Comments on: ‘Labor should defend us this time around’: why religious freedom is the new Howard marriage ban

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 04 Oct 2018 22:24:52 +0000

In reply to Robert McCormick. As you continually ignore Robert, Shorten voted Yes in Parliament in 2012. How many Liberals did that? He was much earlier to the party than Turnbull or Pyne or many progressive Liberals as that House of Reps vote showed.

By: Sally

Sally — Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:11:09 +0000

I am constantly puzzled. I’m sure ‘religious freedom’ is just a cover up for ‘let us be cruel and nasty to other people because we’re angry that we can’t get away with it anymore’. Why are these people investing so much energy in this behaviour? ????????????

By: Robert McCormick

Robert McCormick — Thu, 27 Sep 2018 04:58:11 +0000

Don’t hold your breath, Ladies & Gents!
ALP Policy, notwithstanding SA Senator Penny Wong, was Opposed to Same Gender Marriage. When Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard were in power they both opposed it and stated it would never happen under their watch. When Turnbull introduced that Postal Survey – like it or not, if he had not done so he would have been accused of breaking yet another Coalition Promise and, much more importantly Same Gender Marriage would still not be a reality. No Gain without Pain!
Bill Shorten, despite trying to claim that he was the instigator of Same Gender Marriage after that Postal Survey resulted in an overwhelming “YES” Vote, was just like Rudd and Gillard loud in his opposition to Same Gender Marriage.
He like all the other religion-bound politicians – like him or loathe him (I loathe him) at least Tony Abbott stayed true to his opposition – Shorten in an act of sheer political opportunism along with all the others suddenly thought it was politically advantageous to support Same gender Marriage.
Not one of them is to be trusted.

By: A Nonbeliever

A Nonbeliever — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 11:39:44 +0000

When will ScoMo and his religious cult stop flogging a dead horse. Probably never because he and his dumb mob which includes all religious nonsense can’t accept the fact that there is not and never has been an almighty god watching over them ! It’s a human brain fart.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 02:59:55 +0000

Interesting article. Certainly there's no harm in pressuring Labor to keep a close eye on the religious freedom stuff and not simply green-light it as Latham did with Howard's anti marriage equality policies in 2004. I was personally quite impressed with western Sydney Labor frontbencher Tony Burke explaining that although his electorate voted No, he was voting Yes in Parliament because what makes him a good advocate for a culturally diverse electorate is his hatred of discrimination, and he couldn't endorse discrimination against LBGTQI folks while standing up against discrimination against the various races and cultures who make up his electorate. He'd committed to voting Yes at the time of the 2016 election and fought off his own mini-No campaign at that time. (audio at http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/drive/labor-to-turn-up-to-parliament-anyway/9171784 and go about 6 min 35 secs in). There are plenty of good Labor people who know their electorates are more homophobic than most but also that their voters vote ALP on economic grounds and gay rights aren't going to actually change many if any votes. The question remains what ScoMo actually means by religious freedom and how he plans to implement it. It's an incredibly complicated thing because, as American country singers remind us, freedom isn't free. If religious opinions are to be well protected, then unpopular opinions (eg fundamentalist muslims who want sharia law) will be better protected as well as Christian opinions, and ScoMo presumably doesn't want this. I've mentioned before that in South Australia proposed laws covering religious vilification were shot down in 2004 - by Christian churches who lobbied against them because they understood the wider implications. ScoMo is getting himself into dangerous territory.