Breaking news! Julia Gillard supports same-sex marriage — two years too late. The former PM used her Michael Kirby lecture, delivered last night at Victoria University, to come out as a same-sex marriage supporter.
What a cynical and hollow gesture.
Previously, Gillard has argued that her feminist views meant she didn’t support any kind of marriage, even that between a man and woman. Last night she said:
“Given the 1970s feminist in me saw much to be concerned with from a gender perspective with traditional marriage, I thought the better approach was not to change the old but to create something new. In my time post-politics, as key countries have moved to embrace same-sex marriage, I have identified that my preferred reform direction was most assuredly not winning hearts and minds.”
First up, feminists stand for equality and freedom of choice, so this makes next to no sense, but secondly, if she really was ideologically opposed to all marriage, why didn’t she move to abolish it?
Because the excuse was a flimsy cover for the fact that her own prime ministership relied on support from conservative figures in her own party like Joe de Bruyn, who is bitterly opposed to gay marriage.
We don’t believe Julia Gillard was ever opposed to marriage equality. Ultimately her public views on the matter were based on one thing: her own political survival.
Last night’s speech makes it clear that Gillard’s primary concern while prime minister was holding on to the top job — at any cost.
Who wrote this editorial…the teenage intern?! the ridiculous thought that because a Prine Minister doesn’t believe in the institution of marriage they would then seek to ban it is childish and – plain stupid. We all know that Gillard didn’t support marriage equality because she was worried about her political survival. She demonstrated cowardice, a lack of leadership and the sort of self- serving decision making we’ve become so used to from our politicians. But your argument that if she really didn’t believe in the institution she should have tried to ban it is embarrassing.
“We don’t believe Julia Gillard was ever opposed to marriage equality. Ultimately her public views on the matter were based on one thing: her own political survival”.
That’s a pretty big call given what she said to the Daily Telegraph in 2011:
Ms Gillard said she was “on the conservative side” of the gay marriage issue “because of the way our society is and how we got here”, the Daily Telegraph reports.
“I think that there are some important things from our past that need to continue to be part of our present and part of our future,” she said. “If I was in a different walk of life, if I’d continued in the law and was partner of a law firm now, I would express the same view, that I think for our culture, for our heritage, the Marriage Act and marriage being between a man and a woman has a special status.
“Now, I know people might look at me and think that’s something that they wouldn’t necessarily expect me to say, but that is what I believe.
“I’m on the record as saying things like I think it’s important for people to understand their Bible stories, not because I’m an advocate of religion – clearly, I’m not – but once again, what comes from the Bible has formed such an important part of our culture.”
Ms Gillard said she had a “pro-union, pro-Labor upbringing in a quite conservative family, in the sense of personal values”.
Yep, agree with the previous 2 comments posted. How childish and moralistic this article is – it’s as bad as the Murdoch press I reckon.
Julia did say that she acknowledged the present definition of marriage had stood the test of time. Rather than redefine the contract, she suggested an ADDITIONAL option be available to all: a civil legally binding union.
Anyone is entitled to change their mind, but it is sad to see this based on the actions of other countries showing more leadership than she was able to generate. I have respect for JG but my appreciation has dropped a notch or two as she is revealed to be more expedient and more similar to the self serving incumbent rabble than I would have thought possible.
I recall that JG wasn’t opposed to a free conscience vote in parliament, however, a far cry from what we currently have. As for her not having any personal views on marriage equality other than those of right-wing union leaders, I find offensive. I was surprised by her stance but never once, nor now, thought that she wasn’t genuine.