"Non-heterosexual"?!
Who uses that term?
I've heard of "gay", "queer", "LGBTI", even the antique "homosexual", but "non-heterosexual"? Never.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, *nature*, not human society, has established a "norm" for mammalian sexuality.
A norm is just that, a norm. It is not an exclusive, universal or absolute condition.
There is documented homosexuality in other animals too, but heterosexual mating is always the "norm" and always will be.

To question the *character* of any politician is perfectly legitimate.
This is *not* a question of her partner's character, but hers.

If a male politician was suspected of hiding a marriage of convenience, or other fraudulent actions, would he not be questioned?

Young and vulnerable people have enough on their plate already.
A comment about the PM or her partner won't even register on their homophobic Richter scale.
Trust me, I know. I was one of them once.

Whether it is real, or a relationship of convenience has been a wide conjecture from day 1. The Prime Minister is merely reaping the hatred it has spouted since then, Sattler has had little impact on real people. Relevance is low other than to the "outers" in the Gay lobby who would have jumped all over a Conservative in the same situation and it would have been at least page 3 in Fairfax going on about being honest to the electorate.

It is worth remembering that the government does involve itself in the nature of peoples relationships. Its not quite the green fields space that some commentators would see it. The PM's suituation may not fit the normal characteristics of that involvement however the principle seems to be established.

As I understand it the financial implications for single parents (and others on various welfare related benefits) who move in with a sexual partner can be quite significant compared to that same person sharing a house with a non-sexual partner. The same level of private income may be available to the home, the same expenses are there. The government deems the nature of the sexual relationship combined with cohabitation significant enough to alter the support available to that person.

That would seem to establish that private sexual matters are regarded by the government as more than private. A matter I have mixed views on.

Not sure if the rules around travel and other benefits for politicians partners only apply to cohabiting sexual partners or also apply to housemates, if the former then were Slatters questions any different to one of the ACA wefare cheat stories where they go chasing people believed to be defrauding the taxpayer by not telling centerlink that they have moved in with a sexual partner? I think both are dodgy "journalists" chasing ratingsbut thats a side point.

If the PM really believes that the status of peoples private sexual relationships should be private then it would seem that there is a lot of legislation to be changed to get the government out of other peoples sexual relationships.

R0bert

R0bert, excellent points. Other relationships are regulated by the Government as well, even the parent-child relationship is subject to considerable legislation and can have significant financial ramifications. In fact, one of the most basic functions of government is regulating relationships of various kinds: commercial, religious, political and private spheres are all affected.

I stand by my view that Mathieson is neither homosexual or bedding Gillard. He is,as the common usage has it, a handbag.

Constance, I hope you're reading this thread. Thank you for your kind words and for the excellent link. I ran out of posts on the other thread, I wasn't ignoring you. I'll respond in 5 or 6 hours when my post limit rolls over.

If Gillard's relationship with Mathieson is one of convenience then it is certainly not for the convenience of the Australian electorate.

Mathieson's already got his retirement caravan sorted. Does anyone really think that Gillard will be joining him on his bush block?

I hope she's paid him well for his services.