Tony Abbott’s challenge to equality

Photo: Public interest advocacy centre

Photo: Public interest advocacy centre

Marriage equality has now become law in the ACT.  Even prior to the vote being taken, Tony Abbott and his Attorney General Senator George Brandis had announced their intention to stop this legislation, the threat from Brandis being that any same-sex person who married in the ACT would have their marriages declared void.

It seems that this is their intention; not only to forbid marriage equality in Australia but to nullify any and all marriages which do occur.  A cynic might consider that this attitude is nothing more than a revenge scenario against same-sex couples who might marry under ACT law. The haste with which the Liberal government has commenced proceedings does little to ally suspicions that prevention of any marriages occurring thereby adding validity to those marriages, is the prime reason for the scramble to get to court.

Abbott’s clear intention is to stop gay marriage, and at all costs.  One must consider that these words spoken on the 23rd August and just a matter of days prior to the election, were for electioneering purposes only.

In another step on the road to a likely eventual change in the Australian law, Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, now says the policy on the same-sex marriage will be decided by the party room after the election.

Tony Abbott has made an important shift in the Liberal position on gay marriage.

Should there be further sly comments from Abbott that the policy of the Liberal party is that there would be no shift towards marriage equality, and that this was the policy that he took to the election, then remind him of these words.  Current weasel words are:

‘‘It is not a question of being for or against gay marriage – it’s a question of adhering to the constitution,’’ Mr Abbott told Fairfax Radio in Melbourne.

And Tony Abbott for one has absolutely no intention of changing this – after all according to Abbott gay relationships are nothing other than “a lifestyle choice”.  At least he didn’t add, thus the unclean and doers of abominations shalt rot in the seven fires of Hell.

Tony Abbott and George Brandis seem intent on rejecting the rights of some Australian citizens to marry and for no other reason than their own perceptions of what is “a moral code”.  Brandis might use the public excuse of “inconsistency”, but while speaking against amending the Marriage Act to redefine marriage, Senator George Brandis said:

[traditional marriage] views reflect the entire understanding and the entire course of human history of what a marriage is.

This of course is highly debatable; that marriage as it is currently expressed in Australian Federal legislation is in any way representative of what marriage has been during “the entire course of human history”, however, what it does do is to provide the real reasons, which are only a little to do with consistency between state and federal legislation and a lot to do with the discriminatory attitudes of the two main players; Tony Abbott and George Brandis.

Whether or not the ACT legislation will be successfully challenged is an issue for Constitutional lawyers and the High Court.  Brandis’s argument that all state and federal laws should be consistent does not appear to be as valid as one might think, given that there are a number of other inconsistencies between jurisdictions, and should Abbott choose to do as he has promised and change racial discrimination legislation in support of Andrew Bolt, this will add to these inconsistencies.

The ACT legislation has given a previously excluded section of Australian society the right to marry.  The High Court must therefore decide whether or not to take away these rights, and if it should choose to do so, consider whether this would set a precedent to allow the government to take away the rights of other groups of people.  I am hopeful in this regard, as the High Court has always had the tendency towards inclusion rather than exclusion.

Tony Abbott is determined not to allow such legislation to proceed due to his own personal beliefs, however, the question which needs to be considered is whether Abbott as Prime Minister should be considering whether it is right that his own personal convictions should be the vehicle to prevent others from fully participating in all the benefits of Australian society: as citizens.

Mr Abbott please consider; this is not an “ungodly intimacy”, but rather society’s acceptance that those who love should have the right to marry.

19 comments on “Tony Abbott’s challenge to equality

  1. tony always says he keeps politics and religion separate… Why would he lie 😕 ….. oh, thats right 😛
    It seems not everyone is happy with Tones.. ( long read warning) ( p.s. CC’s are nutters)

  2. Well if we can breed together , we are exactly the same, Homo-sapiens. But I really wonder if we deserve that term as we are far from being really intelligent.

    Before the RWNJs start to say Homosexuals cannot breed, they do! I know a few myself who have had Children with to another Homosexual Friend. Their Children are switched on, more balanced than a lot of the Heterosexual progeny I have met and can carry a far more intelligent conversation and justify their beliefs with sound argument better than a lot of so called moral upstanding postulates in pulpits around our Nation and the extremely poor one’s that visit here so far. They are probably so balanced and grounded as they have lived with hate spewed at them from Bigots since childhood. They are loving and loved richly by their family and friends. Balanced and no, so far, all but one is Straight (one is Bi) so don’t bother arguing that one as we have all heard the same unconvincing arguments.

    But then, people who discriminate generally believe it is correct, except when they are the one discriminated against. This is whilst they are believing the ones they are discriminating against should accept their discrimination of them without argument and as correct. It is well know that we call these type of people Hypocrites and scorn them for the Sociopathic behavior in the belief they never could be wrong.

    Homosexuals are natural. They are sexual people just like everyone else. They love, cry, bleed and hurt like everyone else. Make Marriage Equality a reality or dissolve any recognition to it legally in our Nation. We are all Australian’s and worthy of respect if we live our live responsibly and with care and love for our fellow Australians, on who we all depend.

    This Government does not represent me and is actually working to hurt a majority of my fellow Australians and myself in many way in making decisions and deeds that are good for a minority of their preferred, like-minded peoples.
    That is discrimination. It is wrong.

  3. it takes one to know one, I am catholic and not like abbott in fact don’t go to church but still have my faith for my self, better for it. but I do know some people even a old union rep, so catholic would not vote alp because of ssm and other pro catholic ideas. keep in mind that these people believe the pope is all knowing never wrong [lol} so google what the church does not believe in, IVF, and stem cell research keep an eye those two down the track and benefits ect,, also if you google no fault divorce t abbott you will find it, around 2004 he thought it would be good to have divorce laws, of old perhaps the page has gone still there before the election, I wrote posts like this on blogs , some libs told me I was a bigot, still cannot work that one out, would even libs like to see no fault divorce come back? don’t think so, then we have the morning after pill, just keep an eye on these and see if they are quietly dealt with in some way.
    you where warned by many catholics who understand how devout extreme catholics think.

  4. Martha, Abbott put that proposal in his book – that there be two forms of divorce, the one as currently stands with 12 months separation being the only grounds for divorce, then he wants as you mention a return to pre-1975 where the system was faults-based. This system was heavily skewed towards the husband as in a vast majority he was the only one with enough money to be able to take the matter to court. A ball park figure for such proceedings would be around $30,000. Therefore many women were trapped in violent and abusive relationships unable to escape from their partner. One has to also be suspicious of the sort of man who might want a faults-based divorce/marriage, one who intends to be abusive or violent?

    I would definitely suspect that not only will gay marriage never happen while Abbott is PM, but also watch while he tightens the rules as to who can obtain access to contraception and legal abortions..and possibly IVF although he is supposedly a small l liberal Catholic on this issue.

  5. tabot will bring religion back front and center into his politics. To him, they are entwined. His history proves it.

  6. Why can’t we just have a referendum on this subject.
    I have no concern about some politician’s conscience,most of them don’t seem to have one.What if his/hers conscience is different to mine,and the majority in the electorate?

  7. Carol that may have been the case in the 70’s but a recent report shows that women are approaching the majority as the major bread winner in the house and in some cases the only one.

    Abbott better be careful what he wishes for in his return back to the old days as seems his want, because a lot a women are no longer trapped financially in marriages. He could actually engender an increase in divorces instead a reduction he probably thinks will happen. It is yet another example where he demonstrates how out of touch he is with current day modern Australian and contemporary world events.

    Then again he doesn’t bother to read up on anything he is making decisions over, even when he is given the briefs.

  8. To think that our country, a country which preaches democracy and equal rights, is led by a man who is more concerned with using his power to dictate the law in favour of his own personal preferences, rather than accepting the fact that the majority of the citizens in this country support gay marriage. He couldn’t care less about representing and fighting for what is in the people’s best interest, and it saddens me to think that we have to sit back and watch that discriminative misogynist run our country for the next three years.

  9. Oh no not another right winger with a prescience cracked crystal ball.

    Brave prediction from the first Federal government that has had no honeymoon and was on the nose in it’s first week, and has gone downhill since then.

    And Hockey, my what a joke. He is getting rid of a tax at a time its revenue is going to increase and in doing so he’s screwing the majority of voters to make a very small minority of the most wealthy in this country richer.

  10. Well just imagine if you had any wealth Dummo. A Neighbourhood would decline in value if you moved into it! Just as well they will always keep you at the level you belong. The Sheeple Level.

  11. Summo, …. there ain’t nothing wrong with being rich …… it’s how ya get it…… ‘get it’ ?!!!!
    Summo, ….some of us gave up the ‘dog eat dog’ attidude long ago when we came down out of the trees……. you should try it, 😛 you will find that we can walk up-right now…… no more sore k-knuckles ( a blessing you know nought about…. or so it would seem 😈 )
    go on…. give it a go….. 😀 …. hey, ya never know, afore to long ya might advance to four word slogans…… no, really 😉
    ( It’s one of those ‘mind-set’ thingy’s involving integrity, empathy, ethics and the like…. believe you, me Summo… the more up-right ya gets.. the more you’ll get it.. ‘get it’ )

  12. Nothing at all Summo, where have I ever said there’s something wrong in being rich.

    Personally I earn a high wage and would be classed as well off. My boss, whose also a good friend, and a couple of my other closest friends are very wealthy, and I have no problems with that.

    Have an uncle who eventually became very rich through a business he setup when coming to Australia. Before he sold the business for a large sum he was a great bloke and my favourite uncle, after he became an arrogant arsehole, and an active Liberal supporter to boot.

    And Summo why do you always attempt to pigeon hole others here with irrelevant personal questions as that somehow justifies your immoderate narrow minded stance?

    I could just as easily ask you what you have against the less well off that you support an ideology that denigrates and marginalises them for the gain of the wealthy you wrongly attempted to accuse me of having a dislike for. But that would be just as irrelevant as your question to me.

  13. Given that Messrs Abbott and Brandis are only doing this to ensure the constitution is followed, and given that Mr Brandis is such a champion of freedoms, I’m sure they’ll be rushing to protect the implied freedom of association. Standby for them to launch a High Court action to have the new Queensland VLAD laws struck off!

  14. Cheaper option, that also did not put the Constitution at risk, was to say to the territories, put it on hold until Parliament resumes, and we will let one of the bills that are already in the houses go to a vote. Maybe there will be no need for any territory or state legislation.

    Just a thought.

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s