by Greg Spearritt
Gay marriage is one of many factors with a small part to play in the September federal election. The distinction between the two big players is clear: Kevin Rudd has stated his intention to put forward a gay marriage bill if elected; Tony Abbott has reiterated his opposition to changing the current Marriage Act. (The Act was amended in 2004 to specify marriage as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others”.)
Claims have been made on both sides that their position is electorally advantageous:
- Kevin Rudd's support for gay marriage 'could swing marginal seats'
- Rudd wedded to an idea that may backfire on him
New research by Newspoll conducted for the Marriage Equality Movement suggests things have changed since 2011: Australians are now more likely to vote for a party or candidate who supports a same-sex marriage bill, though those ‘more likely’ (at 19%) only just pip those less likely to do so (15%).
Rudd was supposed to have mobilised the Christian vote in 2007. It would be interesting to know, if it could ever be disentangled from other issues, whether the faithful who are ‘rolling their rosaries’ will in fact punish Labor on gay marriage at the ballot box. (That prospect has, predictably, been raised in forthright terms by the right-wing Australian Christian Lobby.)
I absolutely OPPOSE making marriage between homosexuals legally registrable with Births, Deaths and Marriages.
What consenting adults do in their own privacy is their own business.
However, I am thoroughly sick and tired of homosexuals "coming out" into public and parading their private conduct.
The hijacking of the word "GAY" as a euphemism for homosexuality is an act of arrogant tyranny of language.
I note they keep the term "homo" for their invective against people with whom they disagree - homophobes.
Sexuality is a very private matter and should be kept as such.
If homosexuals wish to cohabit then let them take out a legal agreement of cohabitation.
Posted by Lonnie Lad