Kevin Rudd Supports Gay Marriage
- Kevin Rudd declares his support for same sex marriage
- Gillard looks like a stupid cow yet again
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd has thrown his support behind same sex marriage in a blog post on his website.
“I have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions and practices on the question of same sex marriage,” Mr Rudd said. “I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage.”
Mr Rudd said any marriage equality legislation brought forward should not place any requirement on churches or religious institutions to conduct same sex marriages.
The former PM and current backbencher’s announcement marks a significant shift for Mr Rudd.
In September 2012, Mr Rudd voted against gay marriage legislation introduced by fellow ALP backbencher Stephen Jones.
Mr Rudd said that the move had come after a lengthy period of reflection on the issue, including conversations with people of faith such as a “capital G God botherer”, who had confessed he was gay and asked whether Mr Rudd had changed his position on same sex marriage.
“Some will ask why I am saying all this now. For me, this issue has been a difficult personal journey, as I have read much, and talked now with many people, and of late for the first time in a long time I have had the time to do both,” he wrote.
“I have long resisted going with the growing tide of public opinion just for the sake of it. Those who know me well know that I have tried in good conscience to deal with the ethical fundamentals of the issue and reach an ethical conclusion.”
Mr Rudd said his political enemies would interpret his announcement as a political manouevre.
“My opponents both within and beyond the Labor Party, will read all sorts of political significances into this,
That’s a matter for them. There is no such thing as perfect timing to go public on issues such as this.”
Mr Rudd said he would not be taking any leadership position on the issue nationally.
Many Christians would not agree with his stance, he said, but he had never accepted the argument from some Christians that homosexuality was abnormal.
“People do not choose to be gay,” he said.
theguttertrash.com 
Adam Bandt and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young have announced a date for a vote on Mr Bandt’s Marriage Equality Amendment Bill …. June 6, 2013.
All we ask is that jools and tone allow their people a conscience vote on this issue. If catlick countries like Argentina and Brazil can give the nod, then surely its time.
Rudd has done the right thing and has followed his conscience and common sense. There is no doubt that (for all his deficiencies) he has more principles and decency than the current leadership options.
Kev has sniffed the breeze and has moved on from Sunday morning door stops at the church gate.
All we ask is that jools and tone allow their people a conscience vote on this issue. If catlick countries like Argentina and Brazil can give the nod, then surely its time.
wouldn’t want our pollies to think they should actually represent the wishes of the australian people rather than the interests of lobby groups.
Lobby groups come in all shapes and sizes.
‘The owners of a New Zealand guesthouse who refused to let a lesbian couple share a bed are standing firm despite threats.
‘Karen and Michael Ruskin, of Pilgrim Planet Lodge, in central Whangarei, say they have received death threats and verbal abuse over their stance on homosexuality.’
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/youre-not-doing-this-in-my-home-lesbian-bed-ban-sparks-threats-and-abuse-20130521-2jxem.html#ixzz2Trw64Hcr
‘Mr Rudd said that his long-held opposition to gay marriage had made him ”the last of the Mohicans” in his family.
‘His last remaining concern on the issue was the welfare of children raised in gay families.
‘In explaining his change of mind, Mr Rudd pointed to the large number of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce and academic research that showed children raised by same-sex parents are not developmentally compromised.
”Finally,” he wrote, ”as someone who was raised for the most important part of his childhood by a single mum, I don’t buy the argument that I was somehow developmentally challenged because I didn’t happen to have a father.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/rudd-endorses-gay-marriage-20130520-2jx65.html#ixzz2TryXI7aR
“I don’t buy the argument that I was somehow developmentally challenged because I didn’t happen to have a father.”
Yes. There are probably many other reasons he turned out to be a self-obsessed megalomaniacal twit. Being short, ugly and stupid will do that to you.
Rudd has done the right thing and has followed his conscience and common sense.
Mr Rudd is trying to save his arse … flip flop politics … Kevin Kustard …
Kev is going to humiliate his enemies … jools and tone.
It is an interesting political dynamic.
Abbott would be better off (politically) if he could figure out a way to have enough of his MPs vote in favour.
It would close the issue, unless Abbott closes the issue no, it will (legitimately) plague his first term.
Hi there people. Back to bring you more fact and evidence, rather than the usual ad hominem arguments pervading here.
http://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage … The *real reason* why homosexual activists are pushing for gay marriage.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640/ – study of gay parenting by Associate Professor Mark Regnerus (and a study by Associate Professor Loren Marks)
http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/ssmsub20130301 – study of effect of recognition of same-sex marriage by Dr Patricia Morgan
http://pfox.org/ex-gay-questions-answers.pdf … Homosexuals wouldn’t carry out further hypocrisy by mistreating or lacking empathy towards former homosexuals, would they?
This is only an issue because people are unwilling to think beyond their prejudices.
It is like any issue that involved granting basic rights to a group within society. Once it happens everyone will wonder what the fuss is about. Like allowing women or people who don’t own property to vote.
If catholics got to to legislate their version of marriage then only people intending to have children could marry and divorcees could not remarry (except each other I suppose).
A better argument might be that the state should not legislate rules for marriage at all. Leave it to individuals to decide how to define their relationships. If the state does legislate marriage it should not discriminate on the basis of gender in doing so. This is a really simple and self-evident proposition.
Most of the arguments G links to apply equally to legal recognition of divorce.
If catholics got to to legislate their version of marriage then only people intending to have children could marry and divorcees could not remarry (except each other I suppose).
Ah … but the catliks alter their rules (generally for a “small” tithe or two) and divorcees can have their marriage annulled by the bloke with the clown suit and big white hat in the Vatican and then have a big boring four hour fkn wedding ceremony … if they can’t, then my sister isn’t married … 🙄
I must say that after 44 years of marriage (45 in September!) I don’t know what all the fuss is about … we only had a church wedding to shut our parents up … I was just turned 21 and, The Minister, was only 19, not yet a legal “adult” then … so we didn’t have much say in the matter …
Too bad Kevin07 didn`t come to his senses earlier , when it could have actually been useful. l smell political advantage for Kevin07`s `change_of_heart` and probably not genuine. Let`s wait and see if a back-flip is in Kevin07`s future, Mr-Rabbit back-flipped pretty quick on Gay-Marriage, barely lasted a week.
An article by Assistant Professor Robert Lopez who had been brought up by gay parents: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/08/6065/.