The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The destructive cycle of federal intervention > Comments

The destructive cycle of federal intervention : Comments

By George Williams, published 21/5/2008

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said he would not override ACT legislation allowing for civil unions - now it seems he has changed his mind.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
I went to a demo outside the ACT legislative assembly the other day and George here is echoing the Andrew Barr line from that demo. It's all the fault of the Feds. I suspect actually that once Rudd started to have doubts about the ACT treating gays equally eg through recognising gay marriage that Stanhope (the ACT Chief Minister) couldn't guarantee that the right wing in his party (eg John Hargreaves et al) would have supported full blown civil unions legislation.

I agree with Wayne Berry (Labor ACT MLA) that the ACT Stanhope Labor Government should have called Rudd's bluff. That would have exposed the hypocrisy of the ALP federal members (Ellis, Lundy and Macmillan) who would have supported Rudd's attack on gays and lesbians, i.e. treating fellow human beings as second class citizens.

The Rudd Government is so keen on working families that it discriminates against those not in that world view, including pensioners, and gays and lesbians.

By the way George, which Federal seat in the ACT are you angling for?

If you were successful say in replacing Annette (although I think the right still controls that seat) would you cross the floor if the HowRuddistas opposed a full blown civil partnerships law in the ACT?
Posted by Passy, Thursday, 22 May 2008 2:51:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now I should make something very clear.

I have mates who are gay and that doesnt worry me because many of these people are quite successful and they are very proud of themselves, well why not.

What disgusts me is the supporting of peodophile activities from the labor party and unions.

So for those out there who are going to get all religious , one should think about incest, and as by religion we are all related.

A persons life is theirs and not anybody elses, so choice on how they live on how they act come naturally.

So our governments just do as they please and since it is in the constitution they could change this, but since our states and federal pollies should be aware of is their treasonous actions towards the people of australia and the constitution.

I am Stuart Ulrich and i am gunning for all those who are traiters to the australian people and its constitution and that means you for starters Rudd.

Stuart Ulrich
Independent
swulrich@bigpond.net.au
Posted by tapp, Thursday, 22 May 2008 9:58:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A clear and insightful analysis George. I hope that some State Governments may dare to take the bold step and support human rights over the religious bigotry on display by our PM. I doubt that any would create laws on other forms of marriage and face the consequences of Rudd's wrath in other areas.

It seems that gay marriage came to California and South Africa thanks to their Constitutional Bill of Rights. Rudd will not commit to Human Rights in the Constitution or by Act of Parliament and the reason is clear. He is not the 'garden variety' Christian he described himself as on the ABC's Q & A program.

Kevin is a heaven sent fundamentalist, who will act strongly to advance advantages for Chritians over all other faiths and panders to conservative Christians at every opportunity - most recent example the massive financial support or around $170 Million to Catholic recruitment - World Youth Day. He said on Q&A that gay marriage would not come 'anytime soon' (not in his political lifetime). He said that to allow ceremonies in gay civil unions would be to immitate marriage ceremonies and that would 'degrade' it (for mean-spirited conservative Christians). Who else would be offended if Sir Elton John reaffirmed his vows in OZ or if Justice Kirby or Dr Bob Brown had a lavish wedding ceremony? Not many, because most Australians accept equal treatment.

Rudd is a disappointment to all those people who thought he offered hope for policies aimed at building a socially inclusive Australia. He clearly does not. As Dr Bob Brown summed him up - Rudd is Howard lite.

My guess is that Rudd is a secret admirer of Howard and thinks he can maintain his huge electoral support by not offending conservatives and elites. By signing Kyoto and abolishing Workchoices, he would be badly mistaken to think he has done enough to maintain support from workers and environmentalists. The only real policy choices in Australia at the moment are being offered by the Greeens.
Posted by fair go, Tuesday, 27 May 2008 9:55:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy