John Howard opposed to same-sex marriage

As reported today in the Adelaide Advertiser... 

Asked if he could support gay marriage in light of Sir Elton's civil union, Mr Howard said: "I would be opposed to it.

"I think marriage is for men and women.

"That's why we amended the Marriage Act (in August 2004)."

Mr Howard said he did not intend to show hostility or discrimination towards gay people.

"But I believe very strongly that marriage is exclusively a union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others," he said.

"That's the common understanding of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and I would be opposed to the recognition of civil unions."

And I thought The Liberal Party believed in:

"lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives and equal opportunity for all Australians"

Apparently those beliefs don't extend as far as to who homosexual people share their life with. I think Greg Barns put it well last year when he wrote:  

One key area of discrimination that remains in Australia is in relation to the institution of marriage. Some might argue that marriage is less relevant in 21st-century Australia. But the state does not think so. As University of Capetown philosopher David Benatar has noted, “A marriage recognised by the State provides an opportunity for those who make … commitments and investments to formalise them in a way that facilitates the protection of the parties to the marriage. Where no provision is made for same-sex marriages, homosexuals (both male and female) are denied such benefits.”

The liberals in John Howard’s Liberal Party have another chance to make a stand for the values for which their Party once stood – tolerance and equality. Australia’s gay community deserves their support because there is no legitimate reason to deny their right to be treated as equal citizens.

As far as I'm concerned, this issue is just one of many that convinces me that Australia needs a brand new political party for the 21st century. A party that is modern, relevant, and that understands contemporary thinking about such issues and isn't wedded to inane and archaic Judeo-Christian principles.

 

Comments

[Phillip Molly Malone]

Until your Robot masters take power (was that 2010 or 2020 your bet), politics and political decisions are always going to be based on human beliefs and as such issues like this are going to be done on the politians beliefs.

Can I ask a question to improve my knowledge (this isn't to put people down or anything like that (please don't read this into it))? Do gay and Lesbian couples want to be "married" (i.e. the actual term married) or would they be happy that their bond and their rights are accepted in some other named committment that was similar to "marriage"?

The reason I ask is that I would believe (and I could be wrong) that a lot of people that are against same sex "Marriage" are more against the use of the term Marriage then they are against the idea of two people of the same sex committing to bond and getting the benefits and rights that a Married couple get.

JMTC
Molly

[Rob Irwin]

I'm not sure an all-new party would cut it, Cam. Politcians are pretty savvy people - they tend to go with what they feel the public wants. Gay rights have come a long way in the past 50 years and I think once it's clear how far the tide has turned on the marriage issue (and, to be honest, I don't think it HAS turned out there in the wider community), the politicians will suddenly be singing another tune. But it won't be Howard, maybe his successor. But, in spite of the UK example, we're still a little way off it, yet.

[Cameron Reilly]

Molly - I suspect gay and lesbian people are like straight people - some want to get married, some don't. Unfortunately at the moment in Australia, they don't have the same choices. And the "robot masters" will take control somewhere between 2030 and 2040.

Rob - are you suggesting that it's okay for politicians to make decisions that deny the individual rights of minorities because it's what the majority want?

[Bernard Gusset]

I came across your blog by chance. This issue of gay marriage is intriguing. Much was made in the UK press of David Furnish wearing Elton John's ring at a civil ceremony recently and it was bound to enflame the "flog 'em and hang 'em" lobby who, like Matthew Hopkins (The Witchfinder General), are ready to castigate anyone who doesn't conform to their values of morality. It's like only they have the answers. What they seem to fear is the rash of heretosexuals suddenly turning gay, like there was some contagion involved. Or is it that they just can't get their heads around the difference between types and individuals. "There ought to be a law against it!" Link this to the Intelligent Design debate over evolution and you might well wonder if it was all part of God's great plan to make the John Howards of this world self destruct in a blaze of self righteous indignation. Why God should do that only he knows but then he is the almighty and a law unto himself. Heck if he wanted he could turn us all hetero' ..... or come to that, gay! Of course you have to believe in all that in the first place which I'm afraid I don't. As for intelligent design, well if there was such a thing, how come there's a G Dubbya Bush. It doesn't appear very intelligent to me. No it seems to me there has to be more to worry about than the issue of whether or not gay people get hitched. I'm just looking forward to the first gay divorce to hit the spread sheets, especially if it's Elton and Furnish. The settlement will be well worth a a copper or two lavished on a fish and chip wrapper!

[Rob Irwin]

Cam, I neither agreed or disagreed with it... I simply said it's what they do.

[Scott Sherman]

This is so easy to understand -- most gay people want the same rights as straight people. Why wouldn't we? If you were gay, wouldn't you?

Marriage exists in most countries as both a civil and religious institution. It is civil marriage, with its hundreds of associated rights and responsibilities, that we seek. Religious institutions would be free to happily discriminate if they believe it would bring them closer to heaven.

In countries where there is a distinction between civil and religious law (Australia vs Iran, lets say), what's the problem with letting same sex couples marry? Here in the US, the Constitution grants equality for all. My partner of thirteen years and I are supposedly full citizens, paying our taxes and raising two children. Why do we have fewer legal rights than two strangers who met fifteen minutes ago and get hitched in a Las Vegas quickie?

Here's one of the the questions that keeps me up at night - why are some people so determined to keep rights away from other people? What is it that drives some people to so vehemently protest gay marriage, or reproductive choice, or freedom from religion? I understand following your own beliefs, but what's with this obsession to force your superstitions on other people?

Here in America, there's this insane controversy being sponsored by some right-wingers about a supposed "War on Christmas." They're actually boycotting stores with signs that say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas." WHY MUST THEIR RELIGION BE FORCED DOWN MY THROAT? And why must their prejudices be written into law?

But the good news is that the world only spins forward. Here in the US at least, there has never been a civil rights movement that didn't, for the most part, eventually succeed. Women can vote, African Americans can ride in the front of the bus, and the races can inter-marry. Someday, we too shall be free.

OK, I feel better now. Happy Holidays, all!

[Tony]

Great post Scott.

I am not married or have a g/f or b/f but I hope when the time comes and I find the person I want to spend my life with I am not hampered by some religious or political bliefs such as whether the person is same sex or the wrong religion or race.

I have said in other posts that I think religion has too much political power around the world. Some countries have religion fist and everything else after and that is fair enough for them, but for countries like Australia and even the USA who are supposedly more free to make decisions that some religions still influenece on decisions politicians make is just wrong. I have no problems being of a certain religion ut decisions shouldn't be made on that religion and how best it suits the religion but on how it best suits the majority of the people.

I am not too fussed if someone wants to say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays to me but to say I have to say one or the other is wrong. I am not offended by either greeting or if a Jewish person greeted me with Happy Chanukkah as that is what they believe and I respect that. But when I am told I can't say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays, it is one or the other then that is when it becomes a problem.

Now back to the original post John Howard is a clown and from the old school when being homo-sexual was like having a disease. The sonr he pulls his head out and ses the world for what it really is the more sure his political future will be. I dont think he has much of one left in any case but if you keep putting peole from minority groups off-side with your political opinions, a amall group becomes a lot of small groups and then you reach a certain mass that tips the scales and you wonder where your votes went. Howard better beware. Although if he loses next election he will just retire.

[Rob Irwin]

Nope, you blokes are totally wrong.

Not about gay marriage, I hasten to add, but about why the politicians do this.

They do it, like I said, because the majority of the population is still against gay marriage. I know this seems inconceivable for people who live in, say, inner-city areas and all their friends think it's a fab idea, etc, but Australia is much, much, much bigger than that.

Howard is a savvy enough political animal to do what it takes to stay in power. And I am sure he takes this stance because it jives with the majority of the community. You do him a disservice to say he's taking a purely ideological stance here, Tony.

[Tony]

Look at the quotes Cam posted in the original post

"That's the common understanding of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and I would be opposed to the recognition of civil unions."

I do him a disservice how?

You maybe right by saying that the majority of Australia maybe against it, but the majority of the country also live in the cities where homo-sexuality is becoming more of a norm and not the taboo topic it has been. I still can't see why if 2 people love each other they shouldn't be allowed to be married. It is all about religion and that's it.

[Rob Irwin]

Tony, I didn't say you were wrong about it being a good idea, etc. I said that politicians don't go for it because the majority of the electorate don't go for it.

Now, that could well be religion-driven (although that could be a weird thing to prove, given the general decline in interest in religion... but I digress...), but you were taking the view that Howard opposes it on purely religious grounds.

What I'm saying is that if the majority of the community really wanted it, and it became a genuinely big issue, you'd see him sing a different tune. I'm sure of it.

[Cameron Reilly]

well let's MAKE IT a big issue. Actually, let's make DOING THE RIGHT THING, NOT WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS a big issue for our politicians. Let's holler from our podcasts and our blogs. Let's make some noise.

[Tony]

I might do that Cam if I had a podcast and a blog people visited instead one I do just to amuse myself. Your right though more people have bring it out into the open and somehow reach the masses.

[Rob Irwin]

The question is... what would you say? Does the general public need to know that gay people exist? No. Does it need to know that gay people would like to marry? I wouldn't think so, given the coverage it's received in the past 5 years or so.

So I'm really curious - how will the problem be tackled?

[Cameron]

Rob - that's a good question for a group of smarter people than I to discuss. What I want to understand first is - if you're right, and most Australians already know that some gay people want to have the right to marry, and if you're also right that the majority of the population is still against gay marriage - why are they against it? That's the first thing to figure out. Any ideas?

[Tony]

According to the letters page in todays Daily Telegraph it still comes down to religion. Some said they don't have any issue of homosexuals being married, as long as its not called marriage. Marriage is a religious bonding for the creation of children or some balderdash. They suggested calling it a pairing or joining or something equally stupid.

I am still convinced Howard made his comments on religous grounds and not for the majority. Why would the majority care if 2 homosexuals are married. Can you look at a couple and say yes they are married if they aren't wearing wedding rings, if not how would you be able to tell if 2 guys or 2 women are married? You wouldn't. Unless they came out and did it publicly, like Elton John did, you wouldn't know.

This is all about religion and the sooner things change the better.