The Governor-General has declared support for an Australia where "people are free to love and marry whom they choose".

Isn't this wonderful news? So that means she and Labor and the Greens support polygamous marriage, right? It's almost enough to get me to vote for them!

But of course they're lying as usual.

Abbott was not concerned about her having an opinion and stating it.
Please supply a list of opinions people should not have.
And a further list of people you think do not have the right to one.

JKJ,

" So that means she and Labor and the Greens support polygamous marriage, right?"

No that's not right.

Point me to the words of the GG where she said she "supports polygamous marriage"?

If you can't, your thread/argument has absolutely no basis whatsoever.

Pure spin.....

Quite a few commentators expressed surprise at
the Governor General's speech in Sydney outlining
her vision for Australia's future as part of the
Boyer Lectures. Surprised, because the Queen's
Representative traditionally avoids political
controversy and usually aims to stay outside of the
political debate. However I guess with her term as
Governor General nearing the end of her period in
office (four months to go) she chose to speak out on
her support for gender equality, gay marriage and the
Republic. And she hoped that Australians could share her
vision of a fairer society for everyone.

She did not make any mention of polygamy.

Yes, she was controversial - but as another commentator
said on the news,
"Hey, this is Australia, and we say what we think!"

Quentin Bryce's selfie promoting homosexual marriage and a republic breaks new ground for Governors-General. It is a precedent that must politicise the position. It was self-indulgent. What pressing need was there for her to enter into the political arena now while she is still in the chair when she is only months away from the end of her term?

Of course those who have similar views will applaud her 'forthrightness' and 'courage' of her convictions, but it was completely unnecessary, particularly where her son in law has recently become the Opposition Leader and he has the same policies.

To assist Belly and others understand something about libertarianism, it does not necessarily imply belief in gay marriage or a republic as this article demonstrates,

http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/gay-marriage-political-correctness-and-newspeak/

Free speech is no longer free and the self-styled political 'Progressives' who cloak themselves as 'libertarians' are simply employing the crude but highly successful tool of political correctness to suit their own agenda. Fabians believe in being the wolf in sheep's clothing. Nothing principled or libertarian in that.

I'm with Poirot on this one. Though Poirot has responded with greater restraint than I intend to.

This isn't just spin - its silliness in its purest form. Do draw links between Ms Bryce's words and polygamy is absurd. While I understand that some might view this as a political statement, it at least avoids partisan politics. After all, both sides seem united in opposition to marriage equality.

In my opinion, as she approaches the end of her term, it is appropriate for our G-G to present her view of a bright and happy future for Australia - a wishlist for years to come, so to speak. I say good on her.

Australia is a free society, so the elegant GG can say what she likes.
However, at no stage did she support polygamy.

Polygamy will never be supported in this country, because it is wanted by some old men who fancy their 'god' said they should be having several young wives to have sex with as they please.
There's never any mention of an old women being allowed by some 'god' to have several young male husbands is there? (Not that many would want that!)

That load of rubbish 'marriage' is not always between 'consenting' adults either, as quite often the women are neither consenting or adult!

Gay marriage is between two consenting adults...quite a different scenario.

"""
Australia is a free society, so the elegant GG can say what she likes.
"""

Not quite! As an Australian she has a right like anyone to voice her opinions but as Governor General she is not. The Governor General is suppose to be Apolitical and thus must not support one side or another, it's right there in the rule book!

For Abbott to accept these opinions as Governor General is worrying.
I understand his acceptance of her role until her term is up, (being only a short time) whilst having a conflict of interest. But to accept her opposing political views as Governor General in this time is wrong!

What's interesting is seeing all the lefties sticking up for this wretch because her opinions fall on their side of the debate. If however she had said something like global warming is crap, they'd all be crying foul like the typical hypocrites they are

Quentin Bryce did offer her resignation on the change in government and her reasons for independently arriving at her conclusion that there could be a perception conflict of interest should be returned to.

The expectation in return was that she had the capacity to avoid such possible perceptions arising in the future.

Consequently, it is odd that she had to make the remarks while still in Office, when the end is months away. Given that she was previously sensitive to ensuring that the GG should be above politics and being seen to be so.

No-one has said anything about how nations in our region especially might perceive the head of State apparently being at odds with the PM and government. What about the Asian perception of loss of face?

Deucedly wretched timing for the GG to risk controversy and start any hares running when the PM and government of the day are embroiled in managing an embarrassing disagreement with an Asian neighbour. One caused by the previous government, too.

I don't know that the PM was left with any option but to play the remarks down. Should the PM have been put in that position in the first place is something that will be debated for a long time to come.

He should just sack her OTB and then send Rudd, Whatshername, and the rest of the traitorous labour party to Indonesia to deliver his apology on their behalf. And whilst his at it, he could uphold the law and have Mark Scott charged under Section 79 (1c) of the Crimes Act

Section 79 (1c) of the Crimes Act makes it unlawful for a person to “communicate” the contents of a document to a person who they “ought to know” is not authorised to receive the contents of that document (emphasised words straight from the legislation).

He's showing himself to be weak in my view. It's high time we started following the rule of law and clean up this place of all the criminal parasites in .gov!

Why is she a 'wretch', RawMustard? Because you dislike her and her opinions? There are many apt things you could call her, but 'wretch' isn't really one of them.

otb,

Never mind about the issue and its connection with the PM

I'm sure he's got far more important things on his mind at the moment.

Like writing his Christmas wish list to Santa requesting that famous, but not much requested, book "Diplomacy for Dummies".

(In case you're about to flick your "faux outrage" switch, that wuz supposed to be humorous.)

Over an hour late to Fromelles Military Cemetery making everyone wait in blistering heat.

How much is her taxpayer funded flower bill a month, Otokonoko?

And now disgracing herself with political opinions she no right to make!

Typically she sees herself more equal than others eh?
This is the quality of person who is our Governor General. A person who has no respect for anyone except herself.

Wretch is a good word for describing a person of this caliber!

RM,

Yar, I reckon that tipsy sot who presided over the Whitlam dismissal is the sort of calibre we should be aiming for.

Lol!

collects the pay and benefits of being Queens representative then say she believes we should be a republic. No doubt a real hero of Emily's listers. Had she presented the other views she would of be castagated by the tax funded National Broadcasters. What a sick nation when those in such office can't see their own hypocrisy.

Dear Poirot,

Seeing as John Howard didn't get his knighthood,
(a medal doesn't count as much), perhaps he'll
be our next GG? I'm sure that Janet would be
thrilled! Then we'll whether he'll stay outside of
political debate and avoid political controversy.
Or even if Mr Abbott would want his "mentor" todo so.

Just a thought.

The current Governer General runs rings around all the stodgy old men we have had in the past, and would make a FAR more diplomatic and gracious PM than Abbott does.

That being said, I am not a fan of having a representative of a far away old nation like Britain having any say at all in our country and I say bring on the Republic as fast as possible....with a female President like Quentin Bryce!

Foxy,

I'd say it will almost mandatory to make Johnnie Howard next GG.

Considering the blinding hash the LNP are making of their tenure already, they'll need someone who's not likely to sack 'em.

"""
Quentin Bryce did offer her resignation on the change in government
"""

That's it though OTB. She "offered" her resignation. Someone of any integrity would have just resigned. But this isn't about integrity is it? It's all about me, me, me. Typical parasitic wretch!

Hahaha! Look at the lefties with their noses out of joint :~)

Why don't they recommend Mark Scott as Governor General? He obviously thinks he can run the country from the ABC and do what he wants regardless of the law eh! Makes sense to me.

Makes sense to you?

Wow - coming from such a deep thinker as yourself
we're all impressed!

[Deleted, offensive language.]

An observer of this thread from any over seas country may forgiven for thinking we are much like the American Hill Billy states.
Not true but some find it hard to lift comments to an adult level.
One here while demanding our GG be held to account, claims in some warped way her comments attack free speech.
Others confuse their own opinions, clearly anti Gay Marriage, to the extent they seem to claim no one must think differently.
If we take the path no GG should comment we should become a Republic next week!
I await the two lists I asked for, but warn if such a list comes the name of its poster should be included in my view
Free speech is for every one or it does not exist

Suseonline Well said!Now lets here what sort of a Republican model you would like?
I always find it interesting people blather about a Republic but fail to give their version?
If it is such a good idea it will be easy to explain but watch out for the pitfalls being pointed out by others.
Or do we do the old "just sign a blank cheque" nonsense?

'Us "lefties" are just sitting back shaking our heads and enjoying the show.... '

make the most of it Poirot and as soon she will be on the scrapheap along with Rudd and Gillard.

How respectful of you, runner, to the Governor General of Australia.

But judging from the rants on this thread, those who pretend to be pillars of society, are nothing of the sort.

You must be aware that this govt has enjoyed "no" honeymoon period. They have been woeful so far. I challenged you to name a govt that has exposed its ineptitude with the speed of this one?

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/voter-mood-turns-on-coalition-20131124-2y436.html?skin=iphone

".....This is the quickest poll lead achieved by any federal opposition after losing an election."

So you can thumb yer nose all you like....it's obvious that the Abbott govt is a dud writ bigtime.

They are making fools of themselves - and Australia.

Come off it Poirot.

I have as much respect for the current office holder, as you lefties have for John Kerr.

In fact I always found it rather amusing to see the bottle redhead, & the peroxide blond together. You could see they were trying to help each other reinforce some hope that they were other than a couple of grey headed old harpies, who had to dye their hair to appear what they were not, useful.

The immaturity of those who have to dye their hair to feel virile was screaming from both of them.

Dear Hasbeen,

Do you even have any hair?

Because it sounds like a bit of envy you're espousing
here. ;-)

Perhaps I should start my own political party and call it, we don't recognize gay marriage party.

At least then, the gays can get hitched, have their little gatherings, and the rest of us, those who either don't care, or don't accept them as married, can continue with our day to day lives that don't include caring about two of the same sex wanting to get married.

If you think about it, when the celebrent says, We now pronounce you husband and wife, No! That doesnt work.

We now pronounce you husband and husband, No! That doesn't work.

We now pronounce you wife and wife, No! That doesn't work either.

Now if you can't be pronounce husband and wife, how on earth do you officiate the marriage?

Confusing isn't it!

Of cause, finding another word will work, but hey, that's too easy.

Foxy you can be 93 and have hair. Hasbeen will prove it to us one day, maybe with a happy snap from his 94th birthday bash, down at the retirement village. Now if you had asked; can you have hair and be perceptive at the same time, please don't ask Hasbeen to prove that, you would be asking too much. LOL.
Since when have the royal family and or their representatives not been "political". King Edward VIII was pro Nazi. It's my opinion that Australia's 2 greatest statesman were both sacked by unelected monarchists Jack Lang and Gough Whitlam. If they were not acts of political bastardry, what is?

Dear rehctub,

From your post it sounds like
you need to actually attend a marriage ceremony
performed by a marriage celebrant because you
certainly seem to have an outmoded idea of the vows and
procedures involved. The vows these days are usually
written by the couples and are quite personal
and beautiful. And they and the celebrant address
each by name not gender.

"I cannot promise you a life of sunshine;
I cannot promise riches, wealth or gold;
I cannot promise you an easy pathway
That leads away from change or growing old.

But I can promise all my heart's devotion
A smile to chase away your tears of sorrow;
A love that's ever true and ever growing;
A hand to hold in yours through each tomorrow."
(Mark Twain - 1835-1910).

Hasbeen,

I don't know about you, but I haven't noticed Quentin Bryce poncing around race courses half tanked lately.

But I suppose there's still time.

Hasbeen, you are a nasty piece of work!
What does the colour of one's hair in politics have to do with anything?
I realise you have a problem with females in any form of authority, but hair colour is taking it too far.

Shall we check all the male politicians hair (if they have any left) and see who pours bottles of 'Grecian1000' over their heads each morning before work?
What of all the real fake heads who plop a mop of fake hair on top of it?
That is such an attractive look.

The current Governer General has more class in her little finger than all the other politicians put together...

Cont'd.
Why should Quentin Bryce have offered to resign in the first place?
She was in that position first.

Bill Shorten should not have run for party leader while his mother-in-law was the Governor General :-)

Dear Paul,

The Governor General delivered four Boyer lectures.
And I think that what she said needs to be looked
at in context. She focused on her belief that
Australian society should place human rights at its
centre. Also, as the editorial in The Saturday Age,
November 23, 2013 points out -

"The freedom to express thoughts and opinions...
is a precious and important right. It is the core of
our democracy. If we could not hear alternative opinions.
test them against our own views, expand and enhance them,
our political processes and ability to make decisions
for our community would wither. Nor would we have a
creative and flourishing society, bubbling with ideas
and innovation."

"This freedom, though, is not unfettered. It comes with
important responsibilities, some prescribed by laws
related to defamation or hate speech. There are limits,
too, that we set fro ourselves out of respect for other
people, and these are the moral or ethical considerations
we apply, often intuitively, because we do not want to
hurt someone... yet some people lose sight of the
normal disciplines and indulge instead in insults..."

Their so called "observations" might garner them a band
of "followers" but they erroneously interpret that
"adulation" as a licence to say whatever they like.

The Governor General has always been careful in her behaviour,
and her behaviour to date has been exemplanary to say the
least. She was merely speaking on the topic of why
we should continue to rally for a better Australia -
especially as she made it quite clear that
"Our children and grandchildren will become the custodians of
the Australia we are shaping now. In their hands, they will
reshape it according to their own vision and aspirations."
She was talking about the future, not the past. And that
was most appropriate, at least in my opinion.

'How respectful of you, runner, to the Governor General of Australia. '

No Poirot how respectful Bryce herself is of the office expressing perverted personal views while holding such an office. Just because you happen to agree with her certainly does not make it right. She collects the pay and trashes the office something her side of politics as well as some on the other side have no problem with. She then has the nerve to say she beleives in being a republic no doubt happy to receive her benefits from pretending.

Dear runner,

Thank you for proving the point being made in
The Age article.

Dear Foxy

I would be most concerned to be agreement with most of 'fairfax' . They stand for everything regressive.

Dear Hasbeen,

A bit more in reference to your "hair dying" remark.

You critically singled out the former PM
and the Governor General,
but made no comment about any other woman. Especially
on the Libs side of politics.
Women like Julia Bishop, Bronwyn Bishop, and the other
women who dye their hair and can easily be seen on TV during
Question Time in Parliament. All "suicide blondes"
(dyed by their own hands). But hey, why stop with the
women? There's also the blokes. Like the PM himself for
example. I wish that he'd get a decent job from a hairdresser
if he's going to do it. His current colour looks like
a bottle job which is a shame. It attracts attention to his
bald patch which shines like a beacon. A more natural lighter
colour would suit him better. Someone should tell him.
The blue ties don't help. They clash with the orange colour
of his head.

Dear runner,

So you think that Fairfax stand for everything "regressive?"

Well, I suppose you then consider your self as a "progressive?"

That's a surprise. Then I guess as a "Progressive"
an Australian Head of State should of course appeal
to you because as a "Progressive" true Conservative you
would believe that we should take responsibility for
ourselves and you would argue that an institution ass elite
and undemocratic as the British Monarchy should maintain
its exclusive hold on our nation's sovereignty - and you
would also object to the fact that no Australian can ever aspire
on merit to be Head of our nation.

This is quite a revelation coming from you.

Dear Foxy

'Well, I suppose you then consider your self as a "progressive?"

Actually I care little what I am labelled. What I point out is that 'gay ' marriage is extremely regressive. The left are experts are revisionism and dishonest labelling. Whether we have a republic or not I care little. The point is that the GG collects all the bickies for fulfilling the role she does not believe in. She is so desperate to be heard she can't even wait until she is out of the role before expressing her political alliance (as if we did not know those opinions anyway). No surprise that the sisterhood defends the indefensible. You are so predictable.

[Deleted. And she will be getting the suspension she explicitly asked for in the comment.]

Nasty stuff Poirot.

It is unprincipled, hypocritical and gutless to attack site moderation and you regularly direct barbs at moderation too.

Every thread cannot be about you.

we are used to dummy spits these days when the umpire gives a decision. The adamic nature at its worse.

I do not think we can dismiss the idea that a greater percentage of men living in Australia would enter a polygamous marriage if the law allowed than men seeking a same sex marriage.

It won't be a problem Josephus, because no sane Government would ever allow legal polygamous marriage.

In the unlikely event that they might, they would also have to allow women to marry multiple men as well, and that certainly wouldn't happen!

As far as gay marriage goes, it's only a matter of time.

All Governments are slowly seeing reason and not listening to religious claptrap as much anymore I see.

On 21 November, Tasmania became the third Australian jurisdiction (after the ACT and Victoria) to decriminalise abortion.
There's hope for a more secular society yet...

Dear Suse,

I think you're spot on. The states are starting first,
the rest of the country will follow. It's a gradual
process but inevitably with the support of the people
changes will happen.

Dear Poirot,

I'm sorry that I couldn't post to you earlier.
I had used up all of my posting limits and had to
wait.

Whether in our relationships or in the workplace it
seems we're always negotiating our our own voice.

I've always admired your style of writing and expression
and being secure and unafriad of speaking your own mind.

I've always felt that your intentions were not just
to win the game but that you'd simply spoken your mind without
malice or anger.
Sure we all might say to ourselves at times, "Gee, I shouldn't
have said that or maybe I should have said it differently."
And may be some of us need to work on our presentation (I
know I do),
because it is important to act with civility. But we should
not forsake our own wisdom because we're afraid to lose
something.

What's more important, Losing face, or losing your integrity?

I would hate to have you disappear from this forum.
It would be a much duller place without you.

It's always hard with leftists to know whether they are displaying blatant dishonesty or deep stupidity.

The GG didn't say she supports 'gay marriage' either did she Poirot? No. She expressed the hope that Australia would become a country where "people are free to love and marry whom they choose".

Notice the hatred and sheer blind prejudice of the leftists against polygamous marriage? If someone wants to marry more than one person, and the other parties to the marriage consent, why should that be any more illegal than gay marriage?

Oh that's right. You don't do reason do you? But by all means vomit some more of your bilious hatred into the public domain - it might convince your fellow bigots.

Suseonline,
So you are telling me that the Arab States Governments are insane because they allow polygamy. I think you ought to tell them that. They do not allow homosexuality. Full Stop!

Do the religious have no shame? Considering their abysmal track record on every moral issue there ever has been, from slavery to marriage, any kind of marriage, one would think they would be content to sit on the sidelines, heads firmly transfixed in their book of mumbo jumbo, waiting patiently for the "second coming". I could live with that, but no, these presumptuous hypocrites continue to believe that they have some "god given" right to lecture all and sundry on what is moral in society and what is not. As I said given their track record I would hide my head in shame if I was one of them.

Thank ya, Foxy.

Have you ever thought of going on Twitter?

I spend more time there than here these days, and by the by I find I have far more positive interactions there, lots of laughs, lots of info sharing - and generally a friendlier atmosphere.

Probably because one can gravitate to like-minded people, I suppose.

Anyway, give it some thought as an addition to OLO - not hard to join and you might meet a certain Tea Lady who reminds you of someone.

Cheers.

On topic....I still haven't been presented with the GG saying she supports polygamous marriage.

Josephus, if you think Australia should model itself on the 'Arab States' then perhaps you would be more comfortable in Saudi Arabia.?

Poirot, I hope you will continue on OLO, as I find you and Foxy some of the only voices of reason on this site : )
Maybe I might try twitter too...

"It's always hard with leftists to know whether they are displaying blatant dishonesty or deep stupidity."
JKJ when you make statements like that, you must be one of those historical revisionists. If you want to know about blatant dishonesty and deep stupidity you need to go no farther than the recent past to hear the lies of the conservatives on all manner of subjects. I suppose you were one of those gullible types fooled by the lies and deceit of Bush and Howard when it came to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today you most likely still consume the dishonesty of conservative liars like Abbott on everything from climate change to asylum seekers. Now you are trying to predicate your own little lie, that Quentin Bryce is in favor of polygamous marriage. Do you have any evidence to support your ridicules nonsenses?

Suseonline,
So you are actually saying Muslim States that allow polygamy under laws are insane. I do not support polygamy; but to call governments that legalize such insane you ought to tell them that.

Paul it is not worth being too concerned at those who use that term leftists.
From their place , to the right of reality, every one is leftist.
The threads title is untrue.
Its attempt to stop the Lady of the Cucumber sangers is fun.
Lets wring all the enjoyment we can out of this old Lemon.

Paul1405,
Come our from under your rock and be informed of today's real world. You have a chip on your shoulder that is ingrained into your thinking.

There are thousands of slaves in Australia they are held by criminal bosses. Obviously Unions have not been able to free them but the Church I belong to runs Operation Rescue to assist to save girls from sex slavery, drug use and imported slave sweat shops. These slave dens are run by agnostic criminals for tax free money. We also run programs to boycott companies that purchase products produced by slave labor.

Get your priorities for social justice right. You live in a distant past of immoral carnal religious Roman Church history.

Father Joe, what State that allows polygamy under law are you referring to... Utah? Why do Christians condone polygamy? Personally I do not have a problem with it, between consenting adults, whatever turns them on. However, I must say I don't think there is a lot of "consent" generally in these "marriages" well not from the brides side at least.

And who said getting involved with Christianity wasn't dangerous.

This is a story about a woman who died after being treated with prayer instead of being taken to hospital.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nurses-investigated-in-inquiry-into-death-on-christian-groups-property-20130302-2fd1p.html

Then there was this kid, Christians toadies turned him into a demented fruit.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/ryan-pringle-death-man-shot-dead-by-police-at-rainbow-family-gathering-threatened-them-with-a-crossbow-inquest-hears-20131125

Belly, for some on here anyone to the left of Genghis Khan is seen as a raving lefty. you know who they are the Usual Suspects.

Josephus, you boast of belonging to a church who helps women who are slaves.

It's a pity you don't seem to show any such care to gay people who also don't have the same rights as others.

The Governor General shows empathy for all people, and thus shows up many of those people in 'churches' who judge others by their own narrow parameters...

Suseonline

u appear very good at 'judging' Josephus with your narrow parameter.

Get your priorities for social justice right. You (Paul1405)live in a distant past of immoral carnal religious Roman Church history.

Father Joe! distant past, history. Come off it, the scum of the Catholic Church are here and now, not confined to annuals of history as you would have it. Do you prefer to hide the shameful facts? Not all Catholic scum are guilty of just buggering children, there are plenty from the top down guilty of hiding and protecting the perpetrators of such crimes. Why are we having a Royal Commission, of which a major part is into the actions of catholic clergy. I would not let a child of mine within a bulls roar of a catholic priest. And you want these people to preach on matters of morality.

Paul1405,
I totally agree with your last post.

Suseonline,
The fact is you do not know that in all aspects of justice and law homosexual couples are EQUAL; they are not discriminated against. In fact two sisters or brothers sharing the same assets have exactly the same equal civil rights - they are not sexual partners.

You promote an absolute lie if you claim they are not equal. Otherwise identify how they are not equal!

Foxy, I actually attended a wedding on the weekend.

It was performed by a celebrant and, at the end she announced, I now pronounce you husband and wife.

In fact I have attended two wedding within a few months, both performed by celebrants and both said, under the laws of Australia, where marriage is between a man and a woman, I now pronounce you husband and wife.

Best they (gays) get over it and move on, as we have far more important issues to occupy the time of our leaders.

Go off, get hitched and call ot what every you wish, but the marriage word is taken.
I for one won't accept gay marriage as being equal to my marriage, and at the end of the day, that's all that matters to me.

I doubt I will be alone.

Dear rehctub,

I fully understand that same-sex marriage is an
issue about which many people feel strongly.
However, it is important to recognise that there
is an immense range in marriage, family, and
kinship patterns today, and that each of these patterns
may be, at least in their own context perfectly viable,
and above all, that marriage, like any other social
institution, inevitably changes through time.

So, Foxy, you finally concede that the debate is about marriage and not about homosexuality.

Then you go on with your Marxist/'Progressive' agenda that marriage can be anything.

Doubtless you have the considerable hide to claim at the same time that you are not attacking marriage.

As Peter Hitchens said on Q&A recently, the 'Progressives' have already won the cultural war. Hence the hubris displayed by Quentin Bryce with her self-indulgent selfie. I guess it was your hubris too that caused you to let slip that the target was always institution of marriage itself.

Hitchens
@ 52:30 http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3868791.htm

From http://atheism.about.com/od/gaymarriage/a/MarriageCivil.htm :

"In debates over gay marriage, much attention is paid to legal rights which same-sex couples miss out on because of their inability to marry. If we take a close look at those rights, however, we find that most are about helping couples care for each other."

The notion that marriage is a civil right comes through in this article, as it does in the GG's comments. Surely she has a right to espouse them on that basis, or should GG's be seen and not heard, other than to dismiss Labor governments?

I still wounder how the threads title got mixed up with same sex couples/GG,s comments.
The only thing that seems to stand out is the author thought same sex meant that?
And while we demand the right to our thoughts I truly wounder why we set aside some people and some views that we think should not be seen.

Luciferase got it right when he said,"If we take a close look at those rights, however, we find that most are about helping couples care for each other."

There are the facts = marriage is not the exclusive domain of caring for each other. I would hope that those that share love for each other care for each other. But those that share love for each other does not interpret as "have sex with each other" as some homosexual lobbyists interpret.

Next time could there be a return to a Governor General who isn't constantly seeking personal celebrity on the world stage?

One who could spend more time at home and pressing the flesh with Joe Public.

Rudd's appointment. Their jet trails must have criss-crossed often up there in the rarefied atmosphere heading for those exclusive international hotels in the tourism Meccas.

Than god their *expletive* doesn't smell and they know how to live! Thank god they always presume to know what is best for everyone else!

Having thought about it for a few days, my opinion is that the Governor General overstepped the mark when she used a public forum to promote her personal views on a political issue.

Irrespective of the views of individuals who agree or disagree with her, she has effectively brought the office into disrepute by using it as a platform. Unless, of course, she was acting under instructions from the Palace, and conveying the views of our Head of State. Which is unthinkable, as it is against all the conventions of a constitutional monarchy.

So in my view it can only have been the act of a selfish and willful narcissist. And one that will undoubtedly add significant weight to the republican movement.

If that had actually been her objective all along, of course, then what we have seen is an extremely clever and finely judged piece of constitutional theatre.

I wonder.

A couple of mates are strange, one married a cow and the other married a pig! Yep, down at the boozer, Blue's always say'n "her the misses, the bloody old cow." and Jazza is always on about his old sow at home, been married to her 35 years, the fat old porker. Hate to see the kids. LOL.

At least I'll bet they aren't peroxide blonds, wearing pastel suits that are about 35 years too young for an old boiler.

As if anyone cares what the lefty old duck thinks anyway. In the words of the song, "what the hell would she know". However when she is representing us, using a title conferred on her by us, wearing clothes paid for by us, on a trip paid for by us, she has no damn right to a public opinion.

Even worse, for the queens representative to express such thoughts such as this shows what an opinionated old fool she is.

God help Australia. God help us seriously help us.
No boundaries any more. No marriage boundaries, no behaviour boundaries.
It is everyone for himself B I G T I M E.
No Australia!
No honouring the foundations which have
Given us this great country. May God help us in this land.
May He have the last word... And He Will.
We are ultimately responsible to Him,
and accountable to Him for what we do
with our lives.
So it is best He has first place in our lives.
Money, power and or status, will not "cut it" in the end.
King Solomon figured this out many years ago.
I believe the Lord's Prayer says it all. I think
Parliment opens with this prayer. Mean it from the heart.
God help Australia Amen

It is a stretch to say her comments support polygamous marriage, I think.

God bless you, Canary, and may God bless us all.

Seek not His help, but His blessing, so you are of the right mind and spirit to do His work on earth, helping those in need.

As for marriage boundaries, worry not, for no mundane authority can redefine marriage. What they all refer to in this hot debate is not marriage itself but 'legal marriage', a nonsensical artificial construct that carries no spiritual significance.

They have an office in the city where you come, pay a fee, say bla-bla-bla and they give you a certificate stating that you are "legally married", then you come again, pay another fee, say bla-bla-bla and they give you another certificate stating that now you are "legally divorced". All this silly discussion is just about whether or not homosexual couples (and other multiples, as suggested by this discussion) may also join in this stupid ritual, not about marriage itself.

Forget about parliament opening with the Lord's Prayer - it only opens by parroting the words of the Lord's Prayer. Replace the page in front of Mr/s. Speaker with a page from Shakespeare and they wouldn't tell the difference.

Come to think of that, why would you ask God to help a civil/secular institution such as Australia that is but an artificial human construct?

By all means, may God bless the people who reside on this great land, the continent of Australia (as well as all others), but may God give us the wisdom and spirit to lift the debilitating burden of secular authority which eclipses this land.

Canary, with so much god in your post, I don't know what to say. Can you explain why you refer to god as he and not she, or even it? Do you know something the rest of us don't.

"As if anyone cares what the lefty old duck thinks" Hasbeen, seems you do, otherwise why the diatribe.