NOM BLOG

Australian Opposition Leader Will Fight To Protect Marriage

 

Catholic Culture World News:

The leader of Australia's parliamentary opposition has indicated that he will rally opposition to an effort to approve legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Tony Abbott brushed aside demands for a "conscience vote," which would free voting representatives from party discipline, when the proposal is introduced next year. He said that the opposition would unite against the measure, promising that "there will be a strong majority support for the traditional position."

9 Comments

  1. Posted December 9, 2011 at 5:04 pm | Permalink

    Stand up for Marriage!

  2. Posted December 10, 2011 at 5:50 am | Permalink

    He has more seats in the Australian Parliament than the ruling Labor party.

    The Ruling Labor party has gained power by their alliance with an ultra Leftist party 'The Greens'. They say that the Greens leader 'Mr Brown' who is gay, is in fact the real prime minister of Australia. As whatever he says.

    Need I say, the general feeling in Australia right now is, both the Greens and Labor are finished. In the next Election, the Liberal party (Whom Mr Abbott leads) is sure to win Government in their own right.

    There is little chance of SSM happening here in Australia any time soon.

  3. John Noe
    Posted December 10, 2011 at 11:20 pm | Permalink

    NIMBR that is good news. I hope it all works out in the land down under and that SSM does not come there like it came to New Zealand.

  4. Posted December 10, 2011 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    I do not object to Civil Unions for Gays, with all the Civil equality...

    ...BUT.....

    .....The word Marraige is sacret. and it means something

    ++It means an important cultural ceromony
    ++A cultural ceremony that means 'unionship of one man and one woman'
    ++While I am an Athiest myself, I respect the views of the main stream Churches and other faiths of whom also object to 'Marriage Corruption'.

    You do not need to believe in god, to believe that Gay Marriage, is a corruption of a very sacret word, and its very sacret definition.

  5. Ash
    Posted December 12, 2011 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    NIMBR, good points. Likewise, a person doesn't have to believe in God to know that ssm is totally irrational; it makes no sense whatsoever.

  6. Lefty
    Posted December 12, 2011 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    @NIMBR

    According to the writeup at WSWS, the ALP platform change was a sop to the identity-politics crowd; the concurrent decision to permit a conscience vote in Parliament essentially dooms gay marriage for the foreseeable future.

    This may have seemed like clever maneuvering to some, but I think that the Labor Party will have damaged its standing with working class Australians for nothing.

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/dec2011/marr-d08.shtml

  7. Pat
    Posted December 12, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    NIMBR:
    All members of the culture should have access to an "important cultural ceremony".
    And allowing same-sex marriages to be legally recognized has no impact AT ALL on those churches who do not perform them anyway. Refusing to recognize them hinders those that do.
    Banning something can NEVER amount to freedom of any kind (I'd make a comparison to something equally obvious, but I can't think of one).

    Your arguments demand marriage equality, even though you have a different conclusion. It's like watching somebody say "If I add 1 to 2, I'd have 3, THEREFORE 1+2 = pistachio."
    Except, of course, that pistachios are not the opposite of the number 3, so it's a *little* different.

  8. Daughter of Eve
    Posted December 12, 2011 at 2:06 pm | Permalink

    Pat said, "All members of the culture should have access to an "important cultural ceremony".
    And allowing same-sex marriages to be legally recognized has no impact AT ALL on those churches who do not perform them anyway. Refusing to recognize them hinders those that do.
    Banning something can NEVER amount to freedom of any kind (I'd make a comparison to something equally obvious, but I can't think of one)."

    A challenge for Pat:
    "The challenge to [Pat] (and other SSMers who might throw him/her a lifeline) is to state the essential feature(s) of SSM idea such that it fits the twosome but not the more-some."

    Go for it Pat! :)

  9. Mikhail
    Posted December 18, 2011 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    I have a cousin who lives in Adelaide, Australia and he thinks the gay agenda is quite strong there. What Oz needs to do is get schools to teach abstinence only education so kids who think they are gay will be encouraged to remain chaste. That way their numbers will go down and they will be politically powerless. Unfortunately if you say anything like that they will call you a bigot and a hater. I would rather be a "hater" in heaven than a liberal in hell