train wrecks

The Awesome Collapse Of Australia PM Julia Gillard’s Marriage Discrimination Platform

So how is Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s campaign against same-sex marriage — or even letting her party take a “conscious” vote on the issue — going? Horribly!

Julia Gillard has agreed to consider overturning the government’s support for an Australian Greens’ plan that would open the way for the nation’s first same-sex marriage laws after an angry revolt by Labor MPs. Only 24 hours after Labor announced its support for Bob Brown’s proposal to water down the commonwealth’s veto over territory laws, the Prime Minister said she had “sought further advice on the issue” and “the government may reconsider the matter”.

Ms Gillard faced a widespread revolt yesterday as Labor senators, led by one of her key supporters in the leadership coup last year, Don Farrell, demanded Labor overturn its support for the Greens plan. Senator Brown’s proposed legislation would have removed the commonwealth veto used by the Howard and Rudd governments to ban euthanasia and restrict same-sex marriage. Ms Gillard and her long-time ally, Simon Crean, are being accused of not consulting the back bench properly and of giving too much ground to the Greens, as Labor now faces a divisive debate over euthanasia and same-sex marriage.

Since taking office, Gillard has refused to shift her Labour Party’s opposite to gay marriage. But then some Aussie states tried introducing their own measures, and so she sort of agree to a compromise, but a day later had to backtrack because conservative members of her party are pissed with her. I’d almost feel bad for the woman, were she not a nasty bigot.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #australia #juliagillard #marriage stories and more


  • C

    Conscience vote. Conscience.

  • MikeMB

    Sad that this is the more progressive of the two main political parties in Australia.

  • J

    @C: This post is full of typos. She “agreed”, not “agree”; and “opposition” not “opposite”.

    Are these bloggers overworked? Underpaid? These typos drive me bananas!

  • Francis

    She’s a nasty individual, because she’s putting her own views of marriage equality aside to support bigotry and heterosexist power. Those are the lowest of low, the ones who know what is right, but not only do nothing to change wrong, but fully stand by and even promote negativity. It’s even more ridiculous given most Australians are for marriage equality. Simply a disgrace.

  • Chris

    The ALP is the progressive party, don’t be fooled by the bullshit of the greens who do nothing but sit on the sidelines and snipe and have no comprehension of how to govern a nation. At the ALP national conference this year same sex marriage will become part of the new party platform. Already a majority of labor MP’s support the change including all the socialist left members and even the right wing powerbroakers bill shorten and mark arbib. Not to mention the current president of the party, Anna bligh.
    Same sex marriage will be legalized in Australia by next year at the latest. Easy.

  • Danny

    I think Australia should be given to the 100 million gay people in China (5 times the current pop. of Australia).

  • Spooky

    She is not a nasty bigot. She is just a dull puppet.

  • Oprah

    She is also a closeted lesbian. (she is married to a queen,hair-dresser by is assumed, it is a marriage of convenience.) Of course, according to my sources. :)

  • Gilbert

    Julia’s not married, Tim is her boyfriend.

  • Ted C.

    It’s called a “conscience vote”, not a “conscious vote”.

    “Conscience vote” means that the legislators can vote according to their conscience (instead of according to party policy). What would a “conscious vote” even be? A vote where you’re not asleep?

  • BenFrankly

    Homophobia and anti gay policies inevitably lead to defeat and disgrace.

    Looks like Gillard is well on her way to being the Anita Bryant of Australia.

  • Tomcat

    In all fairness Julia Gillard isn’t a bigot. The comment about being a ‘dull puppet’ is closer, but also not completely fair (I stress completely). Largely she seems unfortunately to be going down the fickle popularist road which inevitably leads to this kind of flip-flopping on policy. Personally I’m a Greens voter and don’t agree with this or many of the Labour Party’s policies, or even the general parliamentary system, but in saying that I at least understand the reality of it.

    For the record I do hope that some of the people making the bolder statements on here about our leader are either Australian or are at least informed of our political landscape from somewhere other than media blogs such as this. All I can do is compare it to non-nationals making borderline slanderous comments about US leaders and Americans’ reactions to it.

    For one, in Australia we do not elect a leader (as in the President of the USA) we elect a political party, either a party primarily made up of bigoted, old white unionists or a party exclusively made up of bigoted, old, male, white capitalists and farmers (Julie Bishop included). And then there are some fringe far left and right groups that hopefully grab enough seats to influence the governing party’s policies through negotiating support agreements. That’s what is happening here, the article even says as much. Let’s not forget that in the middle of last year, Australia had a different Prime Minister who was overthrown by his own party by a decision that was finalized the night before, and probably only put into motion weeks before. This had nothing to do with Julia Gillard, it’s all about the party machine. I’m not even going to go into the issues surrounding being in a hung parliament (insert gay pun here).

    The situation sucks, and as a Greens supporter I hope that the left wing MPs continue to pressure the government into changing their party policy at the next labour party conference that’s coming up at the end of this year or beginning of the next (cause that’s when they change official policy), but frankly nothing was going to change before then anyway. The bill in question is only to release the territories (which make up two of the seven states, one of which is the smallest) from the veto power of Government Ministers. The states can still be vetoed by the Parliament as a whole, which they would be on either of the topics for debate. This article and the drummed up argument informing it is just that, hyperbole.

Comments are closed.