That labour governments for you, her comments about same sex marriage is the same as the last British lab government, why are you so surprised? Labour govts are pretty homophobic you know and don’t regard us as equals – Tony Abbot followyour counterpart in the UK, stop naff labour policies..as for gay issues , like the UK the Australians are no better of under a tory type party or labour
Yeah dude thats labour governments for you [sic] i guess i must have imagined all this stuff then:
“In government Labour:
* achieved an equal age of consent;
* ended the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces;
* ended discrimination against Lesbian & Gay partners for immigration purposes;
* given LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children;
* scrapped the homophobic Section 28 (Clause 2a in Scotland);
* become a signatory of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which gave the EU powers to end discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation;
* banned discrimination in the workplace and in vocational training with the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations;
* created the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) which gives LGBT people statutory body protection;
* included homophobia in the definition of hate crimes;
* increased sentencing for homophobic hate crimes;
* removed outdated offences such as gross indecency and buggery;
* produced and implemented the Gender Recognition Act, allowing Trans people to have their true gender recognised in law;
* created the Civil Partnerships, allowing LGB people to have their loving relationships recognised by law and have the same benefits as married couples;
* outlawed discrimination in good and services (with no exceptions);
* launched a campaign in the UN for the Decriminalisation of Homosexuality focusing on the nine countries where it is still punishable by death;
* awarded statutory rights for fertility treatment for Lesbians on the NHS.
* introduced the Equality Act”
John you can not compare the former outright homophobic Howard conservative government to this Labor one.
Howards government was just outright homophobic.
Rudd’s government had some homophobic policies around marriage.
She has to be an improvement on Rudd so far as gays are concerned, he seemed so servile to the extremist religious lobbies, possibly to the pope too. Good on Oz for getting a female PM finally. She can’t have strong religious views on marriage as she is living in sin with a fella. I wonder how that sits with the Happy Clappies of Hillsong et al.
@2 Tommy – Labour may have been the national government in power but I think much of your list is because our masters in Brussels told us to do it.
Anyway – Ms Gillard is from Barry Island in South Wales so I think she and her family are probably a bit common.
- Achieved an equal age of consent: As a consequence of the European Convention of Human Rights and EU non-discrimination directives.
- Ended the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces: As a result of losing a case in the European Court of Human Rights which they fought and lost.
-Ended discrimination against Lesbian & Gay partners for immigration purposes: I’m not sure about this but if true, a positive measure.
- Given LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children: A positive measure for which much credit is due.
- Scrapped the homophobic Section 28 (Clause 2a in Scotland). A positive measure for which much credit is due.
- Became a signatory of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which gave the EU powers to end discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. All but compulsory. This would have happened under any Government. Even Poland has signed up to this.
- Banned discrimination in the workplace and in vocational training with the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations: A requirement under an EU directive.
- Created the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) which gives LGBT people statutory body protection: Dreadful. This put in gay rights with rights of other minority ethnic groups – which clash with each other.
- Included homophobia in the definition of hate crimes: Perhaps this is good. Whether hate crime is a good is a matter for debate.
- Increased sentencing for homophobic hate crimes. This has no real effect in reality as real-world sentences are set by the Sentencing Guidelines Council which is independent.
- Removed outdated offences such as gross indecency and buggery: Yes – but these were defunct anyway.
- Produced and implemented the Gender Recognition Act, allowing Trans people to have their true gender recognised in law: After losing a case in the European Court of Human Rights.
- Created the Civil Partnerships, allowing LGB people to have their loving relationships recognised by law and have the same benefits as married couples: A positive measure for which much credit is due.
- Outlawed discrimination in good and services (with no exceptions): Except for religious organisations and, in any event, this was required by an EU directive.
- Launched a campaign in the UN for the Decriminalisation of Homosexuality focusing on the nine countries where it is still punishable by death: They may as well have whistled in the wind.
- Awarded statutory rights for fertility treatment for Lesbians on the NHS: A debatable right as opposed to the positive measure of gay adoption.
- Introduced the Equality Act: But failed to give it a date on which it would be implemented and which did no more than tidy up existing legislation and reverse one recent court decision.
vulpus_rex…………..watchout, your europhobia is showing. “Our masters in Brussels” are US. We elect our MEPs and we pay our bit. If we didn’t want to be in Europe why did we vote ourselves in. For the benefits, thats why.
Your last paragraph says more about you than it does about Ms Gillard. She may be “common” but you are ignorant…..which is the least derireable do you think?
@Ryan Thanks for that constructive comment. And we wonder why women have trouble getting far in politics; because often people’s first comment is about their appearance, not their policies.
@PinkNews Thanks for highlighting Gillard’s marriage views. We’ll be watching and hoping to see if she changes her mind should she face and win a future election.
The UK Labour gov’t was MUCH more pro-gay than the Oz gov’t under Rudd. Do I even have to mention that they pushed through the Civil Partnership Act – a federal law granting virtually all of the rights of marriage?
Obviously marriage is the ideal, but that’s a huge leap from just allowing states to recognize same-sex couples if they so choose. The Rudd gov’t was a dud on gay rights.
“…her reply failed to address the reason why same sex couples shouldn’t be entitled to get married….”
She didn’t answer because there’s no reason why we shouldn’t get married except prejudice.
In my opinion, she’s an improvement on Rudd, but why is she spouting that line about marriage being between a man and a woman? That sounds like a religion-based view to me.
Labour in the UK is not quite the same as Labour in Australia. I cant believe the ignorance in the debate about UK labours track record on LGBT rights.
Yes it is true that mant changes have come about as a result of EU Directives but we are part of Europe by choice.
Being an EU member requires countries to abide by those directives and if people are so blind to believe that all do so then you are kidding yourselves, particurly when it comes to LGBT rights (even down to being able to have a Gay Pride event).
When judging the last governments record on LGBT Equality perhaps we should consider how the conservatives voted on each piece of legislation. Apart from Civil partnerships the position was opposition particurly in the house of lords.
The Libs supported all the legislative changes but just because they have an alliance with the conservatives does not change what they did and what they are.
Both Labour and the current Liberal-Conservative coalition could run circles around any Australian government when it comes to LGBT rights.
The politics of Australia is much, much more in line with the United States than the United Kingdom. Which makes Australian Labour akin to the Democrats – and the Australian Liberal Party to the Republicans – rather than their British counterparts. I can’t imagine any Australian Prime Minister, from either major party, endorsing a federal civil partnership scheme anytime soon.
To say nothing of same-sex marriage itself.
In 2004, the Howard ministry introduced a ban on same-sex marriage based on America’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It passed the House of Representatives with near unanimity. The Australian Senate approved the measure by a similarly lopsided 45-5 vote. Conversely, 90% of MPs voting in favor of bigotry is almost unthinkable in 21st century Britain. The political environment is totally different.
Thankyou John, Comment 13. You are spot on. The only parties that voted against the ban on same-sex marriage in the Senate was the Greens and the Democrats (who no longer are represented) The Greens continue to bring forward bills to approve same-sex marriage but their 5 Senators are the only ones who vote for it. All the Labor Members who privately support it, vote against it because of party policy. That is why I can NEVER vote Labor! My partner and I are too old to move overseas to more progressive lands, but I think that young gay couples should consider it, because I dont think Australia will ever support marriage equality. I actually think my countrymen are sexist, racist, homophobic and whatever else you want to add to the list. The religious right have totally infiltrated the old political parties and without proportional representation in our House of Representatives , the Labor and Liberal parties continue and will dominate.
I know SO many women like Ms Gillard who espouse feminism but their political progression is ONLY for their own kind and that is heterosexual!
For me yesterday was just more of the same and another reason to wear black in mourning for our poor country.
No, Australia is not the land of sun and surf! It has a nastiness and meanness jsut below the surface of the continent. Just look how our indiginous people have and are still treated!
Us australian gays have a way better shot at marriage equality with Gillard than with Rudd. She only asserted the Labor party line in that interview because in australia, Labor MPs have to stick to the party line. But I believe she’s personally in favour of gay marriage and just couldn’t say so at the time for several reasons – she was a huge leftie in university, she’s had several partners, lives with a hairdresser boyfriend (NOT husband) and also isn’t religious. And even if she’s not in support, she’s more likely to allow a conscience vote on a bill introduced by the Greens in the Senate.
Lets face it she only got to be PM by the back door thru the right wing faction of the lab party – nothing will change under her! – being a woman is irrelevant – lab in Australia has the same view on gay marriage as the UK – ie it is between man and woman – inequality , they don’t recognise the British CP and they don’t allow joint immigration with your partner like married couples – Labour in both countries are VERY SIMILAR in that they both don’t agree in equality and bringing in gay marriage – stop crapping around and face the facts, labour perform VERY POORLY on this aspect! – the UK had a lab govt for 13 yrs and they still have no gay marriage, aus has had this miserable govt for 3 yrs, crap policies and hardly any improvements on gay rights.. The election is due in october , who knows if she will last longer than that …. their economic policies are as unpopular as the UKs previous lab govt’s were…Luckily they have no inheritance tax and after 2 yrs of living together you get a lot of financial etc benefits automtically whether you’re straight or gay so the issue for a lot of gays isn’t quite as urgent as most countries but Aus is a pretty homophic country with regards to gay marriage JUST LIKE the UK under lab and probably under the new coalition govt …
I am yet to hear a single rational, logical, and justifiable reason from anyone who is against same sex marriage as to why same sex couples should not be allowed to marry their partner!
Waiting for ALL the ‘gay Labor mafia’, with big paypackets, as public servants to come on here and made excuses for their OZ-CATHOLIC- LABOR- HOMOPHOBIC MASTERS?????
if shes not for gay marriage then shes worse than rudd. his religion made him a bigot, she made herself a bigot.
John, No. 1….Neither do the Tories support same-sex marriage, so both they and Labour on a level footing.
Tommy, No. 2….Actually, the Labour Party didn’t voluntarily introduce civil partnerships, it was forced to by the EU, so it really can’t take the credit for that, it just happened to be the party in power at the time it had to bring civil partnerships to fruition. Neither parties of successive governments have done anything major on a voluntary basis for gay people unless pushed, unlike the governments of 10 countries thus far.
No. 16, Paul Mitchell, not one politician in the UK and Australia can make a logical, rational argument for maintaining the ban on our right to a civil marriage. There’s absolutely no reason to uphold it. When they resort to the nonsensical one man one woman mantra, that’s nothing more than a convenient red herring to do nothing because deep down, they know they can’t come up with a simple response. Its all based on religious bigotry and hypocrisy anyway, as if religious cults own civil marriage. Preposterous! Not even our own StonewallUK can defend the ban with any degree of credibility or logic.
Australian Labor MPs voted overhwhelming FOR the total gay marriage/spousal rights ban proposed by the conservative Howard gov’t. That’s a fact. So don’t pretend that their homophobic record is mythical. Not all Labour parties, or Tory parties, or Liberal parties are the same. Save the knee-jerking for some other time.
Iris, No. 10. It IS religion based and the primary reason why both Labour ahd Tory parties in Australia and in the UK are so against same-sex marriage. They’re both afraid of a supposed backlash from the religious cults, but you know, that too is a canard. You only have to look at the 9 countries who’ve legalised it. Take Spain, Portugal and Belgium for instance, all three are catholic countries with a far more powerful cult than the C of E could ever imagine, yet look what they did, voluntarily I might add. Brussels virtually forced the UK to introduce CPs. NOt one EU member among the nine countries that legalised same-sex marriage were compelled to do it. We in the UK have successive regressive governments which believe the ban on marriage equality should remain aided and abetted by StonewallUK and their gay supporters, in spite of the fact that 61% of the British Public support civil marriage equality. This demonstrates a refusal by our government to carry out the wishes of the people. Cameron, Clegg, Brown and Blair are all a bunch of cowards. Clegg only bleated about support for marriage equality just to attract the gay vote. If Cameron had the strength of character and the courage, he wouldn’t have needed Clegg to form a government but would have won by a majority with the help of gay supporters who would have voted Labour or Liberal Democrat. Cameron is not that smart, doesn’t see the larger picture. Notice the silence of Clegg in all this?
No – that rights not all lab parties are the same but the comment about marriage being the sole rights of different sex partners and not same sex partners are EXACTLY the same attitudes of the Aus lab govr AND the previous British lab govt, both support inequality … and whatever they do and say will not make them any better for that sole reason!
As for the notion that British politicians don’t deserve any credit for civil partnerships, it is worth noting that Westminster could have simply ignored Brussels’ directives. In fact, that’s exactly what Iain Duncan Smith and Ann Widdecombe proposed with regards to civil partnerships.
Italy is a founding member of the European Union. It does not recognise same-sex unions at all. Not even for the purposes of hospital visitation. And there are absolutely no plans to change that arrangement in the near future. Which, actually, means you have fewer rights as a gay couple in Rome than in Obama’s America.
EU membership is a voluntary association of free states. While responsible governments comply with all of their treaty obligations, dysfunctional ones – Italy, Greece, Poland, Bulgaria, etc. – simply come up with elaborate excuses for non-compliance. The “consequence” of defiance consists mainly of tut-tut disapproval at the European Parliament and little else. What are the other European states going to do about it? Invade them and force them to accept homosexuality?
I don’t think so.
I had written:
No EU directive required this. But if there were one and the UK failed to implement it within the required time, it would have direct effect.
With a face like that I can understand why she not married (legal of not).
Don’t come back to Barry.
de Villiers, Comment 24. Wasn’t responding to you as much as the other John (Comments 1, 22). He had implied that the positions of the Australian and British political parties were exactly the same. I beg to differ. Nevertheless, I stand corrected with regards to Brussels’ role – or lack thereof – in the recognition of same-sex partnerships. The absence of European Union intervention actually strengthens my point though.
John above – I sorry but in what way do you think that the attitude of the Aus and UK lab parties’ attitute towards same sex marriage differs? Her comment against same sex marriage could have come from Brown himself. As for the Tories not introducing it they have only been in power for a month or 2, lab were there for 13 YEARS and they didn’t bring in equality!
There are plenty of homosexuals, and gay men (myself included) who are NOT fans of same-sex marriage. I have already encountered the breakdowns of a few civil partnerships, not surprisingly, as why would an institution (marriage) that was struggling in the wider community (non-homosexuals) be any different with gays?
Marriage as an institution has struggled particularly over the last 40 years because of Economic and Industrial Expansion from local communitites into a Global Village. Marriage can be a success in the modern world, but there has not been enough time for it to evolve, and not enough intelligent people have understood how to do this in the Global Village to be able to share their formula.
People should pay absolutely no attention to an Australian politician’s statements unless they have a fuller understanding of Australian Culture. Australia is a country with its own culture and its own problems, and its politicians know that.
I believe in that interview that Ms Gillard was not going to contradict the Prime Minister of the day.
I believe we will not know this athiest prime minister real views until after the election as she is all for not scaring the horses.
What we do know is that for gays in Australia the alternative leader. “The Mad Monk” Tony Abbot would be a disaster for the gay community, A former Catholic seminirian,
But what has labour done in Australia since they came into power for the gay community ? ok I can now register a partnership in my state (I’m not sure that was anything to do with fed govt!)
Their attitude towards gay marriage is exactly the same as the British one…..in many ways unfortunely they are miles behind the UK (still don’t recognise British CP and impossible to get your partner to emigrate with you !)
Article from the guardian reiterates this http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jun/29/europe-rules-same-sex-marriage-austria
Comment from guardian
“All of the other 46 states of the Council of Europe could have chosen to intervene in this case. Only one did – the United Kingdom. The court’s judgment summarises the UK’s arguments as being strongly against any right to same-sex marriage or to recognition of same-sex partnerships. This intervention is very peculiar, to say the least, as it was done under the previous Labour government, which was very proud of introducing legal recognition of civil partnerships in Britain. In fact, after this intervention was publicised in the Guardian in 2008 and Anthony Lester raised the issue in the Lords, the government said it was amending its arguments, but it does not appear to have done so with any major change of approach.”