Reader comments · Australian prime minister: Not all loving relationships need marriage certificates · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Australian prime minister: Not all loving relationships need marriage certificates

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. So someone said ” I know – let’s give gay people the same rights as everyone else “.. and the whole world went up in arms . Julia Gillard now looks like a dinosaur next to Obamah and has managed to put Australia back by 20 years .

  2. You don’t seem to “get it” madam prime minister. If couples like you and your partner *choose* not to get married, that’s ok. The real point is that YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT TO WED! Telling other couples that some of them “don’t need a marriage certificate” is really interfering in a couple’s private life and you don’t want to be judgmental, do you?

    Unlike you and your man, same-sex couples have no such choice under the law. So don’t you think lesbian and gay couples should have the same options as you exercise? It is simple really, and giving lesbian and gay couple “options” does not diminish your relationship or heterosexual marriage.

    Now repeat the above until it has sunk in!

    1. Ben Foster 11 Jun 2012, 8:23pm

      “The real point is that YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT TO WED! ”

      Exactly what I was going to post here, but you got there before me. It is this CHOICE that is denied to us.

      1. Cardinal Capone 11 Jun 2012, 10:13pm


        1. Denisthemenace 11 Jun 2012, 10:46pm


    2. Excellent point! It should also be added that if her partner was to ask her to marry him, she could chose to do so, which is a choice that the LGBT community does not have!

      Her views are completely selfish!

  3. [it was possible to have a “relationship of love, commitment and trust and understanding” without a marriage certificate.]

    Well, of course it is – millions of folk do it all the time. What isn’t possible is to have the built-in protections and benefits that married folk have with that little piece of paper. Now, if she wants to strike down all those benefits from married couples, then her comment would be less silly.

  4. She might not think marriage is important. But some of us do. And if she thinks that marriage is so unimportant, why does she care so much about being anti gay marriage.

  5. OK, not all loving relationships need marriage certificates – fair do’s.

    This is no reason to deny them to an entire segment of the population.

    So, currently a heterosexual couple can choose whether or not they wish to marry – and many do not.

    Currently, a homosexual does not have that choice, and many do want to.

    The explanation from Gillard – it’s not necessary. She may be Australian PM but she has no right to either determine what is necessary to celebrate an individual couple’s love – nor to deny it on grounds of an innate characteristic of the individuals in that couple.

    1. She has made it clear that this is her personal opinion, though, and I don’t think any of us are in a position to deny her that. She is allowing members of her party a free vote on the issue, and we just have to keep our fingers crossed that the majority don’t share her views.

      1. John

        She is entitled to her opinion, even if that opinion is wrong – morally and in terms of humanity in this case.

        However, if she were to be a responsible leader she would represent the needs and civil rights of all her citizens instead of denying them to one segment of the population she is supposed to SERVE and lead.

        By seeking to bar civil rights to one group of society – she demonstrates that she seeks to deny equality and fairness and fails in her DUTY to serve.

        Her opinion is rather irrelevant – her duty is what she is failing to do.

        1. I do see that point. I’m by no means a self-hating gay so you don’t need to convince me per se, but I do find this problematic – yes, she should show leadership, but by abandoning her own beliefs? Isn’t that a bit… fickle?

          I know and am close to people who struggle with their own conscience as to whether marriage should be extended to same-sex couples. Since marriage is a social construct, ‘our’ right to it isn’t self-evident for a lot of these people, which doesn’t mean, of course, that we have no right to it, just that some good people will struggle with the idea, and presumably Ms Gillard falls into that category. Does that make her less able to do a job? I’m not sure, but I lean towards believing that it does not, since she will not personally stand in the way of marriage being made equal in Australia, she will just vote against it. Democracy can still run its course, and we can still allow her to hold her own opinion. I would be happiest if both could happen concurrently.

          1. In order to be a good leader, you must have the highest integrity. You have to put aside your personal beliefs for the good of the country.

            “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.”
            Abraham Lincoln

          2. John

            I wouldnt accuse you of being self hating, thats not my usual style! and I can see where your questions are reasonable thoughts.

            However, if Gillard is to lead then she needs to do so for the benefit of all her people. As Napoleon Bonaparte said “leaders deal in hope”. She needs to show a way forward and if she states a view on something be prepared to back it up with evidence. There is no evidence to support her rhetoric in this instance and what she has said in this instance is no justification for denying equality in marriage. She fails to give hope.

            As Martin Luther King said
            “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”

          3. Tim Chapman 12 Jun 2012, 7:07pm

            It’s not a matter of the right to marriage, it’s the right to equality that we demand and that is a human right, so conscience has nothing to do with it.

          4. Well said Tim

            And there is no such thing as part equality. You are either equal or you are not.

            In Australia, the Uk, Ireland, Finland, USA, New Zealand, France, Germany and many other countries – to our absolute shame and disgrace – there isn’t equality.

            The fact Gillard stands in the way of equality -whether passively or actively (neither is excusable) – is denying equality and failing as a leader.

            It is a governments responsibility to ensure civil rights and equality for their people.

  6. Gillard wouldn’t know what equality was if it slapped her in the face – for that reason, and for that reason alone (although there are others!) she lacks the credibility to be able to effectively and fairly represent all Australians and she brings great shame on her great nation.

  7. What a helmet head Gillard is.

  8. It’s not too bad sitting at the back of the bus, after all you are on the bus and you should be happy with that.

    Sitting at the front of the bus isn’t that important you know, yet it’s important to me that you don’t.

    1. WantsToKnow 11 Jun 2012, 8:06pm

      Really like the analogy…

  9. She is a nasty bigot and that is how she will be remembered by history.

    1. Hopefully it won’t be long until her Premiership IS resigned to history. Surely there’s someone in the Australian Labor Party who can challenge her leadershio, just like she did with Kevin Rudd. I suppose we can’t expect a backstabbing bitch like her to ever do the right thing.

      1. Cardinal Capone 11 Jun 2012, 10:17pm

        Maybe that nice lesbian mum in her cabinet, Penny (Wong?).

        1. Now that would be poetic justice!

        2. That would be party suicide considering the fact that polls go down whenever there is a whiff of a challenge

  10. “Ms Gillard said she held the view “very deeply” that marriage should not be opened up to gay couples,”

    Still she hasn’t to date given her reasons for holding that very deep belief, maybe she is just a deeply homophobic twat after all.

    1. No doubt because she doesn’t have any reasons at all and this latest cr*p is an attempt to cover that fact up.

    2. Cardinal Capone 11 Jun 2012, 10:18pm

      Is she friends with the Murdochs and/or other proprietors, and what’s their position on it?

  11. But she still has the choice to get married to her partner if she wants, gay people don’t have that choice.

    What a nasty woman, trying to come up with excuses for her bigotry. LGBT (and many straight) Australians must hate having her as their Prime Minister.

    David Cameron & Alex Salmond may both have their faults, but at least both have had the guts to say in public that they support marriage equality.

    1. Absolutely, how about giving people the choice to make for themselves whether they need or want a marriage certificate.
      Either Gillard doesn’t want to get married or the man she is with really doesn’t want to marry her…that is something I could perfectly well understand.

      1. “the man she is with really doesn’t want to marry her”

        LOL! I bet that’s it and she’s so angry that she’s taking it out on us!

      2. Cardinal Capone 11 Jun 2012, 10:20pm

        Maybe she has a commitment problem.

      3. Cardinal Capone 11 Jun 2012, 10:24pm

        Actually I’m getting the idea that she’d really like to ban it for everyone, but could never get away with it.

  12. [She said: “That’s my life experience and so I’m speaking from that life experience.]

    The errors with this statement:
    – her experience: she chose not to marry her partner / our experience: we have no choice – not the same
    – her experience: should her and her partner break up, her rights are protected for division of property and custody / our experience: no rights, no protection – not the same
    – her experience: should her partner fall ill, she can visit him in the hospital, make medical decisions for him if he cannot, bury him if he should die / our experience: we are not considered next of kin and cannot do any of this without permission from their family – not the same
    – her experience: she can use her partner’s medical benefits / our experience: we cannot – not the same


    I will add a final note, I live in Canada where gay marriage is legal, I am in a same sex marriage. I do not in fact have specific knowledge of Australian law so I apologize if my facts are not 100% accurate.

    1. Rhoderick Gates 12 Jun 2012, 3:20am

      Well similar to the US, it’s a state level issue but there’s a federal act to ‘defend marriage’.

      Civil unions don’t have equal status.

      Of course if our PM wanted to end the marriage equality issue herself should could help by pursuing the repeal of the relevant federal act on the matter. Instead we get these lame responses as this article outlines.

  13. And how would Gillard feel if she was compelled to get married completely against her wishes? I’m sure she’d be outraged. Well, that’s how LGBT people feel when some idiot like you deprives us of the choice to marry, Julia, and can’t keep their nose out of other people’s business and lives.

  14. “it becomes an issue about how are we going to deal with this cultural institution of long standing in Australian society? Are we going to try and change it to fit circumstances where people are in love and deeply committed but don’t fit the current Marriage Act, or are we going to grow up new traditions and norms that embrace that?”

    The former, obviously. I am surprised there is even a debate here. The law is unfit for purpose, so it must be changed. If Australia’s murder laws didn’t work then she wouldn’t say that new traditions and norms should be propagated, she’d have the law changed to do what it was supposed to. The marriage laws are supposed to serve all people in loving, committed relationships. They current’y don’t. It’s that simple. They must be changed.

  15. My goodness, she’s a crafty one this Welsh-girl turned Australian Prime Minister!

    The logical conclusion of her argument here is that marriage certificates should be banned, for she’s a heterosexual in a heterosexual relationship and she doesn’t have one and neither do loving and committed gays.

    Deep beneath this seemingly rational argument of hers is nothing but HOMOPHOBIA.

    You’re still suffering from Welsh Chapel Syndrome, Miss Gillard!

    1. Cardinal Capone 11 Jun 2012, 10:25pm

      They would never let her in, living in sin like that!

  16. Disappointing. I wonder what her motivation/ agenda is.

    It’s interesting that there seems to be no absolute left-wing/ right-wing divide on the issue of politicians supporting equal marriage, whether in the UK, in Australia, or elsewhere.

    There is more support on the left, but there is for instance a very small number of (apparently Catholic) Labour opponents in the UK, and very strong support among some Conservative MPs, albeit that a much higher proportion of Conservative MPs than Labour MPs intend to vote against the bill.

    The left-wing=pro-gay/ right wing=anti-gay division seems to be breaking down.

  17. Any relationship that “needs a marriage certificate” is not built on a secure enough footing for marriage.

    1. I don’t know why anyone would have thumbed down that comment. The point I’m making is that no strong relationships NEED marriage. That’s not a reason to deny same sex couples the right to have it when opposite sex couples have that right.

      1. I thought you were supporting equal marriage! ;-)

        1. I was :)


          1. What I meant was I didnt understand you being thumbed down!

  18. Julia Gillard and much of her ALP are out of touch with mainstream international social democratic political opinion on same-sex marriage. I believe Ed Miliband and the British Labour Party support reform, as does New Zealand Opposition leader David Shearer and our Labour Party.

  19. Paddyswurds 11 Jun 2012, 9:47pm

    It is no surprise that this ugly tongue tied Welsh bint is on the wrong side of history. They are still rejoicing in Barry that her parents took her to the bottom of the Earth. Even as a child she was a pain in the nether regions. I feel for Australia that they are stuck with her until the next elections, when she will become just another curious footnote in the book of historical oddities. The Aussies detest her, even those in her own party……

    1. That all as maybe, but no reason to have a go at us Welsh ;)

      1. Paddyswurds 11 Jun 2012, 11:19pm

        John my comment again.I did not have a go at the Welsh. I said they were glad to be rid of her. Sheeesh. phuckin read the comment properly…..

        1. Yup, I got that, don’t you worry – but ‘tongue tied Welsh bint’ was kinda using Welsh as a negative adjective, wasn’t it? :p

          1. Paddyswurds 12 Jun 2012, 6:47am

            No it wasn’t. That’s like when describing a white person as white as being racist.
            It was merely a descriptive, but one can see from your point of view that the Welsh wouldn’t want to be associated with such a backward homophobic bigot.

  20. Cardinal Capone 11 Jun 2012, 10:15pm

    Do you think maybe she gets on well with the Murdochs?

    1. Seeing as our last 5 Prime Ministers, and the current Scottish First Minister, gets on great with Rupert (or did in the past), then I wouldn’t be surprised if Gillard did too. What is it with heads of government and Rupert Murdoch? I can see what he gets out of it, but they end up regretting it sooner or later.

  21. Australia’s beginning to sound like the old Rhodesia with Gillard replacing Ian Smith at the helm. He twisted and squirmed every which way about apartheid as far I remember.

    1. Yes, the racial apartheid of southern Africa is a great comparrison. Would Gillard defend that? We all know she wouldn’t, so why does she defend gay apartheid?

  22. Denisthemenace 11 Jun 2012, 10:59pm

    If she were to support gay marriage she would be PM for quite a while. If she continues with her current stand on marriage she wont be PM next term. On the other hand do we want M rAbbott as PM ???

  23. CofE is planning a major onslaught against marriage equality – it will be in the papers tomorrow.

    1. Had great fun watching a reviewer of the papers on Sky News saying he believed the churches were shooting themselves in the foot with their approach to the issue of equal marriage

  24. I would really like to ask Gillard, WHICH loving relationships require a marriage certificate, and WHICH do not? Any why?

    Either she is a bigot and simply saying same-sex couples should not be able to get married, or she is saying that she thinks there are opposite-sex couples who should not be able to get married either. If its the latter then I think the great majority of heterosexual Australians would be most interested to know this.

  25. Well, madam, one does not need a piece of paper to be in a committed, loving relationship; no doubt about that. But one does need that piece of paper to be elegible for the many benefits afforded to opposite-sex married couples. Let us hope and pray that, when the issue does come up for a vote, the member of her own party will follow their own hearts, not that of Ms. (living in sin) Gillard).

  26. I wonder how quickly her position would change if her partner was to suddenly drop dead and she realises how disadvantaged she is…

  27. Being gay and living in Australia under the leadership of that nasty hypocrite Gillard is more than one can tolerate.

    In a statement that she made while campaigning for a position on the Australian Union of Students when she attended the University of Adelaide in the 1980s, it is documented that she said: “If elected, I will support education issues, like TEAS being acted upon state wide. Regional Conference should act on other political issues. I will encourage action on women’s rights, anti-nuclear policy, AND I UNDERSTAND HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS AS I AM IN A LESBIAN RELATIONSHIP. I ask for your support, thank you.” I have a photo copy of this statement from the Union of Students Newsletter which included a photo of her. Now doesn’t that show her hypocrisy?

    1. This is interesting. Are you saying, Julia Gillard is a Closet Lesbian.

      The, if that is the case, She must be suffering badly with internalised homophobia.

    2. Michael Barnett 28 Aug 2012, 2:09pm

      The “Lesbian relationship” part of the statement is false. Full details here:

  28. She really is an ignorant piece of trash. As others have said above, it’s about us having the same choices she does. I’m flabbergasted she used this argument. If not all couples need a marriage certificate then let’s ban Aboriginies from having them. Makes sense?

    1. Ah, but you forget how badly off Australian aborigines are…and refugees and asylum seekers…and…why is Australia still tolerated within the British Commonwealth…?

      1. I’m sorry whose fault is the current aboriginal situation and btw 90% of refugees are let into Australia so can you please stop blaming all of Australia for an unfortunate amount of bogans portraying us negatively around the world and for things that England’s fault because I have never met anyone who is racist or homophobic in Australia

  29. Kornelijus Norvidas 12 Jun 2012, 3:10am

    But all marriage certificates need loving relationships. Why not – of same-sex?

  30. Well, then perhaps the Prime Minister wouldn’t mind if she’s barred from getting married. How nice of her to essentially say that marriage is not particularly important.

  31. Christopher 12 Jun 2012, 4:05am

    I see Cate Blanchet playing her in a biopic, much like other movies about ignorant despots…

  32. It is interesting to note that as a university student in the 80’s Miss Gillard actively advocated for homosexual rights…….a link has been provided below.

    What has changed in 30 years for the atheist, left wing, female minister you ask??

    Essentially, she is the head of an incredibly unpopular political party currently polling at 29% and she doesn’t realise that the australian population is smart enough to ascertain that she is a weak, cowardly politician that doesn’t have the balls (dare I say), or the courage of her convictions to properly lead the country.

    Unlike Margaret Thatcher who took the reigns of leadership and commanded for the right………Julia Gillard just sits on her useless, fat ass and does absolutely nothing for the left!

    It is just such a shame that Australia’s only alternative is Tony Abbott, who is much worse!

    1. Denisthemenace 12 Jun 2012, 8:35am

      I think she has short term memory loss.

    2. It would seem that the very telling words “as I am in a lesbian relationship” have been edited out of the copy that is seen on the blog link provided. The copy that I have is exactly the same layout, but includes those extra words as mentioned in quotes. Maybe my copy is an earlier version, and upon advice she could have removed them for subsequent campaigning. Whatever the truth, she really has to go, but Tony Abbott is no better a replacement, as his spiritual adviser is the Roman Catholic Cardinal, George Pell, and we know how bigoted and all-knowing he is because he assumes he has a direct telephone line to the sky fairy.

      1. I wonder if the shoe would be on the other foot if she was still in a lesbian relationship.

  33. Why is this ignorant cow the prime minister of my country?

    1. I have no idea, but it seems to be a growing phenomenon in our debauched democracies.

  34. I wonder if her partner has ever asked her to marry him? Perhaps he hasn’t and it is sour grapes the she desperately wants to be married but isn’t?

    Even so, this is still not reason enough to deny marriage rights to any loving couple.

    Gay men and women the world over should reconsider attending Sydney Mardi Gras next year unless full marriage rights are enshrined into Australian law, a country that denies us a basic human right should then be denied our hard earned disposable income.

  35. Ms Gillard is a hypocrite, if she is so concerned about the sanctity of marriage then why isnt she married herself! I think Ms Gillard forgets that 100+ years ago plus she would have been expected to stay at home in the kitchen, be seen and not heard and have lots of kids.

    Thankfully society evolved :D and Women now have the same rights as men which they should of allways had.

    So why is Ms Gillard supporting the kind of victorian values that would have held her back in those days !

  36. Jock S. Trap 12 Jun 2012, 10:13am

    If that’s what She choses then find but it should never stop those who wish to have marriage from doing so.

  37. Garry Cassell 12 Jun 2012, 4:27pm

    Some politicians are so F***ing stupid…it’s hard to understand how they are able to function in the most basic daily manner…I guess that’s why they need all those paid caretakers around them daily to wash their ass…feed and dress them…

  38. James Butler 12 Jun 2012, 4:52pm

    This is absurd. Yes, two people CAN be in love and not get married, but that’s irrelevant! The fact is gay couples shouldn’t HAVE TO stay unmarried due to old fashioned and bigoted laws.

  39. Doesn’t the converse argument work? If loving relationships don’t need a marriage certificate then why have marriage at all?

  40. Notice how people that are against same-sex marriage are constantly contradicting themselves? On the one hand you’ve got them saying that marriage is a very important institution and it shouldn’t be “diluted” by adding same-sex marriage because it’s so special, and then on the other hand you’ve got them saying that marriage isn’t really an important or special thing, and you don’t really need one if you’re in a loving relationship.

  41. If that’s the way it is then why not get rid of straight marriages altogether then?

    Personally, the only reason I got a civil union was so that my partner and I would be treated as a couple under federal law therefore we have shared taxes and benefits. I see it that if we want to share our lives, we need to share everything else and get what benefits we can. It’s not selfish, it’s survival. If we could still get this without needing a civil union or a marriage, then that would be fine by us.

    But sorry, the law has it written that only registered/married couples can get shared insurance, tax benefits etc. also, sorry we don’t have a shared income of over $100 000 a year.

    I am an advocate for gay marriage/equal marriage simply because as people we should be open to choices. It’s no so much a personal thing. Will I get married? Probably not because I don’t see for myself the need for a certificate to validate my love, but that doesn’t mean others don’t need it.

  42. Just because you have chosen not to get married doesn’t mean you should deny the choice not to get married to others. Thats like saying “Im on a diet, therefore you cannot have that mcdonalds!”

  43. Not all political systems need to be plagued by offensive, patronising bigots, but it would seemingly need radical cultural and legal change to clear them out, obviously on a scale to make gay marriage look like a tweak to the litter laws.

  44. Well on the plus side she won’t be PM forever. Vote against her.

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.