Former prime minister Kevin Rudd backs same-sex marriage in blog

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd has declared he has changed his mind on same-sex marriage and thrown his support behind it.

In a lengthy blog posted on his website, Mr Rudd explains why he has reversed his opposition to gay marriage.

Mr Rudd says he has reflected on the issue for a long period of time and had many conversations with family, friends and colleagues, recounting a recent one with a gay former staffer.

"I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same-sex marriage," Mr Rudd said in the blog post.

"For me, this change in position has come about as a result of a lot of reflection, over a long period of time, including conversations with good people grappling with deep questions of life, sexuality and faith."

He concluded that while the church and the state could have different positions and practices on same-sex marriage, legislation should not place any requirement on religious institutions to conduct same-sex marriages.

Mr Rudd, who is a Christian, says the issue has been a "difficult personal journey" but came down to a matter of conscience.

"I have tried in good conscience to deal with the ethical fundamentals of the issue and reach an ethical conclusion," he said.

"My core interest is to be clear-cut about the change in my position locally on this highly controversial issue before the next election, so that my constituents are fully aware of my position when they next visit the ballot box."

He says he is aware his opponents within and beyond the Labor party could read political significance into his reversed position, but denounced any national leadership role on the issue.

Mr Rudd's newfound support puts him at odds with the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who opposes same-sex marriage.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young says the leaders of both major parties are out of step with the community in their opposition to same-sex marriage.

"Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are looking more and more isolated on this issue even within their own parties," she said.

"They are both standing on the wrong side of history.

"They're blocking the inevitable, they're stubborn about it, we need to see them evolve."

Mr Rudd also used the blog to urge the Coalition to follow Labor's lead and grant MPs a conscience vote on the matter in parliament.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-20/former-pm-kevin-rudd-backs-same-sex-marriage-in-blog/4701814

Church and State are able to have different positions on same sex marriage.

http://www.kevinruddmp.com/2013/05/church-and-state-are-able-to-have.html

Poor ol' Elmer is feeling lonely on the backbenches and needs some attention...

white anting the childless aethiest ranga. ;)

i would love to be at kevvies house for the celebratory party on september 14.  he will be high fiving his missus and wetting himself with exuberance as jules and wayne are led off to the gallows.  this is like some cheap period piece with 'lady jane grey" lady mcbeth and cardinal wolsley.  shakespeare should write a play based on these very interesting characters ;)

Perhaps an adaptation of King Lear, with ex-King Elmer sitting alone and muttering about sharp serpents' teeth and ungrateful protégés.

But who would be Cordelia, or Goneril, or Regan?

So the most narcissistic complicit ALP MP supports gays getting married ?

Its shameful a grub like Rudd wishes to politicise this issue.

I guess he has been giving it that way, maybe he is a closet gay ....... this might be part of his last ditch attempt to take over before September. With Rudd there is always an agenda, why now ?

I wonder if he has employed a private polling firm to see if the idea worked.

____ wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 4:59am:

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd backs same-sex marriage in blog Former prime minister Kevin Rudd has declared he has changed his mind on same-sex marriage and thrown his support behind it. In a lengthy blog posted on his website, Mr Rudd explains why he has reversed his opposition to gay marriage. Mr Rudd says he has reflected on the issue for a long period of time and had many conversations with family, friends and colleagues, recounting a recent one with a gay former staffer. "I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same-sex marriage," Mr Rudd said in the blog post. "For me, this change in position has come about as a result of a lot of reflection, over a long period of time, including conversations with good people grappling with deep questions of life, sexuality and faith." He concluded that while the church and the state could have different positions and practices on same-sex marriage, legislation should not place any requirement on religious institutions to conduct same-sex marriages. Mr Rudd, who is a Christian, says the issue has been a "difficult personal journey" but came down to a matter of conscience. "I have tried in good conscience to deal with the ethical fundamentals of the issue and reach an ethical conclusion," he said. "My core interest is to be clear-cut about the change in my position locally on this highly controversial issue before the next election, so that my constituents are fully aware of my position when they next visit the ballot box." He says he is aware his opponents within and beyond the Labor party could read political significance into his reversed position, but denounced any national leadership role on the issue. Mr Rudd's newfound support puts him at odds with the Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who opposes same-sex marriage. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young says the leaders of both major parties are out of step with the community in their opposition to same-sex marriage. "Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott are looking more and more isolated on this issue even within their own parties," she said. "They are both standing on the wrong side of history. "They're blocking the inevitable, they're stubborn about it, we need to see them evolve." Mr Rudd also used the blog to urge the Coalition to follow Labor's lead and grant MPs a conscience vote on the matter in parliament. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-20/former-pm-kevin-rudd-backs-same-sex-marriage-in-blog/4701814

The slimmy litlle low labor Bastard.

They all will come around eventually. Its the direction society is moving.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 7:58am:

They all will come around eventually. Its the direction society is moving. SOB

Spot of Borg

Being non-religious the issue looks bigger to me, why does the government need to know if I am married or not ?

We already have de-facto laws that undermine marriage so why not just get rid of the marriage act altogether ?

The only point we need to examine two peoples relationship is in a separation situation where kids are involved and law is required.

Other than that, it is no ones business who I choose to live with or how many.

RightSadFred wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 7:39am:

So the most narcissistic complicit ALP MP supports gays getting married ? Its shameful a grub like Rudd wishes to politicise this issue. I guess he has been giving it that way, maybe he is a closet gay ....... this might be part of his last ditch attempt to take over before September. With Rudd there is always an agenda, why now ? I wonder if he has employed a private polling firm to see if the idea worked.

of course, it's Rudds fault that it is being politicised .... it was never on the agenda before that.

RightSadFred wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 8:38am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 7:58am: They all will come around eventually. Its the direction society is moving. SOB Spot of Borg Being non-religious the issue looks bigger to me, why does the government need to know if I am married or not ? We already have de-facto laws that undermine marriage so why not just get rid of the marriage act altogether ? The only point we need to examine two peoples relationship is in a separation situation where kids are involved and law is required. Other than that, it is no ones business who I choose to live with or how many.

it does seem very old hat now doesnt it......its just a way of keeping records and keeping track of us..now we have the mobil...

look at the money involved with a marriage these days. its huge business I bet they cant wait for this to become legal...aint that a fact  8-)

With Rudd there is always a hidden agenda.

Gearing up for another leadership challenge? One that he might actually contest this time?

john_g wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 9:41am:

With Rudd there is always a hidden agenda. Gearing up for another leadership challenge? One that he might actually contest this time?

NO!NO!NO!

Elmer will never lead the ALP again.

He said so.

And he is a man of principle.

Isn't  he?

Quote:

it does seem very old hat now doesnt it......its just a way of keeping records and keeping track of us..now we have the mobil... look at the money involved with a marriage these days. its huge business I bet they cant wait for this to become legal...aint that a fact  8-)

cods

I even go further, why should any government policy be based on who people choose to live with ?

A Church can keep their "Marriage" as what they define ....... gays can do the same.

I see at as no laws are required.

The government can just remove itself from the equation.

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 8:41am:

RightSadFred wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 7:39am: So the most narcissistic complicit ALP MP supports gays getting married ? Its shameful a grub like Rudd wishes to politicise this issue. I guess he has been giving it that way, maybe he is a closet gay ....... this might be part of his last ditch attempt to take over before September. With Rudd there is always an agenda, why now ? I wonder if he has employed a private polling firm to see if the idea worked. of course, it's Rudds fault that it is being politicised .... it was never on the agenda before that.

John Smith

Sorry I missed the guy holding a gun to Rudd's head. Does he appear when you put your tin foil hat on ?

Every human society has been built on heterosexual marriage regardless of which religion/superstition has been in vogue but we've had civil marriage for quite a while.

So it's interesting that whenever this subject comes up, people link marriage to church.

Just an observation...

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young says the leaders of both major parties are out of step with the community in their opposition to same-sex marriage.


No, they’re probably as sick to death of hearing about it as we all are.

Let ‘em get married.

Then maybe they’ll STFU and leave the rest of us alone.

RightSadFred wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 8:38am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 7:58am: They all will come around eventually. Its the direction society is moving. SOB Spot of Borg Being non-religious the issue looks bigger to me, why does the government need to know if I am married or not ? We already have de-facto laws that undermine marriage so why not just get rid of the marriage act altogether ? The only point we need to examine two peoples relationship is in a separation situation where kids are involved and law is required. Other than that, it is no ones business who I choose to live with or how many.

It would cost more to keep track of de-factos and change all the laws pertaining to goods and children etc than to just let gays get married and stick them under existing laws etc.

SOB

Probably dating Wayne Swan and thinking about the future once his divorce comes through...... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

We (gay couples) are couples for tax (and centrelink purposes apparently).

Whilst it might appear to be a political stunt, it's no more or less a political stunt than Mr Tony  (we might have a conscience vote (really no hope in hell that this well ever pass if I'm p.m)) Abbott.

Marriage is not a religious institution any more - divorces are legal and women are no longer the property of their husbands.

Society has moved passed this definition (it's no longer for life - as it says in our current marriage act).

Maybe we should give everyone a civil union and for those who want it - they can get married in churches.

Anyone who is worried that churches will get sued for not marrying gay couples - most gay couples wouldn't want to marry in church/some churches support it.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:26am:

RightSadFred wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 8:38am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 7:58am: They all will come around eventually. Its the direction society is moving. SOB Spot of Borg Being non-religious the issue looks bigger to me, why does the government need to know if I am married or not ? We already have de-facto laws that undermine marriage so why not just get rid of the marriage act altogether ? The only point we need to examine two peoples relationship is in a separation situation where kids are involved and law is required. Other than that, it is no ones business who I choose to live with or how many. It would cost more to keep track of de-factos and change all the laws pertaining to goods and children etc than to just let gays get married and stick them under existing laws etc. SOB

Spot of Borg

So you want to further undermine the marriage act using a thousand cuts .... I just prefer to execute it  in one go.

I see no value in governments basing policy of anyone's personal life preferences.

Prefer my idea, I get sick and tired of useless outdated laws that serve no one other than divorce lawyers.

RightSadFred wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 11:55am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 10:26am: RightSadFred wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 8:38am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 7:58am: They all will come around eventually. Its the direction society is moving. SOB Spot of Borg Being non-religious the issue looks bigger to me, why does the government need to know if I am married or not ? We already have de-facto laws that undermine marriage so why not just get rid of the marriage act altogether ? The only point we need to examine two peoples relationship is in a separation situation where kids are involved and law is required. Other than that, it is no ones business who I choose to live with or how many. It would cost more to keep track of de-factos and change all the laws pertaining to goods and children etc than to just let gays get married and stick them under existing laws etc. SOB Spot of Borg So you want to further undermine the marriage act using a thousand cuts .... I just prefer to execute it  in one go. I see no value in governments basing policy of anyone's personal life preferences. Prefer my idea, I get sick and tired of useless outdated laws that serve no one other than divorce lawyers.

I didnt say what i want. I said how it is. Thing is ppl go through divorces and have to sort everything including children so there are laws about it.

SOB

RightSadFred wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:05am:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 8:41am: RightSadFred wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 7:39am: So the most narcissistic complicit ALP MP supports gays getting married ? Its shameful a grub like Rudd wishes to politicise this issue. I guess he has been giving it that way, maybe he is a closet gay ....... this might be part of his last ditch attempt to take over before September. With Rudd there is always an agenda, why now ? I wonder if he has employed a private polling firm to see if the idea worked. of course, it's Rudds fault that it is being politicised .... it was never on the agenda before that. John Smith Sorry I missed the guy holding a gun to Rudd's head. Does he appear when you put your tin foil hat on ?

so they guy voices an opinion and he's politicising it? I suppose the fact that Rudd voiced this opinion also means there is another leadership challenge looming? The only one wearing tin foil hats is you ... you're the one seeing conspiracies everywhere .. listen carefully, you should be receiving a signal from Lib HQ soon ... keep that hat tuned in !

John Smith wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 12:16pm:

RightSadFred wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 10:05am: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 8:41am: RightSadFred wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 7:39am: So the most narcissistic complicit ALP MP supports gays getting married ? Its shameful a grub like Rudd wishes to politicise this issue. I guess he has been giving it that way, maybe he is a closet gay ....... this might be part of his last ditch attempt to take over before September. With Rudd there is always an agenda, why now ? I wonder if he has employed a private polling firm to see if the idea worked. of course, it's Rudds fault that it is being politicised .... it was never on the agenda before that. John Smith Sorry I missed the guy holding a gun to Rudd's head. Does he appear when you put your tin foil hat on ? so they guy voices an opinion and he's politicising it? I suppose the fact that Rudd voiced this opinion also means there is another leadership challenge looming? The only one wearing tin foil hats is you ... you're the one seeing conspiracies everywhere .. listen carefully, you should be receiving a signal from Lib HQ soon ... keep that hat tuned in !

John Smith

No this a complete Rudd show, your too thick to know when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 12:09pm:

RightSadFred wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 11:55am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 10:26am: RightSadFred wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 8:38am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 7:58am: They all will come around eventually. Its the direction society is moving. SOB Spot of Borg Being non-religious the issue looks bigger to me, why does the government need to know if I am married or not ? We already have de-facto laws that undermine marriage so why not just get rid of the marriage act altogether ? The only point we need to examine two peoples relationship is in a separation situation where kids are involved and law is required. Other than that, it is no ones business who I choose to live with or how many. It would cost more to keep track of de-factos and change all the laws pertaining to goods and children etc than to just let gays get married and stick them under existing laws etc. SOB Spot of Borg So you want to further undermine the marriage act using a thousand cuts .... I just prefer to execute it  in one go. I see no value in governments basing policy of anyone's personal life preferences. Prefer my idea, I get sick and tired of useless outdated laws that serve no one other than divorce lawyers. I didnt say what i want. I said how it is. Thing is ppl go through divorces and have to sort everything including children so there are laws about it. SOB

Spot of Borg

Which apply if you don't get married.

Please don't bore me with your wet lettuce arguments.

Fit of Absent Mindeness wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 11:51am:

We (gay couples) are couples for tax (and centrelink purposes apparently). Whilst it might appear to be a political stunt, it's no more or less a political stunt than Mr Tony  (we might have a conscience vote (really no hope in hell that this well ever pass if I'm p.m)) Abbott. Marriage is not a religious institution any more - divorces are legal and women are no longer the property of their husbands. Society has moved passed this definition (it's no longer for life - as it says in our current marriage act). Maybe we should give everyone a civil union and for those who want it - they can get married in churches. Anyone who is worried that churches will get sued for not marrying gay couples - most gay couples wouldn't want to marry in church/some churches support it.

iceyone

Tony tends to down plays it(as does Gillard BTW) , while Rudd gets out there and bignotes himself.

Big big difference

RightSadFred wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 12:34pm:

John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 12:16pm: RightSadFred wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 10:05am: John Smith wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 8:41am: RightSadFred wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 7:39am: So the most narcissistic complicit ALP MP supports gays getting married ? Its shameful a grub like Rudd wishes to politicise this issue. I guess he has been giving it that way, maybe he is a closet gay ....... this might be part of his last ditch attempt to take over before September. With Rudd there is always an agenda, why now ? I wonder if he has employed a private polling firm to see if the idea worked. of course, it's Rudds fault that it is being politicised .... it was never on the agenda before that. John Smith Sorry I missed the guy holding a gun to Rudd's head. Does he appear when you put your tin foil hat on ? so they guy voices an opinion and he's politicising it? I suppose the fact that Rudd voiced this opinion also means there is another leadership challenge looming? The only one wearing tin foil hats is you ... you're the one seeing conspiracies everywhere .. listen carefully, you should be receiving a signal from Lib HQ soon ... keep that hat tuned in ! John Smith No this a complete Rudd show, your too thick to know when someone is pulling the wool over your eyes.

or your antennae is faulty.

So when Rudd backflip over gay marriage - then Green_poo's headline is "Rudd Backs Marriage Equality"

But if anyone from the LIBs change their mind - then the headline will read "LIBs backflip over gay marriage"

You are a moron Green_poo

I'm so sick of politicians saying, "Oh I've now had a personal discussion and I've changed my mind." FFS THEY ARE MEANT TO BE REPRESENTATIVES.  MEANING IT'S NOT ABOUT PERSONAL FRIENDSHIPS OR PERSONAL INFLUENCES, BUT ABOUT WHAT"S RIGHT FOR YOUR ELECTORATE. RUDD AND ABBOTT ARE THE F***ING SAME RUBBISH.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:31pm:

I'm so sick of politicians saying, "Oh I've now had a personal discussion and I've changed my mind." FFS THEY ARE MEANT TO BE REPRESENTATIVES.  MEANING IT'S NOT ABOUT PERSONAL FRIENDSHIPS OR PERSONAL INFLUENCES, BUT ABOUT WHAT"S RIGHT FOR YOUR ELECTORATE. RUDD AND ABBOTT ARE THE F***ING SAME RUBBISH.

It's a discussion about gay marriage and Rudd changing his mind

Why bring Abbott into this issue

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:31pm:

I'm so sick of politicians saying, "Oh I've now had a personal discussion and I've changed my mind." FFS THEY ARE MEANT TO BE REPRESENTATIVES.  MEANING IT'S NOT ABOUT PERSONAL FRIENDSHIPS OR PERSONAL INFLUENCES, BUT ABOUT WHAT"S RIGHT FOR YOUR ELECTORATE. RUDD AND ABBOTT ARE THE F***ING SAME RUBBISH.

you are right trouble is gay marriage is never really an election policy is it?.why I will never know...even I didnt know it was a Lib party thing against it...I really havent given it a lot of thought as someone said tonight.. why didnt rudd do something when he was PM...

suddenly we are expected to believe out of the blue he has had a change of heart....like you say has he discussed this with those that vote for him????

maybe thats what all MPs need to do see what their electorates want them to do about it...as for rudd saying it was about his religious beliefs in the past... what rubbish he spent his time when PM.. turning up
ST John the Baptist Church 

cods wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:48pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 10:31pm: I'm so sick of politicians saying, "Oh I've now had a personal discussion and I've changed my mind." FFS THEY ARE MEANT TO BE REPRESENTATIVES.  MEANING IT'S NOT ABOUT PERSONAL FRIENDSHIPS OR PERSONAL INFLUENCES, BUT ABOUT WHAT"S RIGHT FOR YOUR ELECTORATE. RUDD AND ABBOTT ARE THE F***ING SAME RUBBISH. you are right trouble is gay marriage is never really an election policy is it?.why I will never know...even I didnt know it was a Lib party thing against it...I really havent given it a lot of thought as someone said tonight.. why didnt rudd do something when he was PM... suddenly we are expected to believe out of the blue he has had a change of heart....like you say has he discussed this with those that vote for him???? maybe thats what all MPs need to do see what their electorates want them to do about it...as for rudd saying it was about his religious beliefs in the past... what rubbish he spent his time when PM.. turning up ST John the Baptist Church

Yep, when it comes to these types of issues a MP's religious belief should play no part. It is up to their ability to separate church and state, and to actually do what is in the best interest of THEIR ELECTORATE, not their church and not some individual they have grown to know.

Who cares if gay people get married.....It makes no difference to me what so ever.....If people love each other let them express it in a commitment of marriage....To deny anyone a right granted to the rest of society is just bigotry!!!

>:( >:( >:(

philperth2010 wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:59pm:

Who cares if gay people get married.....It makes no difference to me what so ever.....If people love each other let them express it in a commitment of marriage....To deny anyone a right granted to the rest of society is just bigotry!!! >:( >:( >:(

Then go and have a civil ceremony or do what they did in Braveheart

This got nothing to do with love but more to do with sh1t stirring (pun intended)

cods wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:48pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 10:31pm: I'm so sick of politicians saying, "Oh I've now had a personal discussion and I've changed my mind." FFS THEY ARE MEANT TO BE REPRESENTATIVES.  MEANING IT'S NOT ABOUT PERSONAL FRIENDSHIPS OR PERSONAL INFLUENCES, BUT ABOUT WHAT"S RIGHT FOR YOUR ELECTORATE. RUDD AND ABBOTT ARE THE F***ING SAME RUBBISH. you are right trouble is gay marriage is never really an election policy is it?.why I will never know...even I didnt know it was a Lib party thing against it...I really havent given it a lot of thought as someone said tonight.. why didnt rudd do something when he was PM... suddenly we are expected to believe out of the blue he has had a change of heart....like you say has he discussed this with those that vote for him???? maybe thats what all MPs need to do see what their electorates want them to do about it...as for rudd saying it was about his religious beliefs in the past... what rubbish he spent his time when PM.. turning up ST John the Baptist Church

Why wouldn't he have a change of heart? He isnt running for PM so theres no big agenda there.

SOB

Makka wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 11:03pm:

philperth2010 wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 10:59pm: Who cares if gay people get married.....It makes no difference to me what so ever.....If people love each other let them express it in a commitment of marriage....To deny anyone a right granted to the rest of society is just bigotry!!! >:( >:( >:( Then go and have a civil ceremony or do what they did in Braveheart This got nothing to do with love but more to do with sh1t stirring (pun intended)

So now no gay ppl are actually in love? What about the ones that have been together for like 30 years? They stayed together just to poo stir?

SOB

Makka wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:29pm:

So when Rudd backflip over gay marriage - then Green_poo's headline is "Rudd Backs Marriage Equality" But if anyone from the LIBs change their mind - then the headline will read "LIBs backflip over gay marriage" You are a moron Green_poo

Perhaps the headline should be

                  "ELMER'S EPIPHANY!"

sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:52pm:

cods wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 10:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 10:31pm: I'm so sick of politicians saying, "Oh I've now had a personal discussion and I've changed my mind." FFS THEY ARE MEANT TO BE REPRESENTATIVES.  MEANING IT'S NOT ABOUT PERSONAL FRIENDSHIPS OR PERSONAL INFLUENCES, BUT ABOUT WHAT"S RIGHT FOR YOUR ELECTORATE. RUDD AND ABBOTT ARE THE F***ING SAME RUBBISH. you are right trouble is gay marriage is never really an election policy is it?.why I will never know...even I didnt know it was a Lib party thing against it...I really havent given it a lot of thought as someone said tonight.. why didnt rudd do something when he was PM... suddenly we are expected to believe out of the blue he has had a change of heart....like you say has he discussed this with those that vote for him???? maybe thats what all MPs need to do see what their electorates want them to do about it...as for rudd saying it was about his religious beliefs in the past... what rubbish he spent his time when PM.. turning up ST John the Baptist Church  Yep, when it comes to these types of issues a MP's religious belief should play no part. It is up to their ability to separate church and state, and to actually do what is in the best interest of THEIR ELECTORATE, not their church and not some individual they have grown to know.

alevine

This is the very reason politically the party needs to control the issue as many religious types in the electorate will oppose gay marriage especially our bearded types. You don't want these groups lobbying against your party, both the ALP and Libs are scared of this.

Politically there are few votes to win but many to lose, its a pointless political landmine issue.

Makka wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:29pm:

So when Rudd backflip over gay marriage - then Green_poo's headline is "Rudd Backs Marriage Equality" But if anyone from the LIBs change their mind - then the headline will read "LIBs backflip over gay marriage" You are a moron Green_poo

Libs are not allowed to think for themselves. How do you expect them to change their minds when their minds are numb from underuse.

philperth2010 wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:59pm:

Who cares if gay people get married.....It makes no difference to me what so ever.....If people love each other let them express it in a commitment of marriage....To deny anyone a right granted to the rest of society is just bigotry!!! >:( >:( >:(

Looks like you care phil.

What is his name and when is the happy day for both of you?

philperth2010 wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:59pm:

Who cares if gay people get married.....It makes no difference to me what so ever.....If people love each other let them express it in a commitment of marriage....To deny anyone a right granted to the rest of society is just bigotry!!! >:( >:( >:(

Funny isn't it?

The definition of a fascist used to be "Anyone who disagrees with me."

Now, the definition of a bigot is...hmmm, now let me think...

KJT1981 wrote on May 22^nd, 2013 at 7:51am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 21st, 2013 at 10:59pm: Who cares if gay people get married.....It makes no difference to me what so ever.....If people love each other let them express it in a commitment of marriage....To deny anyone a right granted to the rest of society is just bigotry!!! >:( >:( >:( Looks like you care phil. What is his name and when is the happy day for both of you?

you hold your view because no gay has asked you?