Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Australia’s new prime minister Julia Gillard confirms she’s against gay marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. A homophobic aussie???!!! Now I know I’m seeing things…..

  2. It is not good enough she will have to be replaced – it is as simple as that. Anti-gay and homophobic people must not get into positions of responsibilty because all they do is make a mess of things and get everyones back up and waste valuable gay rights progress and time.

  3. It’s all the more insulting because she’s an atheist. It’s bad enough when a person doesn’t believe that gay people should have equal civil rights due to their personal religious beliefs, it’s much worse when a person’s reason for denying gay people full civil rights is because of her own personal prejudices.

  4. She said this was also her personal view

    oh luv I am sure the aussies are not interested in your personal view. Put it to the vote and if 60 percent says yes then let us marry.

  5. True, Zeke. I can’t see that she’s given any real reason for her anti position either, even a misguided one. I’m left thinking that because SHE doesn’t want to marry someone of the same sex, she can’t understand why anyone else would. Depressing.

  6. She’s obviously not keen on marriage, full stop. That’s why she’s living in sin with her fella.

  7. de Villiers 30 Jun 2010, 4:28pm

    > It is not good enough she will have to be replaced – it is as simple as that

    I am not sure that it is that simple.

    If it were, no-one would be able to disagree with such a statement.

  8. rudd had an excuse. he’s had his brainwashed by his homophobic religion. this woman has no such excuse. shes much worse.

  9. As an atheist then I guess she can have no rational excuse beyond sheer homophobia…what a sick twat. I think she needs to provide a fuller explanation but I guess she can’t say “I’m simply homophobic” can she?

  10. Oh and this will give comfort to our own gay foes of same-sex marriage, including StonewallUK who support the ban on same-sex marriage in our own country. They’re as bad as this ugly bitch who was originally from equally backward Wales.

  11. She looks a little bit like Iris Robinson, especially with the look on her face as shown in the picture for this report.

  12. An Cat Dubh 30 Jun 2010, 6:08pm

    Well, maybe shes doing it to get back the support from all those strange bible-thumpers who think she’s an immoral deviant just because she’s an atheist…

  13. Told you – the labour govt in Ausralia ARE NO better than the labour govt in te UK – why is this news so shocking!!!!. The labour govt in the UK like Australia have always said that marriage is between MAN and WOMAN – INEQUALITY rules in both countries under these parties – see below what the UK lab did to try to stop European countries introducing gay marriages , it’s just as bad as the Australian lab govt… don’t be shocked, that way Abbot like Cameron will get voted in on OCt, crap LGBT policies with both parties but at least the tory like parties have better economic policies….

    Here is Lord Lester’s question in house of lords on lab govt intervention on preventing gay marriages…..

    Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)
    Why they are intervening before the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Horst Schalk and Johann Kopf v Austria (Application No. 30141/04) to contend that same-sex relationships fall outside the ambit of family life for the purposes of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Justice; Labour)
    My Lords, the Government have intervened in the case of Schalk and Kopf v Austria primarily to support the proposition that Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not require same-sex couples to be allowed to marry. The noble Lord has raised an important technical issue about our observations in this case, for which I am grateful and upon which I am reflecting in consultation with my ministerial colleagues.
    Lord Lester of Herne Hill (Liberal Democrat)
    My Lords, I am grateful to hear that Ministers are considering the matter further. I have put the observations in the Library, so that those who want to can see exactly what the Government have said. It is not correct that they have confined their observations only to the right to marry. They have also said that the court should not develop its case law so that same-sex partners living in an enduring family relationship are protected by Articles 8 and 14 of the convention against sexual orientation discrimination in the enjoyment of the fundamental right to respect for family life. I have two questions. First, is that the Government’s aim because, if so, it seems bizarre? Secondly, in the light of our law’s recognition of civil partnership and recognition that for the purposes of adoption a couple includes two people of the same sex living as partners in an enduring family relationship, why on earth do the Government negatively seek to persuade the Strasbourg court that the convention does not require the creation of legal recognition of such relationships for same-sex couples, who cannot marry?

    Old article in Guardian
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/09/civil-partnership-rights-austria-uk

    Comment by them:
    “…However, the government is still arguing that the court should not require European states to allow marriage for same-sex couples. It has told the court that the right to marry refers to “the traditional marriage between persons of the opposite biological sex … There is not an evolving convergence to the effect that persons in a same-sex relationship should be allowed to contract a marriage.”

  14. This issue is more than just a “gay” issue surely. Isn’t it a basic human rights issue, an issue of personal freedom for all people gay or straight? A politician telling people who they can or can’t marry? Remember that it is often later in life that many people come to fully acknowledge their sexual orientation, often after a period of hetrosexual marriage.

  15. de Villiers 30 Jun 2010, 10:06pm

    Culture need not be linked to belief in a deity. Calling people twats or thick or ugly or backward is indulgent and too easy. It is more helpful to analyse and understand the cultural reasons behind her position in order to reason against it.

  16. Im not sure what people expected. Miss Julia backs her party , and they shiv people they dont like, even when elected by the people. So I dont think she would go out on a gay limb. At all. Gay marriage aint going to happen in this country for a little while yet. Not even a unmarried rang wants us to get married.. j

  17. Dear-oh-dear! As I usually say, what baffles me is why these set of intolerant people always think that their personal believe/opinion is so damn right, it makes others’ useless? What gives them such a holier-than-thou belief?

    But she will go scot-free even if an election is called. Because, more gay people are far more ashamed of themselves than non-gays are of gay people. We saw what happened here about David Laws… he was so ashamed of his life that at his age, position, achievements, status, etc, he still was secretive about his sexuality (and this is not saying he should jump about saying he is gay or naught).

    When election comes, a lot of gay people cram up nonsense excuses about why issues about their rights isnt a priority but economy, immigration, housing or other are – they are right. But I will remind many that the reason other groups gets what they want; the religious groups, the race groups, the age groups, etc; is because when someone who tramples their rights stands up, they use their vote to sit them back down. Bring the best human in the world today to take charge, if he opens his mouth to say the same rubbish about Islam or Christianity, blacks or whites, even religious ones that hasnt been to a mosque or church in thousand years and do not remember how to cast a vote, wakes up, campaigns and casts a vote just to remove that person. And I praise them for that.

    Freedom is the greatest privilledge any human could have; and your vote is the most useful tool. Use it or be used.

  18. Don’t worry lab will not get my vote in Australia , like the lab party in the UK they are doomed. They are as against gay marriage as the British one and for that I’m sure they won’t get the gay vote… just like the UK….

  19. de villiers – She and her family are from Barry, S Wales, culturally she is a staunch lab for a British lab background, if you want to understand then go back to her British root in S Wales, what made you think that her attitude would be any different coming from such lab strongholds…. Aus is still basically white Britsh culturally… obviously!!!

  20. This person is anti marriage equality purely for political convenience which makes her thoroughly reprehensible.

    She is an atheist – she therefore cannot even rely on her superstitiious beliefs for supporting discrimination.

    She chooses to be a bigot as she thinks it will win her votes.

    She is a woman of no principle – just another useless, homophobic, selfish politician.

  21. Re: Comment 15 by De Villiers.

    We don’t know the cultural reasons behind her decision or opinion, she hasn’t given any reason she has given only a slogan or motto that marriage is between a man and a woman, a slogan is not a reason nor an explanation.
    If she ever comes up with a sound reason for her stance against same sex marriage then perhaps she could be called simply just ugly… but I don’t think she will provide a sound reason therefore she will most likely remain an ugly twat.

  22. Gay activist Paul Mitchell 1 Jul 2010, 11:43am

    Because they both think the out-dated definition of marriage [between a man and a woman] is still OK in the 21st century, Julia is then a bitch and Abott is an asshole – end of story.

    MY PROPOSED BILL:

    Marriage Amendment (Equality) Bill 2010

    This bill amends the Marriage Act 1961. This Act becomes effective on Assent. This amendment act automatically repeals once all section(s) have commenced.

    [1] Repeal [in section 6] – “man and a woman”, replace with “any two (2) adult person(s)”

    [2] Omit [in section 88EA] – “not”, after “must”.

  23. Yeah, like their British counterparts both labour and the tories will never bring in gay marriages and your comment can equally appy to them both parties in both countries …. I’ll stick with my Abbott vote, a ridulous labor carbon trading scheme, taxing the mines ( the source of Aus wealth), a failed loft insulation scheme causing deaths, outrageous spending to keep aus out of recession when there was no indication of one there and so on… I agree with the above the she is an ugly twat but add that his also a ungly sounding twat, she has an awful speaking voice and am amzed she gave a straight answer to this question, she normally doesn’t give straight answers to anything…

  24. It is an appaling time to be gay and in Australia. Dont be fooled by Oxford Street, Sydney! Australia is a land of homophobes and we are ruled by the Religious dictators! If your young and educated , get out while you can!

  25. No. 21, Pavlos….nobody in the Tory or Labour party in either country can come up with any sound reason to ban marriage equality let alone sustain it, neither can their gay supporters. There is absolutely NO rationale or logic to justify a ban on our marrying, not even with Civil Partnerships in place, absolutely none. The one man one woman mantra stems from religion, at the root of most social ills in any society. Its why Cameron, and his predecessors oppose it. They’d rather kow tow to religious bigotry and hypocrisy than do what nine other countries have done for their LGBT people. Backwards and dumb, none are that smart to see the larger picture as more countries opt for full marriage equality, a trend that will only continue to grow while other unions will not because of the lack of parity with other societies’ version of “equality” or “inequality”.

  26. While we are at it , it really pisses me off that Australia gives no recognition to the British CP whatsoever. If you want to migrate there with your partner then tough luck, you have to get your partner in as an interdependant one and only a temp visa initially. Has this changed under labour,it was the case awhile ago?. Since then both the previous UK lab and now the coalition govt are boasting about worldwide recognition of the damn thing, what exactly are these govts doing to get international recognition…. is that all just hype ,another pack of lies from both the lab and tories????

  27. Gay activist Paul Mitchell 2 Jul 2010, 8:33am

    Remember she is not even married!!!!

    So how would she be an expert on marriage – what a selfish and self-centred hyprocritical bitch!!!!!

  28. Tom Hennessy 3 Jul 2010, 10:38pm

    Quote: “She owes the 60 per cent of Australians who support marriage equality an explanation for why she has let them down.”

    Answer: I suppose she might be obliged to “give an explanation for this letdown” WHEN an explanation is given for THIS.

    “Adoption by gay couples in Scotland was approved by MSPs in 2006 – despite an official consultation process which showed that nearly 90 per cent of people opposed it.”

  29. I agree with what has been said except for considering Abbott as an option. Julia may have many faults (as identified) but Abbott is an evil, backward option that Australia can’t afford to take. It was bad enough when Howard was in – at least Howard was intelligent. Surely we can lobby and be proactive rather than get caught up in how Julia looks/sounds etc. So she’s not married? Big deal. Let’s concentrate on using our energy towards inciting change rather than whinging about how pointless it all is.

  30. The Real Julia Gillard:
    Julia Gillard was educated at ‘Mitcham Demonstration School’ in Adelaide. Brad Boyd, Deputy head at this school, claims that this is what made her what she is today. The history of education in Adelaide is interesting, with a very heavy Froebelian influence, and having been constructed in what we call the ‘John Adam St Gang’ in London (also called the ‘Adelphi Planners’) who set up colonies in NZ and Canada, as well as Australia and elsewhere. To read more about the influence of the Froebel gifts and the ‘architecture of the mind’, I suggest people go to the ‘lifeinthemixtalk’ website:

    Froebel: http://www.lifeinthemixtalk.com/?p=15604

    Gillard: http://www.lifeinthemixtalk.com/?p=16237

    John Adam St Gang: http://www.lifeinthemixtalk.com/?p=3305
    Considering that Tony Abbott supports a Constitutional Monarchy, we have both Gillard and Abbot as tools of the John Adam St Gang, the network centre of the British Empire, which never went away.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all