Lobbyist’s insults will not convince Abbott of same sex marriage

Carrington Brigham discusses the attacks on Tony Abbott for his opposition to state-sanctioned same sex marriage:

Last Monday Left wing Gay rights activist Rodney Croome wrote an article in The Drum claiming that Abbott cannot possibly love his sister’s partner because he will not allow his sister and his sister-in-law to marry, and further will prevent any possibility of this occurring. Croome claims the recent articles about Abbott’s love and respect for his sister are nothing more than a ruse to paint Abbott as a loving, caring family man. Croome stated that the article was:

“…designed to neutralise Tony Abbott's opposition to marriage equality, by showing him in the best possible light – moderates will give him the nod for accepting his sister, and religious conservatives will be happy he has loved the sinner without condoning the sin.”

What is really sad here is that Croome is already preaching to the converted. You know? Those Abbott haters! As a result we see a protester imposing on Abbott when he’s having a quiet coffee with a journalist on a Sunday afternoon because of his opposition to gay marriage. By all means protest against Tony Abbott’s opposition to gay marriage, but is it not possible to do this peacefully? Secondly what was the young protester trying to achieve? Did she really think that if she disrupts Abbott in a café she will convince him of the need to change the Marriage Act? I ask you – if someone comes up to you within metres, and starts protesting at you at the top of their lungs, would you listen? Would you be convinced of their plight?

Croome’s op-ed is disappointing because there are many members, supporters and volunteers of the Liberal party who happen to be same-sex attracted. Many of these people would like to see marriage equality, and many are working to share their views and opinions on the matter with Coalition parliamentarians. You may have heard some of this on Triple J’s ‘Hack’ earlier last week. Croome threatens to set back the efforts of these people with his vitriolic and personal attack on Abbott, and the mischaracterisation of Abbott’s feelings for his family is frankly deplorable. These same people of the left then wonder why Abbott says such things as feeling “threatened” about homosexuality. (To which Abbott said he later regretted stating in an interview on Melbourne’s Gay radio station JoyFM interviewed by Doug Pollard.)

Croome says of The Australian article about Abbott’s sister: “I’m not deceived”.  Well, Rodney, there is no deception as Abbott clearly loves his sister. Around the time his sister was ‘coming out’, Abbott made it clear during an interview on JoyFM that there were people close to him who are gay.  He did not reveal exactly whom.

It may take Abbott time for his mind to accept that it is not just a lifestyle choice and that his sister may have in fact known that she was gay all along. A heterosexual person may find this confusing and hard to accept when they have known someone to be married for some time. Often we have seen examples where married men and sometimes married women have discovered later in life that they are gay. The challenge for the individual is in them coming to terms and accepting their sexuality that they have been hiding.

It is presumptive for Croome to state that Abbott:

“.. is hypocritical to parade [his] family values but then refuse to formally include [his] sibling's partner in [the] family.”

How does Croome know that Tony Abbott does not include his sister’s partner in the family? The fact is – Croome doesn’t! He has no idea what kind of relationship Abbott has with his partner’s sister, and he has not even suggested in his column of any evidence that he has inside knowledge of the relationships. One must wonder if he wrote that sentence just to spite Abbott. Abbott may have a great relationship with the partner of his sister. It is quite an attack of Croome to suggest otherwise, all because we don’t have equality laws for same-sex couples pertaining to marriage.

Abbott made an election promise to the people that he would not change the Marriage Act and he has been true to his conviction. Abbott is a true Conservative and has always stated and maintained that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. You cannot ridicule someone for having those views, and is it not homophobic either. It is a difference of opinion. It is not like marriage was between two members of the same-sex in the past and then suddenly it was outlawed.

This is not to say that I agree with Abbott’s current position. I myself am pro civil-marriage and that marriage should be separate from church and state, allowing same-sex couples to marry in private with their own ceremony. Nonetheless, I defend Abbott’s right to advocate his position on the subject.

Croome makes another attack on Abbott in a metaphorical manner that:

“By opposing marriage equality Tony Abbott is effectively saying to the world that he does not want Virginia Edwards as his sister-in-law because she's gay.

Neither does he want any children Christine and Virginia may raise to feel fully included in his family's life in the way that Christine and Virginia's marriage would seal.”

Not for one minute has Abbott said or even hinted that his sister is a “cross to bear”. To make a statement like this is utterly reprehensible – Abbott prides himself on family values and as an example of his own family he passes that love and respect onto his siblings, wife and children as any good Christian would.

Croome believes that Abbott is seeking to destroy the very essence of what makes the Coalition ‘liberal’ when the party room and opposition cabinet decided to not support a free vote on same sex-marriage. This is completely untrue. The Coalition allows a conscience vote on all matters of legislation, however a party room decision was made on the issue, and the focal point was honouring an election commitment. As a member of the Liberal party I sent a letter to all members of the House of Representatives in the Coalition. Phillip Ruddock MP, Shadow Cabinet Secretary for the Coalition, was the first to write back and explain that the party does “not support any change to Commonwealth law that could diminish the institution of marriage” whilst stating that there “are a few members of the Coalition who would like a free vote on same-sex marriage”. Ruddock then firmly and poignantly states “A member who, for reasons of conscience, wishes to vote another way can cross the floor; this has always been the case in the Coalition.”

When the bill comes to parliament, Coalition members may choose to cross the floor, and it is solely their choice to express their conscience. No rule book has been re-written. No insults or insensitive remarks will be thrown at Abbott because Liberals know this does not change someone’s mind or opinion.  

Carrington Brigham is a Liberal member and blogger on Marketing, Politics and Social Media. He be found tweeting @DigitalMediaBoy and frequently blogs at www.digitalmediaboy.com

 

Comments

[kraka]

1.

Carrington-I don't believe in same sex marriage-not to say that people of the same sex can't live in a relationship, they should,do and they can.
My opposition is much like it was to the apology-it won't end there. Sure it all sounds good and harmless and we will be singing kumbaiya in the streets but I ask you-are the Aboriginals happier now, are they content with the apology? The answer is a resounding no and Howard knew that actions spoke louder than words. That why Noel Pearson eventually came to see the Libs way was better than the generational welfare caused by policies of the left.
The same would happen in this instance- Next will come right to adopt and then the family court disputes that will inevitably arise and all the problems associated with that except how does the court (which now rules ridiculously in favour of the women no matter the circumstances) decide who is the mum and who is the dad? What about the kids (again-it is supposed to be about them but under the adversarial system that no fault divorce encouraged the kids are pawns).
Do they then get taxpayer funded access to artificial insemination because it is their right to have a family now they are "married". I think it certainly is not their right to have a family-thats the downside of being gay-you can have sex all you like with someone from the same gender but you CANNOT procreate.
No matter how many studies and what narrow terms of reference they come up with, it usually ends up with a result along common themes-kids with 2 heterosexual parents do better on average than kids with one and kids with one parent at home full-time do better than those with both at work.
However some judge will decide they can and hey presto-a kid at school getting bullied into suicide or mass murder.
My rejection of same sex marriage is all about the unintended consequences which history shows are nearly always negative.

[Grantley]

2.

Agree with you kraka. 100%.

I just do not get the "marriage" thing at all, gays can do everything they like under the law, and with the protection of, now, and I in no way be-grudge them or deny them, or oppose them, in that... but, no, thats not enough. Instead the shrill few want age old definitions changed to suit them.

[Arthur Dent]

3.

Most polls show the majority of Australians aren't threatened by gay marriage. It's inevitable.

[Brett McSweeney]

4.

The only interest "Gay Culture" has in marriage is in its destruction - it's something that the "straights" have that they don't, and therefore it must be destroyed.

Once more people realize this the "inevitability" argument dies.

[Arthur Dent]

5.

I think you're being a bit paranoid there Brett. How is marriage "destroyed" by granting gay people the same right?

[Brett_McS]

6.

Since marriage is defined as "the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation...", including same-sex unions automatically destroys marriage. The concept has gone. Kaput.

And that's what the 'gay movement' wants. They couldn't care less about marriage itself; it's the exclusivity to the 'straight community' that upsets them.

[DigitalMediaBoy]

7.

No Brett, that simply isn't true. It excludes a section of the Australian community. Same sex marriage has worked empirically in OS countries and strengthened heterosexual marriage in those countries that it has been legalised.

[Ben]

8.

“Most polls show the majority of Australians aren’t threatened by gay marriage. It’s inevitable”?

Sorry to disappoint Arthur Dent but you must be referring to unscientific polls, with lead questions, made by “gay marriage” activist groups.

Perhaps exposing fake opinion polls is inevitable though. “Only a handful out of the 30 MPs who reported back to Parliament were prepared to state that a majority of their constituents supported gay marriage,” wrote Ted Lapkin in 2011, because outside of fake opinion polls there’s little support for redefining marriage.

I think it’s dangerous to shape your views around swinging opinion polls, in any case. That said Carrington Brigham made some excellent points.

[Brett_McS]

9.

You make my point: It's the exclusivity that is the bug bear, ... and the target.

As for the 'gay communities' touching concern for the strength of the institution of marriage...

[Grantley]

10.

As one who is not that far away from his 39th wedding anniversary I can assure some readers here that the exclusitivity of the definition, the vows and the institution of marriage is worth defending. Vigorously.

My advice to the gays is to come up with your own exclusive term for your union and leave what has stood the test of time alone.

[barry]

11.

Why is this issue so important?
What a waste of time .
Marriage is a joke in the 21st century anyway .

[kraka]

12.

Thats because of the question asked by the polls AD-the consequences aren't laid out. Take it to a referendum and it will get smashed as comprehensively as the republic.
The simple fact is they already do have all the rights they need-the marriage thing is a victim mentality

[kraka]

13.

Name the countries please and let us see for ourselves if these countries have strengthened the normal marriage ties. I'm calling your bluff here-your statement is garbage.

[DigitalMediaBoy]

14.

Gay Marriage for Better or Worse: What We’ve Learned from the Evidence, by William N. Eskridge Jr and Darren Spedale, Denmark. I quote Tim Wilson IPA here " the Danish experience found reforming marriage coincided with a reversal in declines of heterosexual marriage rates, lower divorce rates and fewer children born outside of wedlock."

[seethruyou]

15.

Well said Kraka. These polls produce more than figures. We see the gay lobby and Green politicians jumping up and down with glee claiming "the majority of Australians want same-sex marriage". Sorry people...there is NO evidence of that! What you mean to say is that "Of those who took part in this particular poll there were more who supported SSM than against". I have seen many polls showing little support for SSM and believe that if ALL Australians were given an opportunity to vote there would be a crushing defeat against same-sex marriage.
The House of Reps poll website says the following..."Please note that the online survey is not a statistically significant survey. There is an insignificant rate of duplication (duplicate email address, multiple responses from the same IP address, invalid email addresses) of approximately 4.4% (3.6% for ‘agree’ responses and 0.8% for ‘disagree’ responses)." Interesting that the possible 'dubious' votes came from those supporting the bill.
Let's end this debate once and for all by holding a referendum and see where the Australian voice really lies.

[Arthur Dent]

16.

" Since marriage is defined as "the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation...",
Really? So an intentional childless marriage is NOT a marriage?

[DigitalMediaBoy]

17.

Here's a great article by Tim Wilson from the IPA I suggest you all read.
http://www.timwilson.com.au/articles/equality-for-all-couples-wont-destroy-society

[kraka]

18.

oh dear, I googled Denmark marriage and divorce rates and you can see the results here
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=denmark+marriage+and+divorce+rates&oq=denmark+marriage+and+divorce+rates&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_nf=1&gs_l=hp.3...1677.12474.1.13235.34.34.0.10.10.3.706.9199.3-17j6j0j1.24.0.aivY8aRFUnI&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f02c1a31d9319a8d

Now have a look at item 5-specifically mentions your boys Spedale's report as misleading.
Now click on the link-didn't have time to check the rest of the links but in case you don't get the drift-there is usually two sides to a story. DMB I think you will find emphatically that gay marriage has most definitely ruined the institution of marriage.

[kraka]

19.

Semantics Arthur - thats all you lefties have for an argument and is yet more proof of the shaky ground your opinion is based on.

[liberal elitist]

20.

Next will come right to adopt and then the family court disputes that will inevitably arise and all the problems associated with that except how does the court (which now rules ridiculously in favour of the women no matter the circumstances) decide who is the mum and who is the dad?

As I have pointed out to you already kraka, same-sex couples can already adopt and the sky has not yet fallen in.

Those who argue that the issue is the "exclusivity" afforded to the straight community are correct. Granting rights "exclusively" to only one class of society is discrimination.

[bluebell]

21.

[Removed - violation of comments policy]

[Zaphod]

22.

Penny Wong's kid too bluebell ?

[John S]

23.

Thank you for writing such a necessary and well thought out piece! I'm sorry the trolls here have given you such a hard time - rest assured the silent majority of readers appreciate it!

[bluebell]

24.

Why was this removed? There was no inappropriate language. The facts were from news sources, and my opinion about Elton John and Ricky Martin's children stands....they could suffer terrible consequences of not having the RIGHT to have a mother in their formative years.

What RIGHT do gays have to DENY a child the biological right to parents of both sexes?

Tell me moderator - why was my post removed??

[bluebell]

25.

Allowing gays to marry and raise children, amounts to robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn’t true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it’s true.

[kraka]

26.

A ridiculous argument signedin. Lets see how the kids are going later on in life. The no fault divorce was seen as a great thing too and has been the single most important factor in the breakdown of the traditional family environment-the BEST environment on average for kids to be raised. As for your last sentence that is simply another pathetic left wing argument designed to end a debate by using the old discrimination line. It is not a RIGHT to have children, it is a blessing and one that gays, whether you like it or not, have no claim to as they physically cannot achieve it. IVF and adoption should be exclusively for hetero-sexual couples who cannot have children via natural means.

[oldskool]

27.

Communist Agenda Chapter 4 states;

"Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things"

the gay lobby is a part of the socialist left wing agenda

DO NOT BE FOOLED

[Adrian Wilson]

28.

Again, it just shows the hysteria that mass media can have on our society. Another small minority crying 'discrimination' and the media to publish every whim, with misleading 'facts' and 'polls'.
It continues to amaze me how extreme a minority can be, trying to force Abbott to change his opinion..... hijacking him in a coffee shop, accusing him of 'not loving' his sister.....Low tactics!
He does love his sister but does not support changing the definition of marriage. and?
The countires that have changed the definition of marriage? Denmark and Germany and a couple of US states........ Very small, not inevitable.......
Has it made a positive change?
Will we have another stolen generation of young people who sue the government for denying them the right to a mother and or father?
Will we have pastors or priests sued because they refuse to marry a gay couple if the law is changed?
Will we have extra medical costs due to artificial insemination being given priority over other medical procedures?
Forced adoption where gay couples are given priority over hetrosexual couples?
More Law changes to include more than 2 people, animals and underage children?
An example: If a 40 yr old man and a 10 yr old girl are in love why discriminate against there marriage??
Sounds crazy.....Right?
Where does it end?

[Rodney Croome]

29.

For the record, my point was this: marriage is the formal recognition of the inclusion of partners and children in family life. Tony Abbott may have an excellent relationship with his sister's partner and whatever children they may have. But that's not the point. The point is that marriage seals these relationships and Abbott opposes this.

On a Liberal conscience vote: shadow ministers cannot cross the floor with impunity. Many backbenchers are unwilling to be seen to defy their leader. Together this means there is only freedom to vote according to conscience for the very brave or foolish.

Finally, I'm not sure how advocating for family values incurs the label "left wing".