Apparently last year our "no gay marriage" PM made unpublicised changes to the Migration Act. The change entitled same sex partners of professionals on work visas to the same entitlements that heterosexual partners have long enjoyed.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=267192

The question has to be asked whether the strong "no gay marriage" stance reflects his personal views or whether he is just playing politics and appeasing the masses by taking an apparently strong stand only because his research indicates that it will get him the most political mileage.

Given that Howard is the head of a right wing political party he will probably never be described as a "pinko" but perhaps he may some day come out with pink friendliness if it suits the opinion polls.

Is it really such a big deal if he does change his mind/stance based on public opinion? Isnt the government supposed to rule with the will of the people? So if you change your stance based on popular opinion, then you are actually being democratic?? I just find this an interesting point, because as soon as a pollie changes their mind they are accused of pandering to the majority, but if they do something unpopular then they are accused of being undemocratic. I'm not just singling out Howard for this either. Its a claim that gets levelled at all pollies regardless of persuasion. It seems to be largely based on whether the accuser agrees with the policy or not.

c gal, if howard always acted as a conduit of public opinion we would have a rough approximation of democracy. but he doesn't. instead he does what he thinks will get him elected. pandering to special interest groups is the way politicians get elected, not supporting democracy.

It is reasonable for gays to be considered refugees is they have a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion’ under the UN Refugees Convention.

If they come from a country that persecutes gays, then they clearly fall into the social category within this definition.

However, it is pertinent for the Refugee Review Tribunal to carefully assess each case and endeavour to make sure that it is genuine…. and to make sure that a tidal wave of homosexual applicants does not get triggered.

We’ve got to realise just how difficult some of these judgements are. Inevitably comparisons of different cases are going to show inconsistencies in decisions to accept or reject refugee applications, or in the reasons for doing so.

I say; so be it. We cannot possibly expect it all to be absolutely fair by everyone’s interpretation when all sorts of different factors are involved, as well as different legal representatives and decision-makers.

As for Howard’s involvement; I can appreciate his argument for the sanctity of marriage as a heterosexual construct. But I can also accept him supporting changes in policy in favour of homosexuals, without seeing it as contradiction.

Few things are black and white. Many things that seem contradictory on the surface are not at all so when you delve into them a bit deeper.

As Country Gal says, Howard and any polly should be allowed to adapt their views according to public opinion, or to whatever other criteria they deem significant. Why should we expect their views and policies to be set in concrete?

That's because everyone knows banning gay marriage is discrimination worthy of apartheid policy. How would you feel if someone banned marriage between you and your wife/husband?

Let's use some semantics here.It should not be called "marriage" as we have in normal hetrosexual marriage.Let the gays have a legal bondage with all the rights of others but never destroy the traditional image of the family for the convience of a minority.

The traditional family is our society's anchor against a tsunami of change and unsurity.Destroy the family and there will be no civilisation.