A burst of illogic from Julia Gillard


When asked to defend her opposition to marriage equality, this was the best the Australian PM could do:

Prime Minister Gillard drew on her own relationship to defend her opposition to same-sex marriage on ABC TV last night.

Ms Gillard is not married to her long-term partner Tim Mathieson, but said that didn’t mean they weren’t in a committed relationship.

“I think you can have a relationship of love and commitment and trust and understanding that doesn’t need a marriage certificate associated with it,” Ms Gillard told Q&A.

I see. So, since we know that straight people can have loving relationships without a marriage certificate, that means we don’t need legal recognition of straight marriages. Makes sense, right?

Wait, you mean that wasn’t what she was saying? She was actually arguing against recognizing gay marriages? And this is just another disingenuous argument selectively applied to gay people?

No way.

Comments

  1. says

    I actually had a thought about that on Tuesday morning. I think what she said makes perfect sense if she secretly thinks that no one should be married.

    I think there’s a school of feminist thought that marriage is an antiquated misogynistic institution that cannot be reformed and must be abolished. If, hypothetically, she belonged to that school of thought, she would probably be smart enough not to say so out loud, but would be quite interested in preventing the spread of marriage to more people.

    Of course, the problem with this hypothesis is that the existence of gay marriage is the proof that marriage can be reformed.

    • Josh says

      Hmm, colour me unconvinced. Apart from the fact that viewing marriage as inherently misogynistic is untenable (historically, it often has been, but presently?)… How can a marriage between two men, or between two women, be misogynistic?

      If Gillard is personally opposed to marriage, that’s fine. If she doesn’t want to get married, that’s a valid choice. The crux of the issue is that, as a straight person, she has that choice available to her; same-sex couples don’t. To deny others the option to get marriage just because it doesn’t interest you is not only illogical, but demonstrates an astounding lack of empathy.

      It’s a shame, Gillard was doing fairly well on Q&A, right up until the point that this tripe dribbled out the side of her mouth.

  2. Hazelwood says

    Gillard’s stance on marriage equality makes no sense at all. She’s an atheist and in a non-marriage but marriage-like relationship so I honestly cannot believe that she is actually opposed.

    I can only assume it was a price she paid for the support of the highly influential and highly religious behind the scenes operators of the Labor party.

    • StevoR says

      That seems like the only logical explanation.

      Summary for those non-Aussies / non-followers of this situation :

      The Australian Greens party has put forward a bill for equal marriage and Julia’s party – the governing centre left ALP – is allowing its members a conscience vote. Lots of Catholics historically and presently in the ALP so probably why they’re not coming out in full support of equal marriage for all regardless of sexual orientation.

      The Liberal-National coalition led by catholic fundamentalist, Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) Denier and all round drongo Tony Abbott is opposed and NOT allowing itsmembers a conscience vote – sadly given some liberals such as formerleader Malcolm Turnbull are in favour of ending marriage discrimination.

      The parliament is evenly balanced witha number of minor party and independents of varying political hues from left wing and Greens to fairly right-wing nationalist independents and an expelled ALP member charged with misuing union money Craig Thompson.

      It’s unlikely the equal marriage bill will pass without a number of Liberal members crossing the floor.

      Despite the fact that a majority of Australians now support ending marriage discrimination based on sexual orientation. So near, so frustrating, so just pathetic really.

      • StevoR says

        PS. Oh in Oz “Liberal” = our conservative party!

        Which I gather is confusing as it has sort of the opposite meaning and indeed has, weirdly, become a derogative label over in the United States.

        • says

          Nah, toilets flush the other way there; therefore, it makes sense that your liberals would be like our conservatives. Does that mean your straight people are like our gay people, too? Because that would make this story way more awesome.

  3. says

    *sigh*

    The biggest problem here is that Gillard is the leader of the party most likely to introduce gay marriage in Australia. It seems so tantalisingly close, and yet there it isn’t.

    Unfortunately, Gillard is also running a minority government with the support of a couple of independents, and her leadership is constantly being undermined when not outright challenged. She can’t afford to lose the support of a whole faction of her own party, ie, the ludicrously powerful catholic right wing.

  4. Aliasalpha says

    Ahh julia has truly lived up to the potential I foresaw in her when she first took over. Finally we have proof in action that an australian female prime minister can be every bit the spineless, self-interested, arse covering, worthless waste of energy that the male prime ministers have been.

    Does it still technically count as a victory for equality if everything is equally bad?

  5. azzod56 says

    You lib’s are so frigin mentally challenged. I mean come on you all need to get over the contradiction of “marriage equality”. You people just want gays to think that same sex partners can get married so that they can have some sort of peace of mind. The fact of the matter is that the government should never have gotten involved with marriage, because now the conservatives (people who are smarter than people like Zinnia) are forced to suppress the stupidity of the liberals by outlawing same sex marriage.

          • azzod56 says

            I believe I implied that it is pathetic that she does so constantly. Anyone with half a brain let alone a full one knows what I am talking about.

          • Hazelwood says

            So let me see if I can bring my half brain to bear on your point. You are suggesting that because she once replied to you within 5 minutes to a post, she monitors her blog 24/7 and is thusly pathetic and without true purpose in life.

            You’re right, I sure can’t argue with that.

  6. azzod56 says

    This is ridiculous. Anyone with half a brain knows that same sex marriage is counterfeit marriage. Same sex marriage is a fraudulent idea designed to keep homosexuals from feeling bad. Just leave marriage up to the church. Because the church knows what the government does not.

    • Yoritomo says

      Let’s assume that’s true and gay marriage is indeed designed to keep homosexual people from feeling bad. Are you saying that by opposing marriage equality you want people to feel bad? That’s surprisingly honest, and rather despicable.

      • azzod56 says

        No no it’s truth and honesty crazy! This is what the left always does is just try and make everything politically correct. It’s really sad.

        • Joshua says

          You do realize that you are on a fairly far left blogsite full of godless heathens who don’t give two shits about your religion and what the church thinks about marriage, right?

          • azzod56 says

            Well Joshua I’ll tell you what I care about, and that’s the abomination on the human race which is homosexuality. You don’t have to be religious to understand that sir.

  7. azzod56 says

    This blog of yours is literally a joke. You cant make one single valid argument. So you just make ridiculous claims. Shame on you miss. How dare you advocate the disgusting behavior of the liberals and homosexuals.

  8. azzod56 says

    You see Mrs. Jones is doing what all of the lefties do which is make arguments based around emotions. There is really no reason to approve this same sex marriage business. It had no value to society.

    • Gabriel says

      you’re clearly damaged goods. no one is listening to your mad nonsensical ravings. Go try be productive, build a bird house or something.

  9. says

    Oh my goodness, I am in tears here! Obvious troll is *ever* obvious.

    You see Mrs. Jones is doing what all of the lefties do which is make arguments based around emotions.

    How dare you advocate the disgusting behavior of the liberals and homosexuals.

    Disgust is an emotion. And although obvious troll has declared that “You see the lib’s don’t really wanna have a discussion because that would force them to think”, it is ever so apparent that only obvious troll is incapable of argument. Insults and misdirection, not an actual reason.

    Alas, earwax.

    Anyway, I think Gillard is doing the political dance here. Either she’s against gay marriage and she doesn’t want to offend her party, or she’s for gay marriage and doesn’t want to hurt her coalition.

    • azzod56 says

      Let me educate you. Marriage started out between men and women. Now homosexuals want the same benefits because if they don’t then they’ll have hurt feelings. Too bad I don’t care about homos

      • Joshua says

        why don’t we just direct this guy over to pz, I am sure he will be made mince meat of once he is fed to the leviathan he keeps in his dungeon, haha.

  10. StevoR says

    Watched that Q&A with Julia Gillard the other night. Yeah, it’s bafflingand so disappointing.

    In many ways Julia Gillard is so good but on this issue its just painful to see her floundering around spouting such stupid, heartless things. :-(

    • StevoR says

      Penny Wong – awesome human being and politican. One of our best.

      She and her de facto wife have a child together too.

      Therre’s been afew great moments – both questions and answers – on this issue on Q&A too. That was certainly one of them.

    • StevoR says

      Penny Wong – awesome human being and politican. One of our best.

      She and her de facto wife have a child together too.

      There’s been a few great moments – both questions and answers – on this issue on Q&A too. That was certainly one of them.

  11. says

    Sigh. If she and her significant other broke up, the courts could be used to help them divide up community property, decide on visitation rights for any children, and on and on and on and on and on.

    It’s not the goddamn ceremony. It’s the legal rights.

    • eNeMeE says

      But, but, think of the children!

      …not the actual children who would be helped by having legal statutes and rights in place but those imaginary ones who turn into ravening dinosaur riding Nazis in rivers of blood. Think of those children!

    • says

      Actually, all of that legal stuff is already taken care of. Australia provides that kind of legal protection to de facto relationships and allows same sex couples to be de facto.

      I agree that same sex marriage should happen, but the reason is about recognition of equal value to society – not that legal stuff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>