issues that matter. As a libertarian when it comes to the way that individuals choose to love I am more than happy to endorse the social changes that have been wrought on this issue . However I can’t help but be amused by the way that certain polies try to balance the competing imperatives of their support base, top of my jollies list is Julia and the ALP who have devised a really cute way of having the cake and eating it as well:

It seem to me that this is a grand way to please nobody and yet appease all, the grand gesture is there but it is also sure to fail a conscience vote in the house if the opposition refuses to allow a conscience vote on any bill to change the definition of marriage.

Up here in Queensland we have just had the parliament pass a law recognising civil unions for same sex partnerships and to be frank this is something that I endorse:

I have always favoured a separate legal recognition of enduring homosexual partnerships and the civil unions legislation here in Queensland seems to me to be a very reasonable reform. It is however not something that the opposition feels that it can’t just endorse for rather obvious political reasons. Some of its supporters clearly object to any changes to the law that gives any marriage like recognition to the partnerships of those who bat for the other team. Clearly one of the reasons that this law has materialised now is to attempt to wedge the LNP and alienate some of its more religiously  conservative  supporters. To counter this possibility Campbell Newman is trying a rather amusing tack :

The Bligh Government will race to make same-sex civil unions available within the next few months, amid a Liberal National Party threat to tear up the law if no one had registered their relationship by the time of a change of government.

During an interview with brisbanetimes.com.au on Friday, LNP leader Campbell Newman vowed to repeal the recently passed civil unions law if the LNP won the election and no ceremonies had occurred by that time.

But Mr Newman said the abolition of civil unions after couples had already entered into such arrangements would be “unacceptable and intolerable” and signalled an LNP government would not pursue repeal in that case.

Its all a wonderful juggling act on both sides of politics and an a fine entertainment for those of us who enjoy the soap opera that plays out on our daily news. I for one will continue to watch this issue with wry amusement as the politicians and lesser lights of the political classes, like our learned friend, or the religious turn themselves inside out denounce those who oppose their position on Gay marriage. Its an amusement that will just keep on giving .
Cheers Comrade Bruces


Gaga goes ga ga over gay marriage

Check your facts LG before you open your mouth. And behave like a guest please.

What is it about singers and actors – you know, celebrities like Bono – getting into political issues?

Okay, as a citizen of their own country they’ve got just as much right as Jo Bloggs or Jo Chandler to speak their mind and express their views on the topic de jeur, regardless of how much (or how little) authority they might speak from.

Using their high profile in a different game to push their pet causes can be bad enough at home, but doesn’t it just give you the shits when someone like USA-based Lady Gaga (a sort of cross between Cher & Madonna) blows into this country – for a one-night stand, mind you – and immediately starts lecturing us and our Prime Minister on the controversial and hotly debated topic of gay marriage?

Like she did last night on Nine’s A Current Affair (not a show I watch, btw):

LADY Gaga made a passionate plea for equal gay rights in Australia on Channel 9 last night, but there was confusion over exactly how close the issue was to Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s heart.

The controversial star was responding to a question from host Tracy Grimshaw, who asked the pro-gay-marriage singer if she thought Prime Minister Julia Gillard was hypocritical living with her partner in The Lodge but banning homosexual unions.

The ambiguous question led Gaga to deliver a strongly worded answer, believing Ms Gillard to be in a homosexual relationship.

But the question was clearly playing on the Born this Way star’s mind, and she double-checked with Grimshaw once the cameras were off whether the PM is gay.

Grimshaw chuckled at the mix-up and the question was re-shot, with Gaga giving a much more diplomatic answer.

But the confusion didn’t temper Gaga’s determination to make the PM change her mind on gay marriage rights, and urged her Australian fans to make politicians “hear their screams” against the government’s stance.

“It’s 2011, get on with it,” she said.

“I am so against the way certain laws and restrictions send messages that one person is better than another.

“I urge all of you to mobilise your voices so the Prime Minister can hear you scream that you want to be equal.”

Okay, I can forgive her for misinterpreting Grimshaw’s badly worded question but doesn’t it just demonstrate how she knows so little of Australia, our people, our way of thinking and our politics that she had no idea that Julia Gillard is shacked up with a bloke, not a woman? Well, they share the same digs, at least.

Maybe Gaga should have just said something like this:

“Look, I am pro gay-marriage and pro-equal rights but I don’t know enough about your political scene or Prime Minister to answer your question, Tracy, without sounding like a f*cking I-know-what’s-best female version of f*cking Bono from U2. I’m not here to save the world or enforce my views on Australians – I’m here to entertain you and make money. I mean, look at how I dress!”

Thanks for your advice LG but, FYI, gays & lesbians are “equal” in Australia and we don’t have half the problems you have over there in the USA with groups such as the despicable and hateful Westboro Baptist Church holding protests proclaiming ‘God hates faggots’.

And we have progressed the issues of discrimination against gays quite well (and calmly) and I reckon it’s only a matter of time before some kind of gay marriage law is passed uniformly throughout the country.

Please don’t come over here and urge people to “scream” at our PM – we’ve got Tony Abbott and people like Iain & Leon to do that for us.

And we’ve also got the Greens (and some Greens advocates on the Internet) to beat the gay marriage drum. And they are just jumping on the bandwagon like you are because, believe it or not, ALL important reforms relating to discrimination against gays were instigated and implemented by conservative ALP or Liberal governments long before the Greens started to get ahead of themselves and hijack the issue for political purposes.

Gotta love Gillard’s response though:

“Lady Gaga and Julia Gillard – different views. Who would have thought,” she said.

Gaga should stick to doing what she does best – imitating other imitators.


%d bloggers like this: