Crunch time for Baillieu

The Victorian government has been a disappointment. What are they doing in office – did they have any plans or ideas for when they came to office? Apparently not. Rather than simply shut down the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission as being some sick joke foisted on Victorians by the previous government, Baillieu chose instead to retain it and appoint someone to the Board.

It seems Kuruvilla George doesn’t support gay marriage.

Professor Kuruvilla George, who is Victoria’s deputy chief psychiatrist, has signed a submission to a senate inquiry calling for a ban on same-sex marriage.

He is among a group of doctors, who in a letter to the marriage equality inquiry, say limiting marriage between a man and woman “is important for the future health of our nation”.

I’m not sure what a ‘ban on same-sex marriage’ means, I suspect what the article intended to say was that the current law of the land remain unchanged. Pesky details. Anyway, lets have a look at Professor George’s background.

Kuruvilla George, a former Christian missionary who is the state’s Deputy Chief Psychiatrist, was appointed to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission by Attorney-General Robert Clark last year.

Before he joined the board, Professor George had been linked to the anti-euthanasia and pro-life group Medicine with Morality.

Can’t have that – people with non-progressive opinions like that on the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission.

The Age reports that Professor George will be resigning from the Commission later today. It will be an outrage if the Baillieu government accepts his resignation – rather they should show some backbone – not much, just some – and advise the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission board to be more tolerate of alternative views to their own or get another job.

Update: Baillieu government got crunched.

A Victorian equal opportunity board member who sparked a furore over his public position opposing same-sex marriage has quit his post.
Kuruvilla George, a former Christian missionary who is the state’s Deputy Chief Psychiatrist, was appointed to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission by Attorney-General Robert Clark last year.
His resignation offer, flagged in The Age today, has been received by Mr Clark. “The Government thanks Professor George for his dedicated service to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission during his time as a member of the Board,” Mr Clark said this morning.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

130 Responses to Crunch time for Baillieu

  1. Why should he resign? Is someone making him? Puzzling. I am puzzled.

  2. Will gradually work myself up to the requisite degree of outrage and indignation, which is the industry standard on the internet.

  3. adrian

    seems like the people that cry tolerance the loudest are some of the most intolerent, certainly when it comes to other people’s views.

  4. .

    There should not be a marriage act nor a human rights commission. There should be freedom. Anyone should be allowed to marry as long as they can make a legally valid contract. Canon law marriages for the devout high churchgoers. Civil law marriages arranged by solicitors for others. Live and let live.

  5. Scott

    The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission should be abolished on the grounds than it violates human rights.

    It is surprising very few detect the irony in having the State preside over what ideas are appropriate for Individuals to hold.

    The state is, after all, a collection of Individuals with views which may differ from those held by others.

  6. conrad

    Perhaps Kuruvilla George is really resigning because he (is it he or a she? Or ignorantly use he here) will have to admit that, basically, what they are claiming goes against essentially all evidence that has been collected on the issue (including in Aus). Therefore, instead of supporting something based on evidence that goes against his moral values, as presumably the position entails, he will resign instead. That seems fine to me.

  7. JamesK

    conrad you are talking drivel.

    You must know that right?

  8. conrad

    What’s the drivel? Are you saying that the EEO&HR comission is set up to provide moral judgements? I don’t think so.

  9. JamesK

    No I’m saying the EEO&HR comission is a farce and should be dissolved.

    There is nothing equal or fair about it as the grandstanding of all three mainstream leftist parties in Victoria attests

  10. Sinclair Davidson

    conrad – that argument doesn’t make sense. Why accept the job in the first place?

  11. conrad

    Sinclair,

    how would Kuruvilla ever have known all the things that the panel would have to discuss? I imagine the vast majority of issues would be comparatively non-contentious to people with these sorts of beliefs (e.g., racial stuff etc.). If the panel isn’t one that allows opt-outs and is obliged to make it’s decision on evidence and all the human rights stuff (I’m sure you know this far better than me), then I don’t see the problem at all with leaving. If there was a panel I was on which wanted to bring in the reverse sorts of things (e.g., authoritarian stuff), even if there was reasonable evidence it might help, I would leave also. I don’t see any problem with that.

    I might say that the other really stupid thing about their arguments with children is that they don’t even understand the issue — somehow the assumption is gay people that don’t get married won’t have children. But this clearly false. The real comparison to made if you are worried about the welfare of children is whether gay married parents do better than gay non-married parents.

  12. James of the Glens

    Is that goat-herd still advising Baillieu? Turf him and things would look up.

  13. Sinclair Davidson

    conrad – I don’t think there are any good arguments against gay marriage. That isn’t the point here. Group think on the VEOHRC – an organisation that should have been abolished on the Monday following the last election – is the problem.

  14. conrad

    Sinclair,

    Whether there is groupthink or whether the organization should be oblished are othogonal issues, so I’ll only comment on the first.

    Basically, I don’t think Kuruvilla resigning is evidence of group think. What has quite possibly happened is that, within the legal/ethical guidelines that the committee works by, there is only one obvious outcome, and Kuruvilla doesn’t like it yet would otherwise have to abide by it and stick his name on some document that supports something he doesn’t. Most ethics committees work like this, except you are generally anonymous when you give the judgement. This would be similar to judges giving a judgement based on legal principals when they don’t happen to agree with them. I imagine that this quite often happens with things like mandatory sentencing.

  15. m0nty

    [OT comment deleted. Sinc]
    Saying that anything other than a mother and a father in a family is “unhealthy” is a little bit fascist, you know.

  16. Sinclair Davidson

    conrad – I agree if he doesn’t like the work then he should resign but none of the media reports are suggesting that is the case. I am also not convinced that there is only ever one possible outcome in many of the cases that come before the commission.

    He is being hounded from a extremist left-wing organisation.

  17. JamesK

    Saying that anything other than a mother and a father in a family is “unhealthy” is a little bit fascist, you know

    Stop talking bollox and give the strawman a rest and stop verballing the good doctor m0nty, you leftist inanity.

    That is not what he said and you know that.

    It is what you chose to belive he meant is all.

  18. eb

    No good arguments against gay marriage, Sinc? Any good arguments against incestous marriages or polygamy?

    People should be allowed to shack up with whoever they want without discrimination. But, while we have state sanctioned marriage, I believe that marriage should be restricted to the “ideal” of a man and a woman.

  19. .

    I can’t believe you include incest with gay marriage or polygamy. How stupid are you? Do you believe Jesus rode dinosaurs?

  20. Sinclair Davidson

    Any good arguments against incestous marriages or polygamy?

    In the absence of coercion or exploitation, no.

    while we have state sanctioned marriage,

    That’s the problem right there.

  21. m0nty

    [You are not going to derail this thread. Sinc]

  22. C.L.

    So the Gay Taliban has bullied and forced him from the position.

    What a surprise.

    Time for Ballieu to be thrown out (by the party or the electorate – which ever comes first).

  23. JamesK

    Presumably adoption agencies will have to allow fostering incestuous and polygamous families otherwise that would then be discrimination of the illegal variety.

    Married people have rights in a society or they don’t.

    Which is it Sinc?

  24. .

    Gay Taliban. LOL. Sounds like Sid James is back from the dead and pumping out Carry On movies again!

  25. C.L.

    Saying that anything other than a mother and a father in a family is “unhealthy” is a little bit fascist, you know.

    So Barack Obama is a fascist.

    Speaking to a crowd of family advocates at a small theater in the Congress Heights neighborhood of the nation’s capital, Obama reminded the group that his father left his family when Obama was 2 years old. Though his mother and grandparents “poured everything they had into me and my sister,” he said, “I still felt the weight of that absence. It’s something that leaves a hole in a child’s life that no government can fill.”

    So lesbian ‘marriage’ would be damaging to children.

    Thanks.

    Same goes for motherless families.

    Deliberately foregoing a mother/father family in favour of a motherless or fatherless ones is child abuse. No question.

  26. JamesK

    He’s not a “prominent psychologist”, m0nty.

    He’s a psychiatrist.

  27. .

    Presumably adoption agencies will have to allow fostering incestuous and polygamous families otherwise that would then be discrimination of the illegal variety.

    Why are you obnoxiously conflatious and stupid?

  28. m0nty

    Right, psychiatrist. I always get those mixed up, my bad.

  29. m0nty

    So lesbian ‘marriage’ would be damaging to children.

    You’re twisting Obama’s situation, CL. Of course if one parent leaves then there’s going to be a hole in a child’s life, but that is not related to whether the parent was a different gender to the one who stayed. A child raised in a family with two lesbian parents who both stayed around wouldn’t have a hole in their life.

  30. Sinclair Davidson

    JamesK – adoption agencies? What are these?

    Mind you, I’m not convinced that polygamous marriages would have fertility problems. Just bring in a new fertile partner.

  31. JamesK

    Yes Sinc.

    I expected that you wouldn’t answer the question

  32. Sinclair Davidson

    What is the question?

  33. JamesK

    Why are you obnoxiously conflatious and stupid?

    I just noticed numbnut’s post.

    “conflatious”??????

    Any good arguments against incestous marriages or polygamy?

    In the absence of coercion or exploitation, no.

  34. .

    I rest my case.

    Which is what exactly? You’d like to force everyone into a Christian marriage but don’t have the man bits to admit it?

    You raving socialist loon.

  35. .

    I just noticed numbnut’s post.

    “conflatious”??????

    Oh no dickhead, no one ever comes up with neologisms. Please tell me how it is grammatically wrong.

    Any good arguments against incestous marriages or polygamy?

    In the absence of coercion or exploitation, no.

    Truer words have never been spoken outside of Tehran.

  36. JamesK

    For numbnut:

    Yes Sinc.

    I expected that you wouldn’t answer the question

  37. C.L.

    …but that is not related to whether the parent was a different gender to the one who stayed.

    Yes it is. Obama the “fascist” specifically downplays the efficacy of replacement figures acting in loco parentis (gay ‘parents’ always wheel out this whopper). Obama is saying there is NO replacement for a full-time father.

    Correct.

    This could partly explain why “fascist” American blacks hate the idea of gay ‘marriage.’

  38. JamesK

    In the absence of coercion or exploitation, no.

    Stop shouting numbnut.

    How can I be the one who is “conflatious” if all I do is address Sinc’s topic?

  39. .

    James doesn’t like being held to account. Admit you want to force your lifestyle choices on others and walk away with a clear conscience.

  40. JamesK

    Admit you want to force your lifestyle choices on others and walk away with a clear conscience.

    Unlike you dot, I would if I did but I don’t.

  41. Chris M

    Agree Sinclair, the left are very intolerant indeed.

    Next we will be labelled homophobic if we oppose Keynes and his crackpot ideas…

  42. .

    Presumably adoption agencies will have to allow fostering incestuous and polygamous families otherwise that would then be discrimination of the illegal variety.

    This is obviously untrue, and conflating incest with any of the rest of this is just fucking bullshit. Furthermore you will not admit that you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

    You are so patently dishonest it is ridiculous.

  43. Sinclair Davidson

    You’ll have noticed that I have deleted a few comments. Let’s try keep some focus.

  44. C.L.

    Dot, would you oppose a sterilised woman from marrying her brother?

    Is so, why?

  45. JamesK

    T

    his is obviously untrue,

    Bollox. Catholic adoption agencies have stopped work in certain states because to favour hterosexual married foster parents ins discrimination of the illegal variety.

    If there exists no marriage or ssm then all families even single parent families can’t be discriminated against for the purposes of adoption as they are all equivalent inder the law.

    conflating incest with any of the rest of this is just fucking bullshit

    It’s not even Sinc admits that

    Furthermore you will not admit that you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

    That ‘cos I don’t you utter fvckwit.

  46. Matt

    conflating incest with any of the rest of this is just fucking bullshit

    Why? What business is it of the state to tell a mother she cannot marry her consenting son? That is the logical consequence of your argument. Sinc at least acknowledges that – you should too.

    Following from that, if incestuous marriage should be legal, why should the state treat it any differently than other marriages when it comes to rules around adoption, custody etc. etc.?

    Incest, like homosexuality, is just another religious taboo, no?

  47. .

    They can’t have kids so to that I have no opposition to it in that aspect but you cannot form a legally valid contract with a family member unless it is for commercial purposes. Therefore they can’t marry. I think it’s a fucked up kind of question but unless they believe in sex before marriage…you see where this is going.

    Now C.L., how many people would this apply to, and tell me if they’d already be pariahs beforehand. With or without the marriage act, they’d still be able to form a trust for each other and have their messed up quasi marriage.

    I’m sorry Sinc.

  48. Matt

    If you support making same sex marriage legal but oppose making polygamy and incestuous marriage legal then you are obviously not in favour of the state removing itself from the marriage business – you simply want the state to draw the line in a different place. At this point, the moral force of your argument for supporting same sex marriage disappears.

  49. .

    Why? What business is it of the state to tell a mother she cannot marry her consenting son? That is the logical consequence of your argument. Sinc at least acknowledges that – you should too.

    I think I just answered this. Please read up on how contracts work.

    Incest should be legal (yuck) if there is no possibility of children being born and it is not coercive.

    The real difference of the libertarian approach is that out of the handful of cases of incest that occur, we wouldn’t prosecute couples where children couldn’t be born. From an efficiency point of view, we are moving resources into child protection. Two brothers want to sodomise each other? Go nuts, just don’t expect to have any friends after it. There is no value to society putting these men in gaol.

  50. .

    If you support making same sex marriage legal but oppose making polygamy and incestuous marriage legal then you are obviously not in favour of the state removing itself from the marriage business – you simply want the state to draw the line in a different place. At this point, the moral force of your argument for supporting same sex marriage disappears.

    No, read what I said about contracts. Without State backing, only contracts would see marriage have legal force. You can contract with multiple families but not with your family for non commercial purposes.

    If you want to ‘completely’ remove the State, then you stop the legality of contract law and move to anarchy.

  51. C.L.

    OK Dot. You confirm that you believe the state has the power to make ‘lifestyle’ calls – something you denounce on the Open Thread.

  52. Ellen of Tasmania

    Furthermore you will not admit that you oppose gay marriage on religious grounds.

    Well, I’ll admit that I oppose homosexual marriage on religious grounds. But I’d also argue that all our moral choices are made on ‘religious’ grounds.

    That is to say that we all have a set of unprovable presuppositions – a worldview – that sets our moral parameters. Polygamy, homosexuality, revenge killings, prison sentences … whatever it is, something is setting our moral compass, and it’s always a faith-based something.

  53. JamesK

    Incest should be legal (yuck) if there is no possibility of children being born and it is not coercive.

    Why not children?

    We need only test for defects and chromosomal anomlies whilst in-utero and abort the defective ones

  54. .

    OK Dot. You confirm that you believe the state has the power to make ‘lifestyle’ calls – something you denounce on the Open Thread.

    I denounce it and it is true.

    We need only test for defects and chromosomal anomlies whilst in-utero and abort the defective ones

    You would have to write into law forced abortions for that to work.

    Do you believe in that now for children of incest or children with abnormalities now?

    No. So you want an unequal law, or ask me to support one, which I won’t.

  55. Matt

    We need only test for defects and chromosomal anomlies whilst in-utero and abort the defective ones

    Indeed. Even better, since having children and being married have no logical relationship (another logical corollary drawn from support of smae sex marrigae), then consensual non-coercive incestuous marriage should be legal at times. Only bearing incestuous children to term should be illegal.

  56. .

    Did you just read what I said?

  57. Cato the Elder

    Methinks that the topic is drifting. The start topic was whether or not the HREOC was intolerant. That’s a no-brainer, clearly it is. In forcing Dr George’s resignation they are showing their true colours. If you don’t buy in to their world view then they have no place for you and will force you out one way or another.

    Is that a bad thing? I think so and agree that the HREOC should have been abolished. Oh well, can’t have everything and there are many worse problems to worry about, especially since I don’t live in Victoria.

    How did we get from there to polygamous incestuous gay marriage? WTF? Next thing someone will be screaming “marriage equality” and we’ll all have to go sit in a corner for some quiet time.
    The drift topic is the more basic question of whether or not the State should have any role in setting the limits of marriage. Traditionally, for hundreds of years, it has done so. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it should continue to do so.

    Arguments based on the perceived need to support “families” ignore the fact that the laws of the several States now draw very few distinctions between those who are officially married (i.e.: chose to get married) and those who co-habitate in “de facto” marriages (i.e.: chose to not get married but get stuck with it anyway). The laws for property division and maintenance of children are the same, whether the couple is married or not. Likewise, what used to be called “bastardry” no longer carries any legal or moral impairment; whereas only a few decades ago it carried a lot of adverse moral freight (as if the child had any choice!) and legally meant the poor bastard couldn’t inherit. With the de facto net now catching same sex couples, the legal and social difference between a married heterosexual couple and a de facto same sex couple with a child (from a previous relationship, for instance) is barely perceptible to the naked eye.

    Frankly, the same-sex marriage horse has already bolted and who cares? I’m tending towards the view that we should just repeal the Marriage Act and have the State vacate the field completely.

    Oh yes, don’t forget that the Greens must be destroyed.

  58. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    A child raised in a family with two lesbian parents who both stayed around wouldn’t have a hole in their life.

    Children raised without a father or without a mother tend to see themselves as having something of a big hole in their lives. Good ‘significant others’ can help, but they don’t necessarily take away the deeply-felt sense of loss, the lived ‘absense’ that can sadden an individual right throughout life. That, as CL notes, was Obama’s point, and it is a point shoved aside by spurious research of the type relied upon by leftist ‘human rights’ organisations intent on destroying familial traditions.

    Of course a society can nominate and permit a myriad of ‘alternative’ upbringings, which is the way we are moving in this era. Ancient Sparta led the way for a reproductively dystopian state and there have been many attempts since, both statist and collective: ideological kibbutzim for instance, or polyandrous and polygamous societies, or societies that use a social tradition of fostering for lineage or aristocratic purposes, or Nazi breeding stations or Victorian orphanages.

    Children are resilient, but resilience does not necessarily mean they emerge undamaged. Historical experience shows that there is usually reversion to the biological parenting couple as a social ideal. Given this, we may well ask whether anything else is more likely to produce happy individuals secure in their sense of themselves. Consideration of how our humanity has a biological sense of itself however is proscribed in the current groupthink narrative producing a gay ‘adoptive’ model as equal to a biological one. It is not equal and never can be.

    On Q and A last night Penny Wong was drawn into this debate, but no-one had the guts to ask Ms Wong whether ‘her’ child would ever know, or know of, its real father. The answer should be ‘yes’. Ms Wong can never be a ‘father’ figure, no matter how strongly loving or protective she is to her partner and her partner’s child. She is a woman who lives with the child’s mother and they may well see themselves as a ‘family’ unit, no problem there. But she is not father to that child.

    Conrad, I’m not convinced that this sort of ‘groupthink’ and the issue of the abolition of groupthinking organisations are ‘orthogonal’ to each other. Let’s take a genetic model. A double-helix, more likely.

  59. Matt

    Did you just read what I said?

    That you are happy for the state to discriminate against consensual non-coercive incestuous couples with regard to marriage and reproductive rights? Yep.

  60. JamesK

    Sounds tres cool Cato but what of the unintended consequences?

    The black family in the US has been destroyed with enormously destructive general societal consequences and the white family is some 20 years behind.

    Is it possible that ready divorce, state sponsored abortion and single-parent state entitlements have had something to do with all this?

    How should the state support and protect the child?

    Because that is precisely what leftists want the state to do.

  61. I think Wong is on record as saying the father will play a significant role in the baby’s life.

    On gay marriage, and whether to be for or against, I believe W B Yeats said it best:

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

  62. .

    Frankly, the same-sex marriage horse has already bolted and who cares? I’m tending towards the view that we should just repeal the Marriage Act and have the State vacate the field completely.

    Oh yes, don’t forget that the Greens must be destroyed.

    Yes and yes.

    Sinistra delenda est.

    That you are happy for the state to discriminate against consensual non-coercive incestuous couples with regard to marriage and reproductive rights? Yep.

    With good reason, unlike everything else. Your argument is bullshit. Support for gay marriage doesn’t fall apart if you don’t accept this – support for any form of marriage does.

  63. I wouldn’t be surprised if in a few years there was a major push to have polygamous marriages legislated for in Parliament, and incestuous marriages some time after that. Using pretty much the same arguments as gay marriage activists are using now.

  64. Sinclair Davidson

    Methinks that the topic is drifting. The start topic was whether or not the HREOC was intolerant. That’s a no-brainer, clearly it is. In forcing Dr George’s resignation they are showing their true colours. If you don’t buy in to their world view then they have no place for you and will force you out one way or another.

    Is that a bad thing? I think so and agree that the HREOC should have been abolished.

    Yep.

  65. .

    Sorry,

    Your argument is not bullshit if you admit too (I don’t) that you want the State to be in the marriage business.

  66. .

    Using pretty much the same arguments as gay marriage activists are using now.

    Really? Most people accept gays because they know a few of them and their experience has been good.

    How many incestuous people do you know? Why are you conflating this with polygamy and gays?

  67. dover_beach

    I wouldn’t be surprised if in a few years there was a major push to have polygamous marriages legislated for in Parliament, and incestuous marriages some time after that. Using pretty much the same arguments as gay marriage activists are using now.

    Well, yes, and the common thread there being that marriage is reduced to nothing more than a domestic relationship, even between friends.

  68. JamesK

    Frankly, the same-sex marriage horse has already bolted and who cares? I’m tending towards the view that we should just repeal the Marriage Act and have the State vacate the field completely.

    Oh yes, don’t forget that the Greens must be destroyed.

    Yes and yes.

    I’m tired of this canard.

    32 times ssm has been presented to the electorates in US states and 32 times its been rejected.

    It exists only thru legislatures or the men in black robes on the respective state supreme courts.

    The one in California actually went against the electorate.

  69. .

    I’m tired of this canard.

    Then go home.

    It exists only thru legislatures or the men in black robes on the respective state supreme courts.

    Where they have not been defeated by referenda.

  70. JamesK

    Where they have not been defeated by referenda

    What referenda, clown?

  71. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    I think Wong is on record as saying the father will play a significant role in the baby’s life.

    TimT, she just didn’t say it last night. She should have done so but it rather undercuts the argument about gay marriage and its removal of biological parenthood, so she evaded it.

    With good reason, unlike everything else

    Reference now to my old ancient history teacher, Dot, an ancient monument in her own right. To our continued groans, she used to opine that one man’s Mead was another man’s Persian. In other words, depends where you’re coming from.

    We’re back to square one on the old basis of morality kick.

  72. JamesK

    canard |k??n??d, ?kan??d|
    noun
    1 an unfounded rumour or story: the old canard that LA is a cultural wasteland.
    2 a small wing-like projection attached to an aircraft forward of the main wing to provide extra stability or control, sometimes replacing the tail.
    ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from French, literally ‘duck’, also ‘hoax’, from Old French caner ‘to quack’.

  73. .

    I’m right Lizzie. Consensual sex between adults that cannot result in inbred children should not be outlawed. it is right morally and it is right from an efficiency point of view.

    Please to try to justify otherwise.

    James – the Californians passed an initiative (not a referendum), which was found to be unconstitutional, although it still may go to the USSC.

  74. I note again that whenever someone mentions polygamy or incestuous relationships in the same breath as gay marriage they are immediately pooh-poohed. It happened on Q&A recently and the reaction was near hysterical. Go back 50 years and the very idea of gay marriage would have been ridiculed. Once gay relationships were accepted though it became a natural progression. Once gay marriage is accepted why shouldn’t polygamists, incestuous couples, lovers of animals decide that they’re being treated unfairly? In their eyes they will be and the progressive forces will man the barricades on their behalf. This is a slippery slope and it’s worth considering where we are headed.

  75. Viva

    IMO there are parallels with the euthanasia push. Currently there are doubtless occasions where life is foreshortened with the mutual assent of the relevant parties (medicos and realtives). To enshrine this fact in law would throw up many dangers (manipulation, too hasty decisions, progressive devaluation of human life, dehumanisation of the end of life and other unforeseen consequences).

    Currently same sex relationships share the status of de facto relationships which in turn attract the bnenfits and legal rights given to traditional marriage and illegitimate offspring no longer suffer stigma. Most people are happy with this arrangement. But to formalise this elevation in status of same sex partnerships into law also risks consequences. The status of marriage will lowered instead of the status of de facto relationships raised. Children bind two people together in a way that mere emotional bonds cannot and do not – even post divorce. The struggles of raising a family are happily entered into by a man and a woman while a same sex couple can go on experiencing life as a prolonged adolescence without similar responsibilites and hardships. Need I go on?

  76. JamesK

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#Results

    Proposition 8 (ballot title: Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment; called California Marriage Protection Act by proponents) was a ballot proposition and constitutional amendment passed in the November 2008 state elections. The measure added a new provision, Section 7.5 of the Declaration of Rights, to the California Constitution, which provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

    By restricting the recognition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the proposition overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling of In re Marriage Cases that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. The wording of Proposition 8 was precisely the same as that which had been found in Proposition 22, which had passed in 2000 and, as an ordinary statute, had been invalidated by the State Supreme Court in 2008. California’s State Constitution put Proposition 8 into immediate effect the day after the election. The proposition did not affect domestic partnerships in California,[6] nor same-sex marriages performed before November 5, 2008.

    Play around with words as much as you want dot. The people voted and oberturned the state supreme court which in turn overturned the the people .

    It will go to SCOTUS.

    Not on the issue of ssm but on the state supreme court overthrow of Prop 8 which was an abomination which the leftist Governator ran away from like the cowardly slime he is.

  77. Cato the Elder

    JamesK at 12:29 pm

    I agree those issues are social problems (huge ones in some places) but I don’t think they have anything to do with whether or not the State regulates marriage.

    I think that they have more to do with the State paying sit-down money, which started as a sort of emotional black-mail — “But we (meaning the State, meaning you as taxpayers) have to do something to support the innocent children of these poor people”

    I don’t have a good answer to that – they are children and therefore not (initially) the cause of their own problem. But does that mean that the State should intervene, especially where to do so is to cave in to emotional blackmail? I don’t think so. I’m old school enough to say that giving in to any kind of blackmail only encourages repeat behaviour. But what then should the State do and can we afford to just abandon these children? I’m buggered if I know. I don’t have a good answer, in the sense of an answer that I am happy and comfortable with. I suspect that the right answer is “Yes, leave them to it, it’s bad but the other consequence is worse” but I get queasy about the consequences. But then, I’m already heartily sick of the consequences of the current system, so go figure.

    Sit-down money is destructive no matter what colour the recipient may be. The breakdown of family life results from increased freedom and changing economic pressures. Some people will always act to their own detriment, if free to do so. Others will act to their own benefit but society’s detriment in a kind of “private virtue/public vice” kind of way.

    Anyhow, I think the increase in divorce and reduction in people choosing to get formally married is a consequence, not a cause.

  78. .

    I note again that whenever someone mentions polygamy or incestuous relationships in the same breath as gay marriage they are immediately pooh-poohed.

    Because you are being dishonest, that’s fucking why.

    Once gay marriage is accepted why shouldn’t polygamists, incestuous couples, lovers of animals decide that they’re being treated unfairly?

    Do you honestly believe this? Why include polygamy in that lot? Why associate incest and bestiality with polygamy and gays? Do you think both groups are morally equivalent?

    Viva – end the marriage act. End the criminalisation of euthenasia. Why go after exit international?

    You can have a solution to this without needing “death panels” and the like.

    It is just fucking mind blowing that:

    1. In the midst of the worst Government ever, the gay lobby doesn’t understand we’re too angry about other crap. Wayne Swan is our Treasurer. God help us.

    2. In the light of the loss of our civil liberties over the last 20 years, people gay marriage a “slippery slope”.

  79. Cato the Elder

    Oh yes and never forget that the Greens must be destroyed

  80. .

    Play around with words as much as you want dot. The people voted and oberturned the state supreme court which in turn overturned the the people

    Don’t call me stupid for knowing the terminology. The State Courts and the Federal appeals courts overturned the people because the law violated someone’s rights. This is how our Government should work, but doesn’t.

    Now please outline how prop 8 will be held up under the 10th and 14th amendments.

  81. JamesK

    I agree those issues are social problems (huge ones in some places) but I don’t think they have anything to do with whether or not the State regulates marriage.

    Well you couldn’t Cato and be consistent.

    So easy state divorce, easy state abortion and easy state paternalism and single parent family entitlement encouragement, state and university feminisation of men and feminazi brainwashing of women and the normalisation of the sameness/likeness of gender is nothing to do with leftist support for the continual undermining of the traditional independent family as the unit of society?

    Its all just a consequence?

  82. .

    “people call gay marriage a slippery slope…”

  83. JamesK

    The State Courts and the Federal appeals courts overturned the people because the law violated someone’s rights

    That’s an interesting interpretaation of the most activist leftist courts in the US who also have their judgements struck down more than any other courts in the US.

    And I didn’t call you stupid for your termionology.

    I just didn’t understand what difference you presumably were trying to point to with your termoinology.

  84. m0nty

    Children raised without a father or without a mother tend to see themselves as having something of a big hole in their lives. Good ‘significant others’ can help, but they don’t necessarily take away the deeply-felt sense of loss, the lived ‘absense’ that can sadden an individual right throughout life.

    Do you have any evidence of this being true of families with two same sex parents, Lizzie?

    That, as CL notes, was Obama’s point

    Obama wasn’t referring to same sex parents, Lizzie. CL has tried to twist Obama’s words to fit his agenda.

  85. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Dot, I am concerned about what is ‘morally right’ for children. Morality is a social construct; anything can be ‘moral’ if you say it is so. I personally have no objection at all to what people do sexually as consenting adults, although some of it can make me laugh aloud at the plasticity of our sexual drive.

    My ‘morality’ is not religious, it is more likely autochthonus, based on a concept of our humanity as being inherent in our physical beings. Human societies early on recognised that only a man and a woman can procreate and that all children interpret their origins. It’s thus a fundamental human right for parents and offspring to know each other and to learn to care for each other.

    Then there is the right to freedom. If the state did not exist and society was purely contractual we could exercise morality and efficiency as we each saw fit. I’d like to see a world more this way than not. But unless we have a wider social contract entailing certain agreements, Hobbsean brutality reigns. I’d like to limit that contract, but it is there. In my autochthonous view, heterosexual marriage is one of the pillars of this contract, as is defense and the rule of law.

    We lose too much to give it away. Keep it, and let freedom reign outside its limiting bonds for those who chose something else.

  86. C.L.

    Monty twists me into the debate before I even get here, gets moderated and then accuses me of twisting something. Obama uncomplicatedly said that fatherless families are a disaster. We all know this is true. Not only that but he also dismissed the notion that replacement figures can do as good a job.

    Monty regards Obama as a “fascist.”

  87. m0nty

    Verballing me isn’t going to do any good, CL. Stop lying.

  88. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Obama reminded the group that his father left his family when Obama was 2 years old. Though his mother and grandparents “poured everything they had into me and my sister,” he said, “I still felt the weight of that absence. It’s something that leaves a hole in a child’s life that no government can fill.”

    This is the quote, m0nty. You will see that Obama stresses how much he missed his absent father and that other significant people who made great efforts in no way assuages this longing. CL picked up on it with regard to children reared by two lesbians; a valid point for him to make.

    m0nty – what psychiatrists call ‘father hunger’ among young children (espeically boy children) of single mothers is well-attested in the psychiatric literature, particularly with regard to the increasing number of fatherless families in society in general. The ill effects of fatherlessnes have been noted in the American black family from the time of the Moynihan Report on. Many organisations have sprung up to attempt to address this issue with big brother, uncle etc. substitutes, and there is a strong movement to provide more male role models in schools. All of this is based on an extensive literature. There is, of course, an opposing literature produced by more left-oriented researchers. The point however has been made above by many – children, male children especially, miss out in and are badly served by an increasingly feminised culture.

  89. Helen Armstrong

    Admit you want to force your lifestyle choices on others and walk away with a clear conscience.

    Isn’t that what gay activists are trying to do to us heteros and other gays Dot? (There are gays who don’t agree with gay marriage, btw)

    Like Roccoco said elsewhere, let them have a separate Act, if they really really want to, and stop trying to force the rest of us. It is a bit like global warming, and world governance, really.

  90. m0nty

    This is the quote, m0nty. You will see that Obama stresses how much he missed his absent father and that other significant people who made great efforts in no way assuages this longing. CL picked up on it with regard to children reared by two lesbians; a valid point for him to make.

    When you have two parents and then one leaves, that is a hole in your life, one that can’t be made up for by grandparents. When you have two parents who stick around and stay together, there is no hole in your life. Sons of lesbian parents don’t have an “absent father”. They have two parents.

    The point however has been made above by many – children, male children especially, miss out in and are badly served by an increasingly feminised culture.

    Again, no hard evidence of this phenomenon relating at all to children of lesbian couples. You are making some classic motherhood statements Lizzie, pun intended, without justification from the facts.

  91. .

    Isn’t that what gay activists are trying to do to us heteros and other gays Dot?

    We’re being forced into gay marriages against our consent? Really?

  92. Helen Armstrong

    We’re being forced into gay marriages against our consent

    Not what I said. The wishes of some gays are being forced onto others (gays and heteros) solely because some gay activists wish to have the Marriage Act changed.

    We are in the process of being forced to accept gay marriage within the Marriage Act against our consent through changing that Marriage Act. Let gays have another Act, if gays want more than the legal acknowledgement they have now. They are not a mum and a dad and no amount of dress up will make that so, regardless of any wishes to the contrary.

    These are my thoughts and for the time being I have a right to own and express them.

  93. Cato the Elder

    So easy state divorce, easy state abortion and easy state paternalism and single parent family entitlement encouragement, state and university feminisation of men and feminazi brainwashing of women and the normalisation of the sameness/likeness of gender is nothing to do with leftist support for the continual undermining of the traditional independent family as the unit of society?

    Its all just a consequence?

    No, JamesK, I didn’t say that and I don’t think that.

    I said that I think that “the horse has bolted” on same sex marriage. With the way the law now draws no substantial distinctions between “real” marriage and “de facto” marriage; and with “de facto” marriage now being extended to same sex couples, extending “real” (State recognised) marriage to same sex couples won’t make a bit of difference.

    I said that (and I think that) the decline in formal marriage and the increase in divorce is a consequence, not a cause. And I agree that all the things you listed, among others, are part of the cause. I suspect that we are in “furious agreement” on that area, although probably not on the solution.

    My solution is for the State to walk away from the form of marriage; and spend its energy in more productive ways. If we want as a society to focus on these issues, trying to “hold the line” on formal marriage is pointless. It’s like deciding to die in a ditch to defend a town that has already been taken. The ground has already been taken and this is no more than a formal recognition of a battle already lost.

    What we need to address is the steady destruction by the paternalistic leftist State of all the many forms of social reliance on self, family and community. The leftist says that the State will supply all, so you don’t have to (and shouldn’t) rely on yourself, your family, your friends, church, union, whatever – the State is all! There shall be no god but the State, from whom all blessings flow! Praise be unto the State! You don’t need any other relationship except the State, who will supply all!

    Umm. Sorry, didn’t mean to froth like that. Obama’s “Julia” add is the most egregious recent example I can think of.

    If we can address that, so that community and social relationships re-develop, then maybe marriage will come back into vogue. In the meantime, marriage, as an institution recognised and supported by society through the State, is a casualty of the ongoing battle. Requiescat in pacem.

  94. JamesK

    Well I think the state has to responsibly idealise and foster marriage in the traditional sense and importantly not do the opposite.

    Not to be religious but for recognition that a strong and resilient soociety is made from strong, independent and resourceful citizens who are free to realise their true potential.

    These people and values are pricipally fostered in traditional families.

    The state does almost the opposite in lieu.

    Reality should not be spun away as a paean to ideology.

  95. Samuel J

    The real Cato the Elder had extremely strict views on marriage. His marriage was of the very traditional form that most of his peers did not follow. Augustus followed Cato’s tradition in his marriage to Livia.

  96. .

    We are in the process of being forced to accept gay marriage within the Marriage Act against our consent through changing that Marriage Act.

    Gays are forced to accept the status quo. The only option that doesn’t force anyone is disestablishment.

  97. Matt

    Why associate incest and bestiality with polygamy and gays? Do you think both groups are morally equivalent?

    No I don’t, obviously. But I am not the one arguing the state has no role in the marriage business. You, on the other hand, say the state should butt out of people’s marriage choices except when it offends your personal moral viewpoint – i.e. bestiality and incest between non-sterile partners.

    .

  98. JamesK

    Gays are forced to accept the status quo. The only option that doesn’t force anyone is disestablishment.

    Two sentences amounting to no more than a meaningless non sequitur.

  99. dover_beach

    Gays are forced to accept the status quo.

    I suppose I’m ‘forced’ to accept that apples are apples and not pears. End this intellectual fascism. Fruit equality now!

  100. Infidel Tiger

    Gays are forced to accept the status quo.

    Poor dears. They can play their Pet Shop Boys records when they get home.

  101. .

    No I don’t, obviously.

    So you’re lying.

    You, on the other hand, say the state should butt out of people’s marriage choices except when it offends your personal moral viewpoint – i.e. bestiality and incest between non-sterile partners.

    That is the community standard for what should be legal, whether you like it or not. It also conforms with the principles of being free. It isn’t my moral viewpoint. I have far different views on what people should do in relationships as opposed to what I think should be legal. I also hold myself to higher standards to what I think is socially acceptable. As I have explained before, it is also efficient if you believe in a general rule against coercion.

  102. .

    Two sentences amounting to no more than a meaningless non sequitur.

    Come on James, explain why it is a non sequitur. I mean you’re so clever you can teach bankers and economists how to solve Europe, this should be a cinch.

    I suppose I’m ‘forced’ to accept that apples are apples and not pears. End this intellectual fascism. Fruit equality now!

    You’re so backwards DB you think that if the Government renamed Apples “Gay Pears”, that Pears would lose their nutritional content.

    Well IT, JC is oppressed too. I suppose we can buy him a new iron.

  103. Helen Armstrong

    Gays are forced to accept the status quo

    So all the rest of society must change to accommodate gays? What about Muslims? Do we all change to accommodate them too?

    I think the best result would be to out it to a referendum. Then nobody is ‘forcing’ anybody else.

    Dot, I can feel your passion, I just don’t have the same beliefs as you. I can see I am not at all a libertarian on this issue, but I am comfortable with where I am. I do not wish to get rid of the Marriage Act or change it because I value the institution of marriage under the marriage Act as that between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. There are many more that have the same beliefs as me. Over time that may change, but for the present, I believe gay marriage advocates are flogging a dead horse.

  104. JamesK

    Come on James, explain why it is a non sequitur

    You’re right dot.

    Both sentences are each assinine crapola so my use of ‘non sequitur’ was – whilst not quite incorrect – redundant

  105. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    m0nty – two ‘parents’ is not the same as having a mother and a father, no matter how good both same-gender ‘parents’ are. Your ‘parenthood is what it is about’ statements are motherhood statements of the type you accuse me of making, but from the opposite perspective. Prove your case.

    As for my motherhood statements, there is plenty of quality statistical research support. Family research serials are full of longitudinal and other studies on fatherless families, go to Google Scholar and look them up yourself. Lesbian families are a sub-set of these, with their own complications and, in some cases, compensatory capacities.

    Middle class fatherless families do well despite their identified deficits, poorer fatherless families flail and fail.

    Single dad families are also quite well studied, and ‘two dad’ families are a subset of these.

    Stop trying to remove the gender from parenting.

  106. Cato the Elder

    The real Cato the Elder had extremely strict views on marriage. His marriage was of the very traditional form that most of his peers did not follow. Augustus followed Cato’s tradition in his marriage to Livia.

    Samuel J
    15 May 12 at 3:52 pm

    And this is relevant how? I’m just as real as he and I care naught for his marriage.

    What I admire about Cato the Elder is not his marriage his determination, to the point of obsession, with the destruction of Carthage. He felt that despite the changing flows, despite how things might appear harmless or even benign, the future of Rome meant that Carthage had to be destroyed. He believed it; and he lived it; and he harped on about it and never let the other Romans forget about it. I feel likewise about the Greens

    Never forget that the Greens must be destroyed.

  107. m0nty

    fatherless families… Lesbian families are a sub-set of these

    Single dad families are also quite well studied, and ‘two dad’ families are a subset of these.

    No and no. Two-parent families are not a subset of one-parent families. This is silly talk.

  108. C.L.

    Any gay ‘marriage’ advocates explained yet why a man shouldn’t be allowed to marry a beagle?

  109. Cato the Elder

    JamesK
    15 May 12 at 3:48 pm

    Sorry for the delay JamesK, I had to do some paying work. It looks as though you’ve had fun with the other kiddies anyway.

    If the State has any responsibility to create or destroy (rather than reflect) any aspect of society, then I agree with you that those responsibilities should include fostering relationships (including traditional marriage) that strengthen society.

    On the other hand, why give that responsibility to “the State”? The State is really just the bunch in charge from time to time (and just look at the current crop, who can apparently organise a root in a brothel but you wouldn’t trust them with anything more nuanced, would you?)

    State interference to date has, as you have noted, tended to weaken these aspects of society rather than strengthen them. I’d have no objection if the State undid the damage; but I have no real confidence that they can (even if they want to). On the whole I’d much rather that they stayed out of it completely. That ain’t gonna happen either, I guess.

  110. Infidel Tiger

    No and no. Two-parent families are not a subset of one-parent families. This is silly talk.

    Just because second mummy wears a strap on doesn’t make her a father figure.

  111. JamesK

    Just because second mummy wears a strap on doesn’t make her a father figure.

    Even when she asks: whose yo’ daddy?

  112. .

    Any gay ‘marriage’ advocates explained yet why a man shouldn’t be allowed to marry a beagle?

    Since I don’t consider myself a “gay marriage advocate” and that I think you should be able to marry any consenting adult by contract – I don’t have to C.L. This is a ridiculous strawman. You think it is hilarious but it is shallow and stupid.

  113. .

    I think the best result would be to out it to a referendum. Then nobody is ‘forcing’ anybody else.

    Yes you are. The construction of a marriage act at all implies the use of force.

  114. Viva

    end the marriage act. End the criminalisation of euthenasia

    Ahhh the withering away of the state. Perhaps one day … in the meantime dream on dot!

    Protection of the family is an existential issue. We saw the situation in microcosm in last night’s q and a. Joe Hockey had the choice between saying what he really thought about how kids need to be raised and in what environment or … hurt Penny Wong’s feelings. He chose to state what he really believed and wear the image of coming across as insensitive and nasty.

    Elsewhere I read that while US Republicans by and large oppose gay marriage they don’t want Romney to go in hard on the issue and cause unpleasantness. Defenders of marriage will need to get over their squeamishness like Joe Hockey or this battle will be well and truly lost.

  115. .

    My turn to be nasty. Why do kids get put up for adoption in the first place?

  116. JamesK

    Ooooh you’re wicked, dot!

  117. Infidel Tiger

    Why do kids get put up for adoption in the first place?

    Because their parents weren’t evil enough to abort them.

  118. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    No and no. Two-parent families are not a subset of one-parent families. This is silly talk.

    It is not, m0nty, it makes good sense if you bring gender differences into the equation.

    Which you will never do.

    Two-mum families are still a sub-set of fatherless families. There is NO DAD.

    End of discussion.

  119. Wasn’t it Paul Keating who said “Two blokes and a Cocker Spaniel don’t make a family” or something to that effect. To give a child its best chances an intact family of a mother and father is best. All the data support that yet these people put their personal wants before the interests of any children that they may have. So sad and selfish.

  120. JC

    Can I ask, is a child better off living on the street wading through trash in a 3rd world country or living with a gay couple in a first world nation like ours?

    I think there are enough hetro couples looking to adopt Australian kids, so I think there ought to be a case for those kids going with hetro parents, as that is the most likely best environment. But what about kids in 3rd world countries?

    I’m just putting that out there as I don’t think the issue is really that clear cut to me.

  121. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    Has anyone seen this?

    Have now Rabz. Heartfelt, but it doesn’t change my point of view on the dangers of socially legitimating this adoptive lifestyle choice through marriage. For this group, it seems their ‘mums’ did their best for them and kept them in touch in some way (perhaps) with their genetic fathers as well as providing a loving stability (piece seems to refer to dual mums rather than dual dads). We all know that some fatherless famiilies can do well, as these ones apparently have done. But many don’t and the reasons lie very much in the lack of a strong male role model.

  122. .

    I agree with JC. I can’t argue with the data. Having two gay dads in Australia is better than being kicked from pillar to post in Darfur.

  123. .

    I agree with JC. I can’t argue with the data. Having two gay dads in Australia is better than being kicked from pillar to post in Darfur.

  124. Elizabeth (Lizzie) B.

    The kids from the Third World will probably do well enough with the gay couple JC. It’s all relative, and we are looking at marriage as a social institution of long-standing which should not be tampered with, rather than at particular cases of need or circumstance. I am not anti-gay or anti-gay adoption given particular circumstances, I just don’t want it to be thoroughly normative in society.

    Kids from the Third World often do have deep issues with guilt and a sense of rejection by their biological parents though, which all adoptive parents have to be aware of and thus sensitive to the child’s feeling. I know of this in my own wider family where my niece is adopted from the Third World. She adores her adoptive parents but the wish for the knowledge of her origins never leaves her either.

  125. JamesK

    Can I ask, is a child better off living on the street wading through trash in a 3rd world country or living with a gay couple in a first world nation like ours?

    The answer is obvious.

    Homosexual people and couples should not be denigrated or belittled fullstop.

    I oppose ssm.

    I support same sex long term couples the right to a recognised union under law and especially no law banning them parenting.

    Most educted well off gay couples I know either are or would be brilliant parents.

    It’s just that the institution of marriage is a helluva lot more important than the facile proponents of ssm care to acknowledge.

    And although dot’s no leftist on this topic he might as well be.

  126. JC

    Yea, I can’t fault that either James. All good points too. I’ve mostly stayed out of this discussion and other like them because I find them difficult to grapple with.

    However I do recoil at the abuse thrown at people who don’t accept gay marriage.

  127. .

    Well said James, bar the commie nonsense.

  128. hzhousewife

    I just looked up the stats and maybe I didn’t find the perfect answer, but from the Adoptions Australia site in 2010-11, there were 384 finalized adoptions in Australia (there were 1142 in 1990-91).
    If all these adoptions go to gay couples half male, half female, then I am incredibly NOT threatened by gays adopting.
    I’m not sure how the stats are kept for gay couples doing their own fertilization rituals, we will never know really, and if these people are so driven to have a child of their own, then so be it. But when our country runs out of money and we can’t give them all 7 grand per baby, then they better not whinge in my direction. I’m hoping there are enough gays employed in the Arts and in Government that their taxes can pay my future pension as it is !!!!

Comments are closed.