Posted on 06/21/2007 4:24:54 PM PDT by wagglebee
SYDNEY, Australia, June 21, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Even as mounting pressure is being put on Australian Prime Minister John Howard to change his views on so-called homosexual "marriage", the politician has restated his, and his government's unequivocal opposition to the extending of the legal privileges of marriage to homosexual couples.
"We are not in favor of discrimination, but of course our views on the nature of marriage in our community are very well known and they won't be changing," Howard told Sky television.
Howard, however, did say that he and his government would review a report by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission that is expected Friday that makes certain recommendations about entitlement for homosexual couples. "We will have a look at the Human Rights report," said Howard. "I am not going to commit the Government to how it will respond. I haven't seen the report yet."
Some in Australia have been quick to criticize the Australian PM for what they perceive as a politically suicidal stubbornness, especially as a poll recently released seems to indicate that a majority of Australians would like to see some of the legal privileges of marriage extended to homosexuals.
"It shows how out of touch both the government and the opposition are with Australians wanting to get rid of discrimination against same-sex couples," Senator Bob Brown told reporters.
"We're talking about the 21st century here, not last century: same sex couples should have the same rights as other couples and the Australian public want it that way," he said.
In the past number of years John Howard has defied political stereotypes by standing firmly by his convictions, no matter what the political fallout, by consistently defending the notion that the traditional definition of marriage ought to be defended and retained for the good of the individual and society.
"There is a special place in Australian society for the institution of marriage, as historically understood, and we do not intend to allow that to be in any way undermined," said Prime Minister John Howard last year, after condemning the move by an Australian territory to legalize same-sex unions.
"I believe very strongly that marriage is exclusively a union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of others," Howard said, as reported by the Australian Associated Press in 2005. "That's the common understanding of marriage in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and I would be opposed to the recognition of civil unions."
In the past Howard has also come out strongly against same-sex adoption. "[Heterosexual adoption] gives children the best opportunity in life," he said, according to a report in the Herald Sun. "I know for some that sounds harsh. I don't think it's harsh, I think it's something that most people believe is the desired, the ideal outcome."
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Australian PM Howard Says Government Will Overturn Same-Sex Union Law
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/06033004.html
Australian PM Opposes Homosexual Adoption
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jun/07060801.html
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
If the election were held today for US president, who would you vote for: Thompson or Howard?
It would be a very tough choice, but I would choose Howard because he’s been through the wringer and come out conservative.
God Bless John Howard! And the leader of Poland as well!
I have nothing against gay people (just don’t think they deserve special rights) and I certainly don’t want on any ping that has the word “moral” in it. It’s against my religion.
The world needs more leaders like Howard though. He laid down the law to the immigrants from islamic countries. Adapt and conform to our culture leave. If you like Sharia law, get the Hell out of here.
I freely admit that how homosexuals are viewed by society has changed. But I support traditional marriage.
It’s interesting that the Mass. legislature killed a proposed marriage amendment in Mass. recently. The activists on this issue are too afraid to let the people vote on it.
I would be the 1st to admit to being an old fuddy duddy on this issue if state after state freely voted to have same-sex marriage. But when states have voted, state after state has voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage.
The irony in Mass. is that it’s a liberal state and it’s possible the vote would have been to continue same-sex marriage. But we’ll never know because they take the position that once a court grants something, it can never be changed. Nancy Pelosi has likened Supreme Court decisions to “God speaking”.
“I freely admit that how homosexuals are viewed by society has changed.”
Has it? Society at large is afraid to speak its mind, for fear of the pink hand.
Of course their rights are not being violated in any way. But I tire of the leftist obfuscation.
The other amazing thing about this is the writer’s use of the term “so-called” when describing “gay marriage.”
That would never happen here.
LifeSiteNews is a very pro-life, pro-family, pro-morality news outlet. Actually, he didn’t use the term “gay,” he used the proper term which is homosexual.
“I freely admit that how homosexuals are viewed by society has changed.”
Has it? Society at large is afraid to speak its mind, for fear of the pink hand.
Unfortunately, young people have very successfully been propagandized. They’ve only known marriage within the context of a high divorce rate.
I sure wish we had someone like him here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts!
Yes. Homosexual brownshirts have shut down most dissent with vicious tactics.
Are you saying that you don't get a vibe of staunch heterosexuality from Governor Patrick?
Hey guys, I’m going to possibly offer the singular argument that can finally bury this issue once and for all, it just came to me.
Mother Nature (or God, if you like) gave us copulation as a means for procreation, not for something to pass the time. As humans created societies, they developed MARRIAGE so that we had something which raised us above the mentality of monkeys or rabbits and procreating with no responsibility to care for those offspring.
If you got a girl pregnant you married her. Gays are not saddled with such a burden,and thus do not need marriage. Marriage is a long standing institution without which society would be burdened with countless bastard children and single mothers.
What do you think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.