The PM, belief, and marriage equality.

12 Jun

On Qanda last night, Prime Minister Julia Gillard was asked the inevitable question about her position on gay marriage. To which she replied that nobody who knows her personal circumstances (she lives in a heterosexual de facto relationship) would be surprised to hear her say that a relationship doesn’t need to be a marriage in order to be successful.

If the question had been about the purpose of marriage and whether or not we ought to abolish the institution, then Ms Gillard’s observation would have been mightily relevant. But it was not. It was about why Ms Gillard does not support same-sex marriage. The PM ought not to have been allowed to get away with avoiding the question, and with employing the classic obfuscation by conflation tactic, so beloved by politicians.

There are two separate issues in play. One: is there any need for the state to involve itself in relationships in the first place through the Marriage Act? Two: given that Marriage Act is unlikely to be abolished anytime soon, on what grounds do we continue to prevent same-sex couples who wish to marry from doing so?

The PM does not support same-sex marriage because she deeply believes marriage can only be celebrated between a man and a woman. Every time Ms Gillard refers to the Marriage Act to support her “belief” someone needs to remind her that the Act reads as it does because John Howard made it so. In 2004 the Marriage Act 1961 was amended in federal parliament to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The Amendment also states that any existing same-sex marriage from a foreign country is not to be recognised as a marriage in Australia.

Like any other citizen, the PM is entitled to her personal opinions. Legislators, however, are not entitled to legislate based on their personal opinions. If we are to continue to forbid same-sex marriage, we need to have very good reasons for that. “I believe” is not a reason.

Many of us strongly defend Ms Gillard when she’s subjected to attacks on her personal choices by conservative moralists who believe a woman isn’t  “complete” unless she has children. This belief is as silly and as offensive as the belief that only heterosexuals should be allowed to marry. It’s not very long since Ms Gillard would have been prohibited from holding her current job because of ludicrous and offensive beliefs about what women should be allowed to do. Not reasons. Beliefs.

If any politician wants to deny marriage equality to those who seek it, I want to know on what grounds they justify that denial. I don’t want to hear about their beliefs on the subject. I don’t care about their beliefs. I want some good solid reasons to support their denial of this equality. If belief had been allowed to govern our world, we’d still be flat earthers and Ms Gillard would not Prime Minister, living in a de facto relationship in the Lodge.

Time to give something back, PM?

Advertisements

47 Responses to “The PM, belief, and marriage equality.”

  1. gerard oosterman June 12, 2012 at 12:56 pm #

    I did not think she came out too bad. Her position on marriage I thought was more pragmatic than just based on her personal beliefs. She more or less conceded that her position might well be a minority view.
    She was playing the politician and with her precarious hold on Government, who could blame her.
    Watching twitter and how she performed at Q&A, I bet the next poll will give her a pretty good boost. Did you notice that not once did she rubbish the opposition?
    The joke she made about Greer’s remark about ‘jackets’.
    No, she shone last night. Same sex couples have equal rights in every other aspect. Who cares about marriage when she has introduced carbon reduction, which the opposition wants to repeal?

    Like

  2. Gregory Storer June 12, 2012 at 1:06 pm #

    I care about marriage equality, and I care about the carbon tax. I care less about the clothes she wears or that she knits.

    Gillard has made a choice not to get married, isn’t it nice that she is able to make that choice. What I want is also to make that choice not to get married to my partner.

    Like

  3. gerard oosterman June 12, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

    Yes, but with all the relentless bagging she has to put up with, I would put the same sex marriage issue a mere bagatelle. Why take that single issue out of last night’s Q&A?
    I would have thought that children’s rights to be heard in Family Courts to be much more of an urgent issue. There are so many other ‘rights’ that many feel are not being addressed.
    Miss Gillard clearly stated that next time around the party will be given the conscience vote.
    She clearly is not opposed to living and loving without going for the marriage.

    Like

  4. helvityni June 12, 2012 at 1:22 pm #

    Julia came out of Tony Jones ‘ clutches beautifully, I’d give ten out of ten for her performance.
    She does not believe in marriage for herself, she is allowing others to have a conscience vote.
    What I want is a cost-free divorce. I have seen many of friends lose everything to the lawyers in divorce courts. If I wasn’t married, I would not get married ever again. Ours happen to be a happy one, but we would have stayed together without the mini marriage ceremony in a registry office

    Like

  5. Nick June 12, 2012 at 2:31 pm #

    “Same sex couples have equal rights in every other aspect.”

    No gerard, they don’t. They have the same rights and legitimacy as de facto couples.

    An obvious area where their rights differ is immigration. It is a much easier process to get a visa for your wife or husband than it is to get a visa for your ‘boyfriend’ or ‘girlfriend’…

    Like

  6. samjandwich June 12, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    What an interesting world we live in, when on the one hand we can have such strong “beliefs” from senior public figures, and yet simultaneously we have androgynous bisexual 20-year olds wondering “is this the right hole?”, as we saw on the Insight program about kids and pornography.

    Maybe we should appoint policy-making responsibilities to people who are young enough not to have been tainted by prevailing belief systems.

    I wouldn’t be quite so unequivocal about saying that politicians shouldn’t legislate according to their beliefs. We voted for her to be our representative after all – and so effectively she has licence to do whatever she damn well wants and to listen to her constituents as much or as little as is her inclination… and in this climate where nobody with any moral fortitude could possibly justify voting for an opposition which would appoint her opposing number as its leader, it seems to me that in view of Julia’s inflexible stance on this issue we’re just goiong to have to lump it, and delay our wedding plans until someone better comes along.

    Like

    • gerard oosterman June 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

      In this case it worked out reasonably well:

      In what is believed to be the first same sex Testator’s Family Maintenance application in Australia determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria, a man who claimed he was in a secret same sex de facto relationship for 25 years has been awarded $300,000.00 from his late partner’s estate of $2,500,000.00.

      In his Will the deceased left his estate equally amongst his four children. There was no provision for his secret partner, who then made a claim of $900,000.00 from the estate. The claim was on the basis that he was in the same or similar position as a second spouse.

      The children claimed that he was merely a boarder and the relationship was one of friendship or convenience only.

      This argument was not accepted by the Supreme Court and establishes that a person in a same sex relationship has the same rights and will be subject to the same considerations as a person in a heterosexual
      relationship.

      Like

      • Christine June 12, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

        Except for one very important thing – IF they had been married he would have got the bulk of the estate. Oh – and if society had not been so relentlessly homophobic, they would not have felt the need to maintain a “secret” 25 year relationship from public, including their family. Justice Kirby had to keep his secret for what, 40 years or so? It not at all uncommon. Oh- and IF they had been permitted to marry the secret gay partners situation would be as a second spouse ie. $900,000. So deducting what he got which was $3oo,ooo, by this reckoning the “cost” of not being treated equally by being able to marry, and of homophobia was $600,000. Thats the death cost. Then add to it all the single instead of married rate of tax they paid their working lives till recently, the two separate lots of health and other insurance they paid their whole lives till recently. If they retired in superannuation schemes prior to same sex reforms, then all those benefits lost as well. Hell, they were not even a “family” for the purposes of Pharmaceutical Benefits.
        For gays of that generation not being able to marry and existing in a homophobic society has already cost them many hundreds of thousands of dollars.
        Add that to the $600,000 lost here.
        The societal punishment for being gay can quickly add up to over a million for an average mid income couple. For professionals of that generation, multi millions.
        So I respectfully strongly disagree with your breezy conclusion that “it all worked out well.” If that is your definition of working out well, I would hate to see what you regard as problematic.

        Like

        • gerard oosterman June 12, 2012 at 7:09 pm #

          And the four children? Would you discount them? Also, how do we know who wanted ‘it’ to be kept secret and the details of the any will.

          Like

    • Jennifer Wilson June 12, 2012 at 5:58 pm #

      Bloody hell, I just got such a bollocking on Twitter ALL AFTERNOON for criticising the PM on this issue. There’s a Cult of Julia out there, I tell you. A cult! Now going off to lick my wounds.

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe June 12, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

        Nothing more shallow than a groupie.Especially the kind auditioning for a seat.
        Labor is broken.
        Gillard knows it,the voters do and so does every single person.
        She cannot win the next election without un-inventing the mess she presides over.
        Not only that her decisions/policies are rapidly being seen as what they are.
        Always someone else’s.She is hostage to the churches on ssm.
        Pathetic.
        The ssm issue is not my axe to grind.(It’s the principle)
        The total lack of ownership of any single issue is everyone’s business.
        The current parrot is dead.

        Like

      • doug quixote June 16, 2012 at 7:07 am #

        Hi Jennifer – I’ve only just had a good look at the picture at the top of this article – isn’t that one worth investigating thoroughly!

        Like

  7. Julia June 12, 2012 at 4:36 pm #

    So Julia G is in a temporary relationship. It’s just a fling. Not a (de facto or common law) marriage at all.

    And if, as she says, her relationship is NOT a marriage (because there was no ceremony or document signing), does this mean she still considers children of de facto “relationships” to be illegitimate? Or that partners have no spousal rights in the Family Courts?

    Yes, “I Believe” just doesn’t wash!

    She may claim to be an atheist but her Welsh religious superstitious slip is showing

    Like

    • gerard oosterman June 12, 2012 at 4:55 pm #

      I don’t care for whatever slip Julia might be showing. It is still a lot better than Abbott’s drop-sheet. A sheet so littered with the drabs and droppings of nothingness that only a fool would see any merit in a government led by him or any other of his grim rabble of sneering cohorts.

      Like

  8. paul walter June 12, 2012 at 5:04 pm #

    Basically Gerard’s take.
    Sorry.
    I know it, you know it, but the level of psychosis against rationality out there, often manipulated by rightist mass media, means they’ll avoid at any cost the sort of drubbing the Greens have copped on social issues, for example.
    Its another issue where progressives underestimate the power of reaction.

    Like

    • Nick June 12, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

      That’s interesting, paul. You’re basically saying that they know it’s right, but they won’t do it because of the electoral risk.

      The caucus has voted as a whole in support of same-sex marriage.

      It can’t just be the case that Gillard’s personal support in caucus relies too heavily on those against it, for *her* to take the risk of not putting it to a conscience vote they know is guaranteed to lose on the day?

      Like

      • paul walter June 12, 2012 at 9:12 pm #

        No. It’s much more complex than that, Nick.
        Nick, you, Julia, Hypo and others see, as we do, that the ALP has become flyblown, but we remember it was the vital force, under the old “left”secular rationalist union/intellectual alliance, that busted us out of the nineteenth century- as far as I am concerned it was the left that I owe for being brought up (relatively) secular and rational
        But Globalisation has broken the political equation here, new forces have displaced the old and Labor is dominated by the soc cons and neolibs, The secular left’s power base has been smashed and its role as bearer of social critique inherited by the Greens, at the cost of social overview being exiled from the mainstream.
        It’ s reflected the vicious in-fighting that has gone in within labor and the left itself, between situationalist and identity politics, as thoseleft fought over the spoils of defeat.
        What’s happened has indeed been a hard sweep of reaction over a generation or more, as dumbing down in education and media facilitated the slide into irrationalism; as vested interests gained control
        What many have hoped would happen was that we could ride out the wave of reaction, buy time then, once the absurdities and contradictions of the new bugger you jack ideology became apparent- the politics of self, withdrawal and retreat into denial or hedonism, people would again recognise rationalism and opt for some thing like the ALP platform of 2007.
        But to the extent that the right has taken a grip on labor, has that process been subverted.
        But it is much later in the day even than that. Labor is not the most rightwards force in the country, in fact apart from internal conflicts between between the better-motivated and the careerists and opportunists,there is the exogenous threat of Abbott reaction. Gerard:
        “It is still.. better than Abbott’s dropsheet … littered with
        nothingness…and his sneering rabble of cohorts.”
        What Nick and others see and actually irks them deeply, I think, is the extent to which the right faction, with its control of labor’s apparatus, has been able to develop plausible deniability as to internal reform delay and postponement of a return to fair preselection processes and a relevant agenda.
        It’s still not quite finally certain that labor is dead or just comatose. If there is still even a faint a chance that “true” labor could be revived, people will fight for it, rather than abandon it.
        The (ALP) right knows it and feeds off it, because they know the only
        alternative is Abbott now, or Abbott delayed (and even an Abbottist government later, in the form of “dead” labor.
        It’s ultimately where we are going to end up, with Globalisation mediated by big power and corporate exceptionalism, Yes, its a holding operation, actually a slow retreat, in response to a desperate situation with little sign of relief.
        This is very bad news, therefore, for people as diverse as Assange and the aborigines; the global poor and gays; science and justice, humanity against instrumentality.

        Like

        • Nick June 13, 2012 at 11:09 am #

          Thanks, paul. There’s a way forward for me to a more moderate position in there.

          Maybe we’ll see it happen before the next election, maybe not.

          If it does, I believe it’d go a fair way to helping Labor’s chances of being re-elected…they’ve shelved too many issues with >70% public support for my liking.

          Just because it’s one of those “don’t feel that strongly about it” issues, doesn’t mean it’s not also a “fuck yeah, that was good to see happen…good on ’em…the world’s a slightly better place today and I officially have a license to enjoy my coffee this morning and feel good to be Australian”…those things count.

          Encourage people to be selfish on the other hand, and who do you think they’re going vote for?

          But if not…well, the deals have all been done. There are clearly some good folk working in the background, but this government just wasn’t the one. The dinosaurs will be extinct soon.

          Like

  9. Marilyn June 12, 2012 at 6:30 pm #

    That would be fine if she was a dictator but she is not. She says clearly that her colleagues Penny and Ian Hunter in SA cannot marry their partners because of her belief.

    What precisely does she believe?

    After all she believed it was OK to flog refugees to Malaysia for political gain and it wasn’t .

    Like

    • gerard oosterman June 12, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

      Yes, but turning the boats back was hardly much friendlier, was it?
      The Libs are hopelessly bereft of anything much more than plenty of nothingness and fried air.

      How does Abbott visualise or imagine Australia in another twenty or thirty years? What are his aspirations for Australia or the dreams’ that he and his party hold so dear and would like to achieve?

      We know he likes freedom of choice with the dumbing down to the lowest denominator but what are the specifics for greatness, for a better and more humane society?

      Freedom to get fatter perhaps? Will they continue to fight for more for the few and less for the majority?

      Or will Abbott strive and fight for the lowering of our extraordinary high rates of unwanted teen-pregnancies? The dreadful plight of the indigenous. The horrendous high rates and damage by gambling and binge drinking. The above OECD average incarcerations? The still Bedlam state of mental health?

      What are the ideals that Abbott and Co are so keen to strive for?

      I think those issues are the real ones and getting married by the variety of sexes, same or not so same, might just have to hang around a bit more, perhaps they even pale into insignificance. (for the time being)

      Like

    • hudsongodfrey June 12, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

      So what is this Marilyn? Is politics meant to be a race to the bottom? I mean have you seen the opposition’s policies on either of those issues?

      Pot meet kettle.

      Like

  10. doug quixote June 12, 2012 at 7:30 pm #

    Give the woman a break! She says she has a personal view that she does not seek to impose on anyone else.

    There really are more important issues.

    Like

  11. M B Andrews June 12, 2012 at 8:01 pm #

    I’m all for having facts in this debate.

    I think it’s worth looking at some stats on what SSM leads to. I’m particularly interested in the claim that SSM will somehow strengthen marriage.

    So I did a hunt around for some facts on the general divorce rate in those countries that have introduced SSM. I couldn’t find any set articles, so I had to do my own digging.

    There are just ten countries (as far as I can tell) that allow full state recognised same sex marriage. And, in all of them, more than one in three of all marriages (same sex or otherwise) end in divorce.

    Now some of these stats are a bit wobbly. For example, Spain has only recently allowed divorce, so the rate of divorce hasn’t really settled down. (Currently, a marriage breaks down every 3.19 minutes – but that can’t go on forever.) Anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s the rate of divorce in those countries which have changed the definition of marriage:

    Argentina 33%
    Belgium 64.5%
    Canada 40.7
    Iceland 39%
    Netherlands 41%
    Norway 43%
    Portugal 30%
    Spain 75%
    South Africa 50%
    Sweden 50%

    This is broad stuff. I’m not a statistician. And it doesn’t reflect on the blokes (they’re all blokes for some reason) I know who are in same sex marriages. But I think it does indicate that same sex marriage isn’t a direct expression of cultures with a high view of marriage. I think that’s what you see when you look at things the other way – all the countries with low divorce rates (like India, Sri Lanka and Japan) have a traditional understanding of marriage and no plans to introduce SSM.

    Like

    • doug quixote June 12, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

      The numbers are a matter of statistics. If 10% of people are homosexual (an overestimate by most studies) there will be 1/10 x 1/10 marriages : that is 1%, long term.

      1% of marriages will be same sex. At the most, after the initial backlog is overcome. (This is a major issue?)

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey June 12, 2012 at 10:23 pm #

        Lies, Damned Lie and Statistics hey Doug?

        Like

  12. paul walter June 12, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    Actually for those interested, a related article from Ben Eltham ( or Elton Ben, as I Iike to think of him) just out, “Voters Want Real Labor Values” ,12/6, at the online mag “New Matilda”(no link, wont accept my email, unlike most other places).

    Like

  13. hudsongodfrey June 12, 2012 at 10:22 pm #

    My earlier reply is visiting the ether… Send postcards saying wish you were here….

    Anyhoo! Julia’s real problem is constructed thus. Labor formerly had a policy that was not supportive of same sex marriage. Ruddy if you remember (and how could anyone not), wanted to call them unions. So a fair while back Julia couched her defence of Labor policy in terms of her own personal opinion on the matter.

    To be fair relationships probably don’t need the institution of marriage to survive, but to be fairer the current situation is downright discriminatory!

    But! I heard people ask? Is that what she thinks? Is she being entirely forthright?

    She is a politician after all, and in the top job it matters that people focus on a leader’s integrity. She’s damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t change her personal opinion even though her party’s policy has shifted to supporting gay marriage.

    Sooner or later there has to be a bill introduced and put to the vote on this, and while she has the numbers no matter how narrowly to push it through then it is altogether possible that the matter can be settled. And in my view Abbott would want to be a braver man than I think he is (noting that he’s declined Q&A next week), to turn around and take people’s marriages away from them.

    My thoughts are that this is a dice handed to her that is worth rolling on Abbott. And for the record it is also the right thing to do.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson June 12, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

      There aren’t the ALP numbers to pass a conscience vote on ssm. This is why Gillard’s matters but she’ll vote against. They are short about 12.

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey June 12, 2012 at 10:58 pm #

        What about a non-conscience vote? It is ALP policy after all. I wonder what the independents and the Senate would do?

        Like

        • Jennifer Wilson June 13, 2012 at 6:05 am #

          They already settled on a conscience vote at their December conference. The ALP changed its platform to endorse ssm, then Gillard moved for a conscience vote & won. Gillard is at odds with her party’s platform on this.

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2012 at 9:03 am #

            So she’s to the right of Richo on this!

            Not exactly an enviable set of credentials I’d have thought.

            Like

  14. paul walter June 12, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    I am actually inviting crucifixion here but will say it any way–largely due to Labor (and/or progressives mall liberals), I’d think the overt violence and prejudice toward gays of half a century ago has been ameliorated to a reasonable sort of degree.
    Am about to get clobbered by gay people indignantly telling me they want acceptance rather than tolerance; the symbolism of accepting gay marriage is on a parallel to the Aboriginal Apology. I can see Its a process, people get impatient, as I was over the system’s refusal of habeas corpus as best practice re Manning and Assange; earlier Hicks and Habib. injustices flourish when rabble rousers intimidate timid politicians into toeing the line on holding off social reform
    I also understand the argument that some of the current law may impact on an individual’s right to determine her own financial affairs as to will-writing and other property arrangements.
    But I’ll say it again- the last half century has seen progress on these sorts of social issues-I’ve witnessed it- and if you think Abbott will lead you to the Promised Land, go for it. Am just saying, don’t be shocked if it doesn’t happen or- unbeleivably- gets worse, given that Abbott’s crew seem such forbearing, receptive and caring, compassionate souls.

    Like

  15. doug quixote June 13, 2012 at 6:15 am #

    Paul, once again we seem to be on the same wavelength. It has been my view for years that no matter how reluctant the ALP seem to be to move progressively they are still an infinitely better option than the conservatives under Abbott, or even under the likely new leader they will have come September.

    Jennifer, please remember your commitment. You know which one. The ALP is still the only viable choice for a federal government. The alternatives are too horrible to contemplate.

    Like

    • Jennifer Wilson June 13, 2012 at 6:48 am #

      I haven’t forgotten my commitments and I’m torn between two. Plus extremely disappointed: I expected more intelligence and knowledge from the lady. I’m also resentful at feeling I ought not to express my contempt for such superstitious ignorance because the alternatives are horrible. I don’t think I’m alone in this, & fear that even if these matters are not spoken of they will still be reflected at the ballot box.

      Like

      • doug quixote June 13, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

        We choose to do this not because it is easy but because it is hard. (JFK)

        It is easy to take the high ground on every issue and throw brickbats at everyone who disagrees with us, regardless of consequences.

        Politics is full of hard choices; if a particular issue is so dear to one’s heart that one cannot support the party line then the politician should leave the party.

        But if the party is broadly on the right track, and the alternative is not, the aggrieved must swallow their quibbles and toe the line.

        No one said it would be easy.

        Like

        • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2012 at 7:35 pm #

          Little known fact JFK said that all the time mostly when he was playing away from home so to speak! A habit no doubt continued by Clinton!

          Like

          • doug quixote June 13, 2012 at 8:16 pm #

            I don’t think that is helpful HG. Some posts are flippant, but some are in deadly earnest. This one is the latter.

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey June 13, 2012 at 10:41 pm #

              Oh come now Doug, I used to like Deadly Earnest! But what I’d really like is my governments representative, whereas the party system. much as we all know and love it, kind of what screws that up for everyone.

              On a practical level I may be forced to agree that you’ve astutely identified the nub of the matter with reference to the equations we’re reduced to whenever we endeavour to identify the lesser of the two evils that we find in any two party system.

              That doesn’t mean that we have to like it when it clearly lacks the conscience to get something as straightforward as anti-discrimination right!

              And under the circumstances, if in my despair I unashamedly look for fun amid the depressing pall of it all then…in the words of sir Les, “God Bless Australia – I only wish we owned it.”

              Like

    • Jennifer Wilson June 13, 2012 at 6:48 am #

      Plus the ALP has endorsed ssm. Its leader is at odds with her party.

      Like

      • paul walter June 13, 2012 at 7:01 am #

        Has the coalition endorsed it?

        Like

        • paul walter June 13, 2012 at 7:09 am #

          Come to think of it, perhaps its the party that’s at odds with its leader?

          Like

        • Jennifer Wilson June 13, 2012 at 7:59 am #

          No and they won’t allow a conscience vote either.

          Like

          • paul walter June 13, 2012 at 11:26 am #

            Coalition or labor?

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe June 13, 2012 at 11:15 pm #

              OM?
              They’re different parties! ????????????????

              Like

  16. helvityni June 13, 2012 at 8:36 am #

    Marriage is an outdated institute, and who bloody cares if Labor is sticking to its old values, times change and so should the political parties…
    What matters to me that I could not bear to have the Liberals in power, I narrowly survived the Howard years, but I could not live in Oz if Abbott were the PM….look at the people behind him Morrison, Pyne, Mirabella, Bishops, Ruddock….can’t even remember their names…..I wish the Liberals got away from their core values and and grew a heart….

    Like

  17. gerard oosterman June 13, 2012 at 9:12 am #

    Sometimes, during insomniacal tossing and turning, I imagine queuing at a Liberal voting booth hoping to get a glimpse in that private world of the liberal voter. What drives and inspires them to pencil in their preferred choices? What is their criteria?

    Of course, nothing turns up, no matter how I churn over the Liberal options. Soon the bone- dryness of this contemplation soothes me back into sleep.

    Perhaps many vote out of habit or a genetic imprint. They vote the same because of their parental upbringing or just out of sheer ennui wanting to get it over with.

    Unlike Europe where many passionately come out with their preferred party, here in Australia, most keep it well hidden. Just note how most accept ‘how to vote’ from all the parties before going inside. What will the neighbours think?

    Anyway, the one thing that stands out for the Liberals is that their contempt for humanity is palpable at every time they are on show. Notice their lack of compassion, Oh, that remark by Abbott on a man dying from asbestos. That purple angry penis thrusting face of Mr C. Pyne. Those scoffing snarling remarks by S.Morrison on refugees. Where oh where is the kindnes, a willingness to understand? Is that what private schooling does?

    No, I’ll stick to ALP. I know it is just fish and chips, but I prefer it.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: