The ALP Government has shown signs of being ready to do the sensible thing in some areas. The reports of their displeasure with the ACT’s ridiculous idea of same- sex marriage ceremonies is one of them.

Johnson asks why Australia doesn’t have same-sex civil unions when countries such as Britain do. She mentions only Britain, and no countries which don’t have same-sex civil unions.

The answer, surely, lies in the fact that the only two parties able to form governments in Australia have the same attitude to homosexuality. Both parties know that they represent the majority of Australians who are clearly not homosexual.

The very tiny minority of people claiming to be homosexual have ample right to do as they wish with their financial arrangements, as anybody should have, so these people should just get on with their unnatural lives.

Too much attention is given to deviates who should be grateful that their way of life is tolerated at all.

And, despite what Johnson seems to think, it is not just religious conservatives who object to attempts at ‘normalisation’ of something that is quite clearly an abomination from an anatomical and scientific position

Arguing that Labor opposes same-sex ceremonies because of pressure from the christian right is just a little too glib. Within Labor there’s a solid block of old-fashioned social conservatives who oppose every concession to same-sex couples: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/labor-backs-legal-rights-for-samesex-couples/2007/04/28/1177459995793.html

Further, in the last election the christian right failed to establish themselves as a decisive force in Australian politics. While the Greens helped Labor over the line in at least twenty seats, christian right preferences determined the outcome in no seats. I suspect that Rudd’s concerns with respect to same-sex relationship recognition are related more to internal ALP pressures than to appeasement of the christian right.

Rudd studiously avoids talking about the rights of same-sex couples. When pressed, he delivers a few bland motherhood statements, and quickly moves on. His message of “support” to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is typical: “As Prime Minister I am committed to represent all in our diverse community. Mardi Gras is a celebration of that diversity and is a major Sydney event that brings thousands of people to our shores to experience the vibrant global city that is Sydney. Best wishes to all.” http://e-p.net.au/publications/displayimage.php?album=286&pos=8

While Rudd and the party he leads are not all same-sex couples could wish for, he’s adopted a policy of ensuring equality with opposite-sex de facto couples in his first term, and working towards a national relationship recognition scheme in a second term.

He’s also working hard to establish himself as a leader who delivers on all his undertakings.

On balance, I think that Kevin Rudd will be more good than bad for same-sex-attracted Australians. As a result, I think it’s appropriate to give him a bit of room to do what he promised.

I agree that the majority of Australians are not homosexual but that fact should not be a determinant in a government decision on endorsing same sex unions even if the majority dont like the idea.

I have yet to see a convincing arguement against the idea. I have seen statements to the effect it will undermine the institution of marriage - but heterosexual married people have been doing a fine job of that themselves for eons - some even hold the whole institution up to ridicule - look at P McCartney for example - and sundry other serial marriers.

I also cant let Leighs reference to homosexuality as un natural and a deviant practice go with out comment - not liking something is no basis for defining it as anything at all other than saying it is different from my conduct at best.

homosexual unions and activity have been with us - I guess - since the dawn of time - if the human race has carried such a form of behaviour with it throughout the ages I cant see it as being much more than normal variation on a biological theme.

More dishonest and deceitful tactics from a gay activist.

In every rant about homosexual "rights" one must be sure to smear all opponents as being members of the ``religious right'', imply any opposition to their agenda is driven by fear of homosexuals. (ie homophobia), rather than honest disagreement, and deliberately mislead by claiming gay marriage is only about "celebrating love".

Every gay activist knows, but conceals, that the ultimate goal is to have homosexual relationships put on the same level as heterosexual ones, including in regards to children.

It does not require belief in God, reference to a religion or right-leaning politics to put the logical position that the most important function of marriage is providing a stable environment for the raising of children. Not only do children crave their biological mother and father, it's their fundamental right. It doesn't always turn out that way (divorce etc), but it's simply wrong to deprive them of this by design

Civil unions need to be resisted at ALL times for the sake of the nation.
With them will eventually come the adoption rights and that will lead homosexual couples into molesting their adopted childen...for this is what is in the heart.
To bring those little children up like themselves.
The disease factor will likewise spread across Australian society consuming many innocent people as well. That factor is rarely looked at. Plagues will come and we wont get rid of them.
They have "the wall" down in Darlinghurst where gays parade their wares. I dont want to see a wall in every suburb.
Even today there are so many gays in Sydney you can hardly walk into a public toilet for a wee without one of them following you in and trying to squeeze up next to you.
Civil unions are a pandoras box that MUST never be openned!
All through the Holy Bible The Lord warns us about homosexuality. Those who practice it... dont get into Heaven. They get the pits with the spirits that are down there.
Sorry if I offended. I think I spoke much of the truth.

A democratic society should and must tolerate criticism, protest, and demand for change. For after all, each of us is a member of an organised society. Each of us benefits from its existence and each of us must be ready, like Socrates, to accept the verdict of its institutions.

Same sex partnerships are demanding legal recognition of their unions.
They are not asking for judgements in morality - they are requesting the same legal rights that the rest of society currently enjoys.

We are talking about lifestyle choices made by two consenting adults.
Why should society dictate as to the choice of gender? Our record as a nation demonstrates the validity of our commitment to freedom.
Freedom of choice should also apply - in our choice of our life's
partner. If that choice is protected by law - that law should apply to all parties, and not just a select few in our society.

Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. ("So conduct yourself that you will not injure others.")

The new PM has not been in office very long - and yet he's achieved
a great deal. Given time, he will I'm sure do the right thing by all
of this country's people.