A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
ACT gay registration: keeping queers out of the pound
|
Smart politics. Robert McClelland’s done good. Things looked a bit ropey last week. No sooner had he announced the removal of same-s-x discrimination then it got drowned out by the stink over the ACT’s civil unions bill. But yesterday he managed to force the ACT Government into backing down on its civil union bill. Good stuff mate. Very smart work. OK, so the Prime Minister’s stated position was that such matters were for the states and territories themselves. And the ACT, which pays far more in tax than it gets back from the Commonwealth, and is self-governing in every other way, shouldn’t be under the thumb of the Federal Government like that. And, yeah, Labor voted for the ACT bill when Howard overturned it the first time. But you gotta understand, the responsibility of office brings a better, a more strategic perspective. So McClelland made it clear to the ACT’s “Attorney-General” (like that Toytown needs an “Attorney-General”!) that the bill would be overturned again unless it reverted to a registration scheme for same-s-x couples. So Simon Corbell backed down. Smart politics. I mean, come on, everyone’s a winner. The queers get their relationships recognised. The ACT gets a bill through that won’t be knocked back. The conservatives don’t get frightened by the end of the world that would be caused by gay marriage. And the Rudd Government – and particularly its gay and bi members – no longer get embarrassed by the lefty pissants who run Canberra. Smart politics. Sure, Toytown Labor might have had a long-standing policy on the matter, but let’s face it, the place is chockers with public servants who wouldn’t work in an iron lung, and what are they going to do if the Feds overturned their legislation anyway? Vote Liberal? They all got a little cosy with the last mob, anyway. F-ck ‘em. That’ll teach them to show up a Labor Government. They think they can live in their own little socialist paradise. But this is Australia, not Scandinf-ckinavia. As for our gay and lesbian friends, OK, so “registration” sounds like what you do with your pets, but too bad. I mean, no sooner does the Government announce the removal of discrimination than they’re demanding gay marriage. Geez. Talk about moving the goalposts. And where are they going to go? Let’s see them try their luck with the Greens. Their votes will filter back to the major parties anyway. That’s the beauty of preferential voting. Anyway, gays are about the only community group that Brendan Nelson’s heart won’t publicly bleed for. I mean, don’t get me wrong, who cares what they do in the privacy of their own homes? It’s no one else’s business. But this Government’s not about to go frightening the horses. Keating tried all that touchy-feely bullsh-t and look what happened to him. His head still has the dent from where the baseball bat hit him. Kruddy’s cleverer than that. Much cleverer. Smart politics. |
|
|
11 Comments
Well written Bernard. Smart Politics indeed. Not sure why you can’t say what is really meant by that statement however; Smart Politics = For the majority.
I totally agree. My point was simply that the assorted bible thumpers and foamers at the mouth continually exhort the government to govern for the majority rather than a tiny minority. It seems to me that the constituencies are a bit more balanced than that on the pro- and anti- marriage sides.
To make my own position clear, I think it is absurd to have the state mediating access to an ecclesiastical rite. Given equality before the law, I am quite happy not to have anything to do with the institution of matrimony and, were I to do so, it would certainly not involve any religious overtones. I know many defacto straight couples who have felt this way for many years.
I’m intrigued by Connor and Jock’s perspectives. Connor has declared his atheism in previous postings but insists that he’s part of the majority who would oppose same sex marriage. Jock says that the religious are calling the shots! Are they both living in Australia?
Human nature is not a function of majority opinion. If tomorrow, the majority argue that Jews are sub human, we sense the majority would be wrong. There are truths/principles/ facts, call them what you will, that are universal and unchangeable. That is the foundation of the idea of “Universal Human Rights” and the foundation of the oft maligned concept of Natural Law, a law inscribed in our nature. Neither ”might’ nor ‘majority’ makes some things right!
Andrew, if you asked for the percentage that “supported, or were not opposed to” the figures would be even higher. We don’t have a “Moral Majority” here, we have a passive majority. Most of us just really don’t care about it.
JJ, Yes, living in Australia. Strange place lately. Lots of minorities that think the majority ought to “bend” for them, even though we don’t interfere with their lifestyle “choices”, and have recently conceded the fixing of the more glaring inequalities. BUT THEY WANT MORE! The current crop of politicians, sniffing the mood of the majority (religious or not), have chosen to stop with the current changes.
Not to inject factoids into this abstract debate- but when actually asked apparantly 71% of people support equality for gay couples and 57% agree with their right to marry. So, this would appear to be the majority. (Getup figures).
I suppose there are two points that strike me about Connor and Jock’s responses. These debates are often characterised by the apologists for homosexual practice ( Jock’s position is a good example ) as between religious and secular, between those guided by faith and those guided by reason. But here you have two people, both repudiating any religious influence, who have come to diametrically opposed conclusions. More especially, Connor, a non believer, and myself, a believer, agree. So the religion vs secular paradigm is insufficent to explain how we have each arrived at our positions. The same applies to all the debates in the public square.
The other point that strikes me is more a question than an observation. Connor, have you arrived at your position simply because you want to be with the “majority’ or because you think there something inherently “wrong” with homosexual practice?
If in ten years time you found yourself in the minority would you change your view?
It seems that Rudd is only prepared to accept ‘practical’ equality for gays and lesbians (which in practice falls short of full equality in a number of respects). The gay and lesbian communities may have to wait until Rudd (aka Howard lite) departs for equality in relationship recognition just as the First Australians had to wait for Howard to go before there was an apology.
Smart or not, it still shits me that religious groups influence policy in a secular nation
I can only think that it is religious groups influencing the PM here as the federal government is happy to support equality in all areas except for gay marriage, an area where religious conservatives are very vocal. KRudd was very keen to advertise that he was practicing Catholic during the election to win some conservative vote, is this move not to alienate those voters and their lobby groups?
I live in Canberra and work for a private company. As a resident in the ACT I was hoping that the ACT government would’ve been allowed to put through their new laws so that 6 months down the track we could show the rest of Australia that society hasn’t fallen apart .