Too complicated? This pigheaded dupe of the far right wouldn't recognise a principle if it came up and bit him. He is motivated soley by his own grandiose self-image - a vanity fed ego that is gleefully utilised by the numerous bible basher American evangelical style right wingers that dominate his cabinet and ministerial departments. Gay bashing is alive and well, albeit not so much now the Saturday night kickings, but the more subtle and far worse discrimination that infiltrates much government policy. As tax paying citizens, why shouldn't same sex marriages have the same entitlements as opposite sex marriages. The institute of marriage is the basic social contract, that (or should) gives society a flywheel impetus towards cohesion, and should be encouraged, not discouraged. The naysayers would presumeably prefer to see unwanted and abused children be bought up in the tender care of institutions with established track records of abuse, such as numerous catholic and anglican 'homes', rather than in a stable and loving family relationship provided by two members of the same sex.
Whether the various religions see fit to deny legitimacy to same sex marriages (a denial that drives the political agenda) is utterly irrelevent to the question, despite Howard's foiled attempt to impose a churchman as the Governor General. The refusal to recognise same sex marriages is yet another example of Howards incapacity to seize greatness when the opportunity presents itself. In the years ahead, this idiocy, driven as it is by childish prejudice and religious interference will be seen for what it is - laughable in its short-sighted stupidity.

To be fair to John Howard, passing laws supporting same-sex couples is "complicated" in the current environment if the Government is not to allow same-sex marriage.

Without a formal process of recognition to recognise same-sex couples, ie civil unions, it makes the capacity of the Federal Government to bestow civil rights on relationships very difficult without opening the floodgates to welfare abuse and rorts.

Of course this is all based on the Federal Government not legalising gay marriage, which neither political party supports.

What this really means is if the States got their act together and passed a uniform arrangement of civil unions, if Howard is being honest, the situation would become a lot less "complicated" and he should be able to pass these laws with comparative ease.

None of this changes my opinion in the article and that the solution is not for Howard to back down, but to simply call on the States to establish a form of civil unions.

Can I also recommend the best way to deal with "Runner" is to ignore his posts. Runners comments don't justify a response.

Tim Wilson
Research Fellow
Institute of Public Affairs

Tim,

It's not as complicated as it looks.

So we take it as a given that neither party is going to support same sex marriages. Fine, eventually with persuasion they might come round.

In the meantime why don't we treat same sex relationships the same as defacto relationships?

A defacto relationship while not being the full marriage, still carries protections that are currently not enjoyed by same sex relationships.

Wow and I thought those opposed to legislating in favour of homosexual behaviour were supposed to be the 'tolerant ones'.

The 20 year bombardment of the 'safe sex' message has largely failed. Most know that those who practice no self control are not going to use condoms in the heat of the moment. Those practicing sodomy have 4000 per cent more chance of getting anal cancer as those who don't practice this act.

Aimee I did not quote any statistics although I suggest you speak to any honest doctor in the infectious disease departments of the hospitals and you will find out how unhealthy and unnatural sodomy is.I have heard doctors speak on this issue And no I am not suggesting that sodomy is the only method of passing on disease. That might be why the bible encourages one man and one women to commit themselves to each other.

KIPP
I am not suggesting anyone be treated as 2nd class citizens. I am suggesting some behaviour is unhealthy and should not be encouraged.

James,

Yes and no. By opening up de facto the Government would still be broadening a definition for a relationship that would enable people who are not in a relationship, but in, perhaps, co-dependency to be able to apply for de facto status.

This raises a broader question about whether relationships should be recognised beyond those that are essentially sexual, ie should two sisters living together for 20 years be entitled to a form of recognition because of their co-dependency.

I note in the US there is an interesting debate on civil unions where some opponents of gay civil unions are happy for there to be civil unions that act as a form of recognition for different types of relationships, ie the sisters one outlined above.

I should note, I am not an expert in the technical and legal definitions of relationships and what would work best, so I am open to suggestions - even Runners when he is prepared to recognise that regardless of what he thinks, we live in a free society and that means freedom for everyone.

My view is simply opposing reform against same-sex relationships is both illiberal and anti-conservative.

Tim Wilson
Research Fellow
Institute of Public Affairs

Political labels are slippery beasts, but I think the author confuses “liberal” and “conservative” when writing about the Liberal Party. The party contains elements of both, but the Conservative wing has clearly been in the ascendency under Howard and the liberal wing in retreat.

It is liberal, not conservative, philosophy that allows society to make itself, that holds government intervention as at best a necessary evil to be undertaken sparingly, that leaves individuals alone to make their own choices about matters such as sexuality, and prizes the equal treatment of citizens.

If the Liberal Party ever becomes a liberal party, I might just vote for it.