Back in your box, Roxon
You might recall that Nicola Roxon stooped pretty darn low in her speech to the homophobic bigots that turned up at Parliament last week. Thankfully, she’s been called on it by caucus:
She told the forum that Labor had “no intention now, after the inquiry finishes or after the election, of advocating for gay marriage”. Left-wing MPs believe that Ms Roxon made a unilateral decision to overrule that promise to “suck up” to the Christians.
The speech outraged the Left, which confronted Ms Roxon last week and told her she had misrepresented Labor policy and “betrayed” the gay and lesbian community. Labor had promised that it would not vote for the ban until a Senate report into the issue had been handed down.
Mr Albanese and other frontbenchers [including Lindsay Tanner, Alan Griffin and Kate Lundy] argued Ms Roxon had gone too far in an attempt to impress a group of Christians, who were unlikely to vote Labor, at the expense of the gay and lesbian community, which had shown the party support.
[...]
Left-wing frontbenchers had warned the meeting that the strong comments by Ms Roxon had been interpreted as “anti-gay” and were having negative electoral ramifications. They said the party had to spend more time selling its progressive gay policies, including its commitment to end discrimination in legislation, in order to keep seats such as Melbourne Ports and Sydney.
Meanwhile, The Age has a sensible editorial on the issue.
As I commented in your earlier post, where you asked the question, “And what will Mark Latham do?”
He’ll have one of his MP’s [Roxon] pander to the prejudices of the Christians, and have another of his MP’s [Albanese] pander to the prejudices of the inner city types.
What a swell party this is!
Peter, that is exactly what Latham will do, except for one problem.
Albanese is not pandering to inner city “prejudices” by making the radical argument that gays and lesbians should be endowed with the same rights as their heterosexual fellow Australians. If we’re equal, then we should all have the right to marry the person we love. Refusing to perform marriages for gays and lesbians is a matter for denominations to determine for themselves. The denial of civil unions is an absolute bloody disgrace.
There’s a two bob each way thing going on here, undeniably, but referring to the support of gay and lesbian marriage as a “prejudice” is just bloody stupid – though some folks who support it may be prejudiced against Christianity
(and a score of other things) that’s ultimately irrelevant.
As long as a majority of Australians are stupid and bigotted, this sort of stuff will keep happening. We’ve just got to wait for the older generation to bloody-well die off.
Where to vote now?
Voting Liberal has never been under consideration. Labour seemed like a pretty sure bet, then along came support for the FTA, and now confirmed support for a bigoted view of marriage (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/10/1092102434806.html)...
Where does a pinko with an eye for economics go? Greens? Democrats? Where is the other party?
Torre,
I’m all for gay marriages. And after hearing the Tradmeister, a man with three mothers, complaining about the depiction of a girl with two, I’m all for lesbians on Playschool.
I didn’t mean that support for gay marriage was a prejudice, just that ‘right on’ types can be just as prone to bigotry as any one else.
Take young Jeremy for instance:
“”As long as a majority of Australians are stupid and bigotted, this sort of stuff will keep happening. We’ve just got to wait for the older generation to bloody-well die off.”"
Either way, I’ll vote for which ever party promises to build a fourth runway in Albanese’s electorate.
let’s not forget though Labour is backed by the largest and st conservatve union in Australia, the Shopworkers etc (SDA? – I forget the title from my days of checkout chicking). As far as glbtqpi rights go, the coalition have always been better as they’ve alerted us well in advance of ther stance and their anmosity. Labor, at state and federal levels, have played hide and seek for far too long, tickling our feet with promises of reform and imploring patience whilst pissing in our back pockets to get the catholic mums and dads on side.
But the big bullshit about this is in Oz very few ppl were pushing for marriage rights until John Howard decided to “ban” them, and Latham and co knew a wedge when they saw it. Latham’s pragmatism is neither whitlamesque or keatingesque, but howardesque at its best – he’s learnt well at the knee of his master.
Now I’m off to balance my budget to see if I can afford m perscription medicines this fortnight.
“”As long as a majority of Australians are stupid and bigotted, this sort of stuff will keep happening. We’ve just got to wait for the older generation to bloody-well die off.”"
Well not quite die off. They just have to learn the moral relativism of promising one thing to get elected and doing the opposite in power eh Nicola? Wouldn’t want any absolutist straight shooters mucking up the plot to get those lying, deceitful Howardists. You have to toe the Party line on doublespeak in order to be able to honorably ditch certain non-core, relativist promises later my dear.
Err, if you were wondering what you and the Party really stand for, it’s elementary my dear Roxon. Anything but Howard!
Who was it that came up with the phrase “core promises”, observa? Compare “party hack” with “Prime Minister”.
Neither party has anything to be proud of in the “promises” stakes.
Roxon’s speech is the perfect example of why the Labor is basically up shit creek. Firstly she has zero political nouse. Why would you pander to a bunch of religious zealots who were never going to vote Labor in the first place. Meanwhile they have pissed off so many inner city types (gays and friends of gays) who are now streaming to the Greens. mark my words this is a vote changing issue.
howard wedged Labor’s sorry arse (sorry about the pun) on this issue.
It seems Labor want an election victory by default (ie the libs losing it) and they don’t even have the guts to stand up to the rednecks.
HEY LABOR Get ready for the “abo” wedge. it will be here in a couple of weeks.
iain
Yeah, but streaming to the Greens isn’t as fatal for the ALP as it would be for the Democrats in the US, because the ALP catches those votes back on preferences.
Peter – that’s a bit harsh! I simply expressed frustration that attacking gays IS a vote-winner, which basically does paint a majority of Australians as “stupid and bigotted”. At least on this issue.
Ianin is of course correct. The ALP is doing poorly Federally because it cannot divorce itself from the collective philosophy that permeates the low-rent wannabe elites of this country’s media.
The fact is that Labor is doomed to eternal opposition whilst it continues to play identity politics and panders to the half-educated morons who think that the majority of Australians are “racist”, “sexist” or “homophobic.”
We on the right don’t hate homosexuals, women, foreigners or even poor people; we just hate the apparatchiks who convert certain groups into victims and try to subvert the ethos of our society at the same time.
Sinistra delenda est!!
Nah Iain, Latham was too quick at clearing the decks on that one and ditching ATSIC some time ago. Not much meat left on the bone there now.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the gay-marriage bill (which just passed the Senate, incidentally) a pre-emptive strike against the mere *possibility* that someone someday might decide that gays and lesbians ought to be able to enjoy the benefits of marriage without having to deny their sexuality?
If so, then who’s really playing “identity politics” here?