Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Avani Terraces - Greenway
Life is looking up

Gay Marriage snafu – Stanhope bonehead thesis confirmed

By johnboy - 8 December 2007 17

The Canberra Times informs us that the Rudd Government has put the kibosh on the ACT’s planned civil union legislation.

“It’s quite clear the assurances given yesterday are not as clearcut as they first appeared,” Mr Corbell said.

Neither Mr Corbell nor Mr McClelland would publicly outline the sticking points of their meeting, but it is understood federal Labor does not condone the ACT legislation because it too closely mimics the act of marriage.

The first of a great many disappointments to come for St Kevin the Progressive’s true believers.

But I’d like you to cast your mind back to midweek when caf analysed Stanhopian utterances and determined the deal had been sealed.

Of course any analysis assuming to competence, intelligence, or even sanity of our elected leaders should be viewed as suspect. But I’d been out of town for a while and had forgotten how bad it is.

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
17 Responses to
Gay Marriage snafu – Stanhope bonehead thesis confirmed
Deadmandrinking 5:10 pm 10 Dec 07

Maelinar – I was never under any illusions that Rudd would be no more than Howard Lite. Nor were alot of Green voters whose preferences helped win the election.

However, what I was mainly concerned about was the Kyoto Protocol and Workchoices. The first he’s already ratified, the second he’s going to (better bloody) get around to.

Wrong light bulb.

Sands 2:28 pm 10 Dec 07

Did anyone bother to find out what Rudd’s position was on the whole gay marriage thing before manically wearing their Kevin07 shirts? He conspicuously avoided ALL questions on the topic when asked so it was pretty clear he didn’t want to rock the boat before being elected…. Can’t really be too disappointed in something he never promised. I LOVE this “millionaire preppy jesus boy”. Priceless.

Mælinar 12:44 pm 10 Dec 07

light switch goes on.

caf 11:43 am 10 Dec 07

Mmm, looks like I was wrong, and humiliating backdowns ARE the order of the day.

Having thought about this a bit more over the weekend though, I’m not sure that it’s really possible to do away with ceremonies anyway – even with the registration-only model, wouldn’t people just hold their own ceremonies and sign the registration-application-document at the ceremony? A bit like a marriage license…

johnboy 10:58 am 10 Dec 07

johnboy i am truly afraid your commentary on rudd’s role in this issue might be spot on as in it’s the first in many disappointments. i bought both myself and my dad a kevin07 shirt in the leadup to the election and my feeling over the last few days has been gutted to say the least.

“Put not your trust in princes” Toriness!

Or as Deb Foskey wisely observed, It doesn’t matter who you vote for, you get a Government.

chester 10:57 am 10 Dec 07

“god, don’t we want our politicians to aspire to great reforms/improvements where needed in any and all policy areas? “

Sure, provided they’re not an outright pr!ck.

And a bonehead to boot.

toriness 10:01 am 10 Dec 07

thumper, essentially registration is considered a ‘lesser’ model than civil unions/partnerships. yes couples will still get legal recognition from the registration model – but in terms of true social equality it really doesn’t cut it. i register my car and dog. i don’t want to register my life partner. similar countries with similar legal systems to ours (UK, Canada and NZ) have civil unions/partnership schemes to elevate the status and recognition of the civil union to an appropriate level. there is no reason why we shouldn’t have the same in australia. i don’t see why stanhope should be criticised for pushing this issue – god, don’t we want our politicians to aspire to great reforms/improvements where needed in any and all policy areas? it’s exactly why we should elect people to such positions.

johnboy i am truly afraid your commentary on rudd’s role in this issue might be spot on as in it’s the first in many disappointments. i bought both myself and my dad a kevin07 shirt in the leadup to the election and my feeling over the last few days has been gutted to say the least.

Mælinar 8:46 am 10 Dec 07

Did somebody think that the ‘me too’ meant something other than Rudd wasn’t so similar to Howard that naturally his policies would fall in line ?

Jess, kind of reeks of what I was saying a few weeks ago though doesn’t it re: churches/religion and the term ‘marriage’ ?

If’n they had come up with their own word for it…

Thumper 8:27 am 10 Dec 07

Interesting that the anti Howrds letter writers union of the Canberra Times were all out in force on the weekend praising Rudd for his great vision and compassion whilst continuing to attack Howard for his stance.

Well, the millionaire preppy jesus boy has thrown his cards on the table, and those cards appear to be no different than Howards were.

Can someone tell me why this government refuses to adopt the Tasmanian position? Is the Tassie position unpalatable or unworkable? Or does Stanhope just want to push it further so that he can be seen, in later years, as the great social reformer?

simbo 9:57 pm 09 Dec 07

Well, we’re just getting the New Labour sensation about a decade later. Suddenly all the old lefties are realising that they can’t get everything they want with the current mob, but the other mob is even less likely to offer them anything. So it’s a choice between empty platitudes and absolutely nothing…

Deadmandrinking 3:49 pm 08 Dec 07

I’m disappointed with Rudd.

I hardly think the liberals would have done better, though.

Pandy 2:34 pm 08 Dec 07

I TOLD YOU SO!!!!!!!

(They never listen to me when I tell ’em about the rabbit, with the big teeth.)

johnboy 2:17 pm 08 Dec 07

he’s a bonehead for his incompetent approach to negotiation which owes more to headlines than outcomes.

As for NSW Simbo I missed that election. But Paul Green is now the CDP golden child and rails against sinful couples living together out of wedlock.

boomacat 2:08 pm 08 Dec 07

I don’t see how you can describe Stanhope as a “bonehead” for trying to provide all citizens equality before the law – long assumed as one of the most fundamental human rights.

Would we tolerate a law prohibiting black people, asian people or fat people from getting married?

Really, same sex marriage is an inevitability and I’ll believe Rudd’s position on same sex marriage when I see it, his christian beliefs I understand are widely misinterpreted.

simbo 1:08 pm 08 Dec 07

I believe, from further reading, that the preferred approach is that ACT labour adopts the Tasmanian approach, which is basically a relationship register.

From the undercurrent of the press releases, my understanding is that Corbell may have been told “look, pick the least embarassing course of action and shut up, or else we’ll send the factional dragons in to roast you”.

Of course, it’s still enough for Fred Nile to say that Canberra’s always been a Gamorrah (after all, we sell porn) but this is somehow, super Gammorrah-ish, and no tourists should visit here for fear that they will be turned into a pillar of salt or something.

Actually, as a NSW voter, you’d be able to tell us, JB – did Fred run for the Senate in NSW again this year?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site