…and this is a 
Julia Gillard, the new Prime Minister of Australia, is unmarried…but she has a boyfriend, a partner, a…a…paramour, which brings up the horrific possibility of a leader of the country living in sin in official accommodations. Oh, lord, I'm getting the vapors just thinking about it.
And now the Sydney Morning Herald is getting all fluttery over it, too. Why, what kind of role model can she be if she refuses to obey the strictures of Church and Convention? You can vote, as well, although the Australians are already looking pretty pragmatic about the whole silly commotion.
Do you agree that Julia Gillard's de facto lifestyle is a bad influence for women?
Yes 29%
No 71%
Gillard was in a radio interview, and look at what she said:
This morning during a Melbourne radio interview, the new Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard was asked point blank:
"Do you believe in God?"
Her reply:
"No I don't, John"
The Australian news media must be in a total meltdown right now. If a major American politician said something like that, Fox News would be howling about it 24/7. There'd be demonstrations on the mall in DC. Televangelists would be calling down hellfire. Good ol' boys would be sighting in their rifles.
Say…I just checked the front pages of a couple of Australian news sites. This satanic revelation isn't even mentioned. What's wrong with Australia? And can we get the same infection?
Politics
Comments
Posted by: F
|
June 28, 2010 8:25 PM
O noes!
And why is this a bad example for teh wimminz in particular, I wonder?
Hrmmm. Patriarchal dick-swingin' bastards with their double standards infectin' people's thinkin' methods, I'll wager. Besides that, I get vapourlock ™ just imagining women as role models for men in any fashion.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 28, 2010 8:27 PM
Her relationship is one between two consenting adults. Nothing more be said.
Posted by: James F
|
June 28, 2010 8:28 PM
I can't get past their use of the term "de facto."
Posted by: Brian
|
June 28, 2010 8:31 PM
An unmarried -- never-married head of state?
OH NOES THE HUMANITEEE
ffs
Posted by: James R. Palmer II
|
June 28, 2010 8:33 PM
This makes me think for the future... the first outright Atheist president. But only in private.
Posted by: Atticus_of_Amber
|
June 28, 2010 8:35 PM
"De facto" is pretty much the common term for a non-married couple in Oz.
Posted by: Korny
|
June 28, 2010 8:35 PM
Wasn't Helen Clark across the ditch in a similar situation? I ask because we were too busy worrying about her politics and policies to bother checking on her marital status.
And de facto is a legal term around these parts :D
Posted by: Silmarien
|
June 28, 2010 8:40 PM
It's pretty refreshing reading the comments there. I'm in the same situation as Ms Gillard and have never felt any pressure to go beyond de facto.
Posted by: James F
|
June 28, 2010 8:43 PM
#6 - Aha. Thanks, Atticus!
Posted by: Aaron
|
June 28, 2010 8:43 PM
Helen Clark was married. However, less reputable types were certain that this was a coverup for her evil lesbianism.
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 28, 2010 8:44 PM
BETTINA ARNDT:
Remember, children, reproduction is the most important aspect of a woman.
Posted by: atheistclimber
|
June 28, 2010 8:45 PM
She came out officially as an atheist this morning on radio
http://bit.ly/aKTvPZ
#WIN!
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 28, 2010 8:46 PM
The prime minister is the head of government, not head of state.
Posted by: queersingularity
|
June 28, 2010 8:48 PM
Well, it's at least encouraging that a significant majority of those who voted don't have problem with it.
Posted by: paulmurray
|
June 28, 2010 8:52 PM
"de facto" isn't insulting. "Playing house" is.
Ms Gillard's decision not to move into The Lodge indicates that the election will be called soon. She'd be nuts not to do it ASAP - before there are any screw-ups.
Posted by: ben
|
June 28, 2010 8:55 PM
Ireland's odious former Taoiseach (prime minister) Bertie Ahern was separated from his wife and living with another woman while in office ...
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
June 28, 2010 8:56 PM
How on Earth is this important in any way, for anyone?
Posted by: DexX
|
June 28, 2010 9:01 PM
Arndt's attitude is thankfully a tiny minority these days. Aussies just don't care about unmarried cohabitation - it's a total non-issue.
What disturbs me most about this horrendous article is how often Arndt refers to women's entire purpose in life as being procreation, talking of "wasted" fertility and the like. *shudder*
Gillard is the governmental hea of one of the world's powerhouse economies, and the first woman to occupy that position. Suggesting she hasn't achieved her purpose because she has decided not to have kids is just insulting.
A few years back, one of her conservative political opponents referred to Gillard as being "deliberately barren", and then backpedalled and said he'd meant no offence.
God I hate right-wing politicians...
Posted by: amca01
|
June 28, 2010 9:01 PM
Speaking as an Australian, she's admired by a lot of people for her qualities - both human and political. Certainly by me.
Did you know that Iceland's Prime Minister (a woman) has recently married her long-time partner (another woman) as soon as same-sex marriages were legalized there? This makes Iceland the only country, as far as I know, to have an openly gay Head of Government. Makes Australia look quite medieval in comparison.
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
June 28, 2010 9:02 PM
I've always heard Australia is the most atheist nation. Well, western nation. Also, the most druish.
Posted by: mrpickwick1837
|
June 28, 2010 9:07 PM
Intriguingly, as soon as the leadership contest was on, visitors started arriving at my blog, in numbers, having done a Google search on “Julia Gillard atheist”. I’m guessing that this was the start of a campaign by the Christian lobby. They were very cosy with Kevin Rudd, who addressed their conference only a couple of weeks ago (as did the opposition leader who they are even cosier with) and will be outraged by an atheist leader who doesn't bow to their demands.
David Horton
Posted by: iamjustme
|
June 28, 2010 9:07 PM
To back up Atticus and Korny - you become "de facto" in Australia after you've lived together on a "domestic basis" for ... I think it used to be two years but it's a fuzzy interpretive thing now - see the legal definition.
De facto married couples get pretty much the same legal rights as de jure married couples in terms of things like inheritence and social security payments... as of last year you can even apply to the family court to get a financial settlement if the relationship breaks down.
Also, nearly all of those rights apply to non-heterosexual de facto relationships as well.
The moral of the story being, you really should have a good long thing about it before you shack up with someone in Australia, because you may be getting more than you bargained for.
(for people who are no good at Latin - "de facto" means "in fact" and "de jure" means "in law")
Posted by: atheistclimber
|
June 28, 2010 9:11 PM
OH CRAP! SORRY FOLKS! I pasted the wrong link!
DAMN YOU BIT.LY!
http://www.abc.net.au/melbourne/?ref=portal_m11
THAT is where she outs herself as an Atheist!
lol
Well go read my blog while you're at it!
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 28, 2010 9:16 PM
JamesF, what does "de facto" imply where you live? Here it's a neutral descriptive term for unmarried partners.
Bettina Arndt doesn't really represent the views of the SMH, let alone most Australians; she's one of those deliberately "controversial" columnists. Her schtick is being the anti-feminist ex-feminist, valiantly fighting battles lost decades ago. Mostly against the sexual revolution. (Bad for teh laydeez bcs teh menz are all evull and wont marree u if u puts out!11!!)
Posted by: eeanm
|
June 28, 2010 9:20 PM
@Cath thanks for this clarification that this is indeed a completely wacky column by Australian standards (since it certainly is by mine).
My favorite part is the use of her phrase "breeding years", as if these women are cattle.
Posted by: Azkyroth
|
June 28, 2010 9:21 PM
Is she married, and if not, has anyone asked her if she's sure there isn't another reason?
Posted by: Lee - Atheist Foundation of Australia
|
June 28, 2010 9:24 PM
From the Sydney Morning Herald today...
Call for PM to outline her inspiration
http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-for-pm-to-outline-her-inspiration-20100628-zf9u.html
Posted by: Meathead
|
June 28, 2010 9:25 PM
@nonsensemachine, #20: Really? I think it's the Swedes or other Scandinavians. Australia actually seems to have quite a few godbots. It even occasionally sends this very blog some true nutters like Graham Bird and Al B. Quirky.
Posted by: Peter H
|
June 28, 2010 9:25 PM
@ #17
"How on Earth is this important in any way, for anyone?"
It isn't of course. But, as pointed out in another of today's threads, it's best to let the kids out into the yard where they can throw toys at one another for a spell. Totally pointless steam-venting, but sometimes a bit of fun creeps in.
Posted by: fernaldo
|
June 28, 2010 9:30 PM
This is actually quite an interesting development.
Our opposition leader, one Tony Abbott, is a devout Christian (Catholic I think) and in his own words, "...will never approve marriage between two men."
Him against Gillard makes for an almost polemical election.
Posted by: askegg.myopenid.com
|
June 28, 2010 9:43 PM
Thanks for the linkage, PZ. I hope my server can hold out.
Also peoples, please visit #23's web site - he altered me to the story viw twitter.
Posted by: Shanski
|
June 28, 2010 9:46 PM
A female, unwed childless atheist as out PM... I have never felt so represented.
Posted by: Timaahy
|
June 28, 2010 9:46 PM
A beardless, unmarried, red-headed atheist... it's only a matter of time before the Armies of Satan (or the Kiwis) take us over!
Posted by: Don Smith
|
June 28, 2010 9:57 PM
I also noticed how the Australian of the Year was not committed to fathering because he didn't marry the mother. From my observations, the state of marriage has nothing to do with commitment to fathering.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 28, 2010 9:59 PM
The only way for the Australian government to right itself in the eyes of You-Know-Who is for Gillard to be compelled to hand-sew two scarlet "A"s on all her clothing.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2010 10:02 PM
From a highly esteemed *snort* source, Redheads have more fun.Posted by: Alex
|
June 28, 2010 10:03 PM
Are the Scandinavians the most non-religious? According to the New Zealand census of 2006, 34.7% who answered the question on religious affiliation said they had no religion - 43% among kids. See
http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/culture-and-identity/religious-affiliation.aspx
It was only 18.7% in the Aussie census of 2006...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia
Probably largely made up of the vast satanic hordes of Kiwis who already live there...
Posted by: Phasic
|
June 28, 2010 10:08 PM
I was heartened by the comments to that SMH article. Nearly 400 (at last count) people telling the author to pull her head in. It was great to hear about the radio interview, too. I wonder if it will make the news?
I will be feeling a lot happier if Gillard wins the election. If she loses then she will be an example the lunatics can point to.
"Look, obviously an unmarried, athiest woman with no children cannot be PM, the electorate could not stand for it!"
As an unmarried, professional (well, professional student at this stage) woman with no intention of having children, I'm going to have to be careful not to take this whole battle personally. Then again, you know what they say about the personal and the political.
Posted by: Timaahy
|
June 28, 2010 10:11 PM
Nerd of Redhead, the article begins with "Blondes may have more fun but redheads have more sex"... not sure what to make of that!
Posted by: atheistclimber
|
June 28, 2010 10:13 PM
@PZ
From The Australian homepage
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/julia-gillard-respects-religious-beliefs-but-will-not-pretend-to-have-faith-for-votes/story-e6frgczf-1225885581225
From The Herald Sun
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/kevin-rudd-twice-asked-julia-gillard-for-frontnech-job-and-was-rejected/story-e6frf7l6-1225885418755
Thought you might be interested
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
June 28, 2010 10:13 PM
The country that passed a law that says that women with A-Cups can't be in porno because it's 'too close to child pornography' wants to talk about people being a bad influence on women?
To be fair, their own people, but...
On Topic, if JFK can bang women in every room of the white house, then I don't know what marriage is supposed to have to do with government.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
June 28, 2010 10:14 PM
Maybe if we drink enough Fosters we'll get the Australian/Atheist contagion.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-newest-confession-im-rush-geek.html
Posted by: James R. Palmer II
|
June 28, 2010 10:18 PM
This probably only goes for female gingers and not male. ):
Posted by: Phasic
|
June 28, 2010 10:19 PM
@Andrew Hall,
Well, except Australians don't drink Fosters. We export that rubbish.
Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
June 28, 2010 10:19 PM
Dear atheists
Despite my best efforts to convert them, my fellow antipodeans are in the main a godless lot. The only time they come over mildly religious is in support of sporting contests and ANZAC day.
Sport approaches worship when we deliver the English a hiding.
ANZAC approaches worship when we remember how the English delivered our young men a hiding (by fucking up a beach landing somewhere in Turkey).
In truth, even many religious Australasians find overtly religious people an embarassment. Bringing up religion in conversation is to most Kiwis and Aussies tantamount to masturbating on a bus.
That isn't to say we don't have our share of credulous Jesusuckers (most heavily clustered in the sporting and sales professions), and there have been shameful efforts to import Bible-belt evangelism so as to part the poor from what little money they have.
But I think most of us are happier having leaders like Helen Clarke, John Key and Julia Gillard who don't profess any belief in superstition. I'd rather deal with a defacto, gay or transgender (Georgine Beyer) politician I can trust, than those who believe the great sky fairy is guiding them or (worse) those who say they believe in doG when clearly they don't just so they can take office.
Also, I couldn't care less who has access to a politician's erectile tissue. Whatever it takes to keep them relaxed and focused, I say (barring anything to do with children or non-consensual violence). If I had my way they'd swap parliament's daily prayer for a daily handjob and everyone would be a bit more relaxed and mind-on-the-task-at-hand. That isn't to say I don't want to know what politicians and minor celebrities get up to; I have a profound and prurient interest in other peoples' sex lives. But I see a person's erotic proclivities as no reason to cast stones at their public role. I think it would do the people tremendous good to know that their elected representatives enjoy a good spanking or are capable of doing their jobs while wearing spiked leather underpants or a pulsing anal egg.
Speaking of Godly Christians, hands up if you're surprised that Noo Zillund's most deviant politician, Graham Capill, was the leader of Christian Heritage Party until he was convicted of multiple sexual offences against girls under 12 years of age. Is that a hand up in Texas? Truly the Lord works in mysterious ways.
Yours philoffensivesophically
Smoggy
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
June 28, 2010 10:26 PM
On average, that "tiny reproductive window" is about 40 years in a 77 year life span (from 16 to 56; and, ideally, no one (male or female) should breed under 16. So women lose about 10 years in non-fertility (compared to men) - at the end of their life span. Which is a kind of lousy time to bring children into the world, even if you can do it. (I have never been impressed by geezers too old to be an active father and liable to die before their kids are grown, fathering children to feed their egos...)Posted by: Smoggy Batzrubble OM4Jesus
|
June 28, 2010 10:31 PM
I agree with you hypatiadottir. If old geezers want to feed their egos it is far better that they go off and father someone else's children.
Posted by: Great Waves
|
June 28, 2010 10:42 PM
Not to contradict the dear leader, but there's a story on it on the front page of news.com.au titled 'Julia Gillard won't bow to Christian vote'.
Posted by: kneighbour
|
June 28, 2010 10:42 PM
I just left a comment on Bettina's blog. From what I could see, every other comment was along the same lines - she is out of touch.
I am an Australian - and I think it is about time we got rid of these politicians who have to pray to an invisible friend. It does not say much for their capacity to run a country if they still have such silly superstitions!
Frankly, I would rather have a gay/transvestite/un married/de facto person as a leader than any religious person.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
June 28, 2010 10:45 PM
My only gripe with Julia Gillard at the moment is that she hasn't yet condemned Senator-unrepresentative-swill Steven Conroy to being pecked to death by hungry ducks.
However, as an atheist in a de-facto relationship, I'm feeling confident that she and I are like minds enough that it is only a matter of time.
This article was probably written before her interview this morning.
(also - wave to Phasic :) )
Posted by: atheistclimber
|
June 28, 2010 10:48 PM
Gillard won't play religion card
from abc.net.au
Prime Minister Julia Gillard says she has no intention of pretending to believe in God to attract religiously-inclined voters.
Former prime minister Kevin Rudd was a regular at Canberra church services and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott is known as a devout Catholic.
In contrast, Ms Gillard says that while she greatly respects other people's religious views, she does not believe in God.
Ms Gillard has been quizzed on personal topics including her attitude to religion and her relationship with her partner during interviews this morning.
She says does not go through religious rituals for the sake of appearance.
"I am not going to pretend a faith I don't feel," she said.
"I am what I am and people will judge that.
"For people of faith, I think the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretence about mine."
Posted by: avault99
|
June 28, 2010 10:54 PM
poor Australians, our slightly backwards cousins over the ditch.
We've had 2 female prime ministers, openly gay senior government ministers, atheist prime-ministers and leaders of the opposition. At one point we had a female speaker of the house, female prime minister and female governor general and female chief justice. In NZ, we consider the australian political landscape distinctly more socially conservative and religious.
Furthermore, while "de facto" in NZ carries real legal weight (being legally equivalent to marriage), in Australia "de facto" is still a second class status with real legal status reserved solely for heterosexual couples.
So if you americans want to be like Australia, then I suggest you aim higher and slightly to the east.
Posted by: rufustfirefly66
|
June 28, 2010 10:56 PM
Oh, the wonderful shit storm that will ensue when a US President replies "no, I don't" to that question. I hope I live to see it, but I'm sure I won't.
Posted by: Phasic
|
June 28, 2010 10:56 PM
There is a poll on that news.com.au story about Gillard.
Will your vote be swayed by Julia Gillard's stance on religion?
A) Yes, it will affect my vote, B) No I'll still vote the same, C) I don't care.
Not great wording, but looks like option B is already winning, so I guess either way it's no great revelation.
(Hi Charlie Foxtrot, btw)
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 28, 2010 11:01 PM
Anything you want. A factoid from a questionable source, put out since a redhead was being discussed. Time for me to totter off to bed.Posted by: Phasic
|
June 28, 2010 11:01 PM
@avault99
Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water, Senator Penny Wong is gay.
But I agree on everything else. Australia isn't in much of a position to crow about a lot of things.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 28, 2010 11:06 PM
Looks like Australia has a real education system. The Hee-Haw fans U.S. should be insanely jealous, but they don't know how to find the word's definition in a dictionary.
Posted by: joed
|
June 28, 2010 11:08 PM
The ausies are very lucky in that they got the criminals and freethinkers to found their country.
but, poor fuckin' America got the Pilgrams and the ignorant and the hatefilled religious bigots.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 28, 2010 11:11 PM
Lame. My hack-and-slash cut-and-paste somehow made the words 'in the' disappear between 'fans' and 'U.S.' I most humbly apologize for my inept word processing skills.
Posted by: Rider1
|
June 28, 2010 11:12 PM
Come on people, can we try a little harder please, it's still 25/75! And you never know when one of those 'family' (patriarchal) associations is going to invade the poll.
Posted by: Autumn
|
June 28, 2010 11:16 PM
Actually, McCthulhu, the people of the US might be "envious," or "covetous," but only the one possesing a thing may be "jealous" of it (at least in traditional usage, although the synonymity with "envious" has been increasingly common usage.)
And I thought it was Europeans who were so protective of traditional language usage.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/07FMU5Qn3Z2EADtFSNVmwnqrK5x33Uayzw--#9351b
|
June 28, 2010 11:23 PM
I HOPE THE PROFESSOR SEES THIS--IT AINT NO JOKE
Anosognosia is a condition in which a person who suffers disability seems unaware of or denies the existence of his or her disability. This may include unawareness of quite dramatic impairments, such as blindness or paralysis. It was first named by neurologist Joseph Babinski in 1914,[1] although relatively little has been discovered about the cause of the condition since its initial identification. The word comes from the Greek words "nosos" disease and "gnosis" knowledge (an- / a- is a negative prefix).
Social anosognosia is when a group of people, perhaps even society at large, devolve into a state of destructive cluelessness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anosognosia
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
June 28, 2010 11:23 PM
atheistclimber @ # 40 - I may regret asking this, but...
What's a frontnech job, and is it legal Down There?
Posted by: Brian English
|
June 28, 2010 11:24 PM
52:
Furthermore, while "de facto" in NZ carries real legal weight (being legally equivalent to marriage), in Australia "de facto" is still a second class status with real legal status reserved solely for heterosexual couples. Bullshit. De Facto is a legal status here too. But I do think NZ is more open than here. We've had over a decade of a PM trying to turn us into little America.
Posted by: Brian English
|
June 28, 2010 11:27 PM
From Wikipedia:
In Australia and New Zealand, de facto has become a term for one's domestic partner. In Australian law, it is the legally recognized relationship of a couple living together (opposite-sex or same-sex). This is comparable to common-law marriage, which is used in most other English-speaking countries.
Posted by: RobertL
|
June 28, 2010 11:28 PM
@avault99
Actually, "de facto" does have real legal weight in Australia. Heterosexual de facto couples have the same legal rights as married couples. Gay couples don't, but even KRudd was moving to make changes in that direction so we can assume that La Gillardine will do the same.
ps. If we're comparing women leaders, we too have a female governor-general as well as two female state premiers.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
June 28, 2010 11:29 PM
Meanwhile, the New South Wales Premier (US equivalent? Ummm - State Governor?) is being given a hard time for some unfortunate choices for biblical metaphors:
Come in Sinners
Posted by: natural cynic
|
June 28, 2010 11:29 PM
Another prominent female politician to remember who almost made it to the top was Segolene Royal, who lost the French Presidency to Nicholas Sarkozy in 2007.
And she had 4 children with her partner, Francois Hollande, without being married.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 28, 2010 11:45 PM
Shanski @ #32
Ditto – if I want to talk to someone meeting all of those qualities (except for that business about leading the nation) I just talk to my de facto partner. :-)
It’s well overdue for full legal recognition of gay couples here, but we haven’t had the right combination of non-religiously-inclined leaders on both sides of Federal politics to assist in giving it a smooth passage through the parliament – KRudd didn’t treat it as a priority, and Nelson or Turnbull probably would have supported it had they not been ejected from the opposition leader revolving chair.
Posted by: timpanogos.wordpress.com
|
June 29, 2010 12:05 AM
To which the only proper answer for a gentleman is "I certainly hope so!"
What's wrong with the Aussies these days? Have they no spheres any more?
Posted by: askegg.myopenid.com
|
June 29, 2010 12:18 AM
Pierce R. Butler @ #63 : I think that is a mistype. It should read "Front Bench Job" and refers to a Minister being given a portfolio of the Government to look after (Education, Communications, Defence, etc)
Poll of News.com.au site is badly worded. Yes option might mean people change their vote FOR Julia. I voted "don't care" to be safe (and because I don't care if people have faith, so long as it does not affect their policies).
http://www.news.com.au/features/federal-election/gillard-has-great-respect-for-religion/story-e6frfllr-1225885569440
Posted by: Quinx
|
June 29, 2010 12:25 AM
wow, this should make Americans really jealous :)
just look at those comments...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2939879.htm
Posted by: Wormman
|
June 29, 2010 12:30 AM
While I am heartened by her public emergence as an atheist (not really news), there are some things about Julia and federal Labor we need to keep in mind. Regardless of Julia's own philosophy, it was Labor whose shonky preference deal to keep the Greens from getting a senate seat that led to Steve "Late-term-Abortions-for-Welfare-Mums" Fielding getting his entirely undeserved senate seat. Labor did this to garner the happy clapper vote, and both Steve "Young-Earth-Creationist" Fielding and aforementioned happy clappers have done nothing but vote against Labor ever since as a token of their gratitude. It was a continuation of this misguided attempt at garnering love from a bunch of troglodytes who will never vote Labor which led to the plans for the country-wide net nanny filter to keep pr0n (and information about euthanasia, breasts and a Sydney dentist) away from teh kiddies.
Julia has promised to continue funding rich religious-based private schools (the school that gets the most federal funding is a religious school that charges $20 grand a year in fees).
Now, if she announced that they were cancelling plans for the net filter and were introducing a funding scheme that ensured that only schools that needed funding would get it from the government (which was Labor's policy 2 months before they got elected) I might consider going back to voting Labor. Currently, only the Sex Party seems to have the right combination of decent policies.
Posted by: AmandaS
|
June 29, 2010 12:50 AM
RobertL & Pope M (#66 and #69)
Sorry, but I have to strongly disagree with your statements re: legal recognition of gay couples under the Rudd government. It was, in fact, a very high priority of the Rudd government. While they have failed miserably on gay marriage, in every other aspect of Federal law they have attempted to provide legal certainty/equality to de facto couples, including same-sex de facto couples. This was one of the first and highest priorities of the government and has all passed through Parliament and is law and has been for about a year now.
Discrimination between same-sex and heterosexual couples (other than marriage) is part of State law only now. Unfortunately, State law covers an awful lot of stuff, but in terms of superannuation, military benefits, child support, family law etc, where Federal law stands, there should be no law that recognises a distinction between a de facto heterosexual and same-sex couple. Adoption, for example, is State law - thus NSW debating allowing same-sex couples to adopt. Superannuation is Commonwealth law and same-sex de factos are now recognised as the legal beneficiary of death benefits etc. Quiet, no-fuss, wonderful, heartening legislative change that barely anyone noticed at all :)
The changes are summarised http://www.ag.gov.au/samesexreform if you want to look at things that give me a satisfied mmm-yeah feeling :)
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
June 29, 2010 12:53 AM
#62
What the hell are you trying to get at?
Posted by: Marella
|
June 29, 2010 1:25 AM
I am so grateful Julia has got rid of Kevin, gods know who I was going to vote for if she hadn't. The greens probably, but it would be sad to see them turn into 'business as usual' politicians like all the rest if they actually got some real power. There was no chance of my voting for the "Mad Monk" that's for sure, he is completely nuts.
I am told that Conroy is going and the internet nanny legislation is going to be altered to something that the web is happy with. This info is not official though. The default will be light filtering and you can opt into the heavy filtering, all filtered pages will be listed and a reason given why and you will be able to protest the decision. If this is true it is a vast improvement. I live in hope.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 29, 2010 1:29 AM
AmandaS,
I agree, I pretty much stuffed that up – I was speaking purely to Kevin’s own personal position rather to the achievements of his government, which as you say, has reformed all of the legalities except where it concerns the term “marriage” – and thanks for that link. The failure to recognise gay marriage is the last sticking point (and I’m aware of gay friends who’ve married in Britain or at the British consulate in very recent times, so it is still a point of unfairness).
The point I was hamfistedly trying to make is that Rudd had (and no doubt still has) a religious definition of “marriage” that he wanted to apply only to partners of opposite sex, and that had his views been more representative of the progressive social elements of the party, there might have been a chance of removing this last ambiguity while Nelson or Turnbull were in charge. Even with Gillard in charge I’m not holding out much hope of Abbott agreeing to such an enlightened view of marriage, or to allow a “conscience vote” (parliamentary weasel words for permitting MPs to openly display their prejudices).
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
June 29, 2010 1:38 AM
Marella - so, how reliable are your sources?
(although, I still prefer my ducks idea.)
Posted by: Phasic
|
June 29, 2010 2:02 AM
I would also like to lend my voice of support to the proposal that Senator Conroy be pecked to death by hungry ducks.
I would also like to add an amendment involving Senator Fielding and a selection of endangered carnivourous marsupials such as the white-tailed dunnart and the eastern quoll.
Posted by: anwyllian
|
June 29, 2010 2:04 AM
There is another poll relating to Julia Gillard but this time specifically about her atheism. One of my local papers, The West Australian, asks:
"Are you more or less likely to vote for Julia Gillard given she is an atheist?"
With three possible responses, More Likely, Less Likely, It's Not Important.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/
The Survey itself:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/polls/popup/-/poll_id/55028
As far as I'm concerned it isn't important and shouldn't even be discussed however I really just don't want the 'Less Likely' to win. So perhaps post it up there PZ and let's smash it!
Posted by: Buffybot
|
June 29, 2010 2:16 AM
????!!!!!
If we've timewarped to 1952 I can't waste time hanging around here. Got to go buy cheap real estate.
Posted by: Phasic
|
June 29, 2010 2:17 AM
anwyllian@80, it looks like you might be able to vote multiple times on that poll, too...
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
June 29, 2010 2:26 AM
naw - only if you diddle with the cookies...
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 29, 2010 2:33 AM
Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
Great, now everyone's going to think Australians have weird baked-good sexual fetishes. Though that might explain why we have one variety called Ginger Nuts...
Posted by: Redhill
|
June 29, 2010 2:42 AM
Bettina Arndt has made a career of a kind since the 1970s "educating" Australians about sex - hence the peculiar tone of her article.
As Wormman points out at 73 above, political arithmetic in Australia can deliver some strange and disappointing results, like Senator Fielding who more or less outed himself as a Young Earth Creationist while sitting next to Dawkins on the television program Q&A, much to Dawkins' astonishment.
Julia Gillard may be an honest open atheist but she is a politician in a country that does have a significant minority of voters who will not be comfortable with having a godless childless woman who is living in sin as their prime minister.
The opposition will be trying to harvest those votes, but quietly because to be too open about it will invite a backlash from the majority who do not place a priority on such stuff.
Nevertheless, it is likely that Gillard will not pursue an aggressively secular agenda because of this political reality.
Posted by: Phasic
|
June 29, 2010 2:50 AM
Wowbagger @ 84
Good, that'll take attention away from our weird icecream thing. (ie, the Golden Gaytime).
Posted by: WilliamJansen
|
June 29, 2010 2:51 AM
When the former Danish primeminister was asked if he believed in God, he just said that he was the prime minister of the country and he was sure, that there were tons of questions to ask him, that were a lot more relevant.
Posted by: mochuck
|
June 29, 2010 2:53 AM
Bettina Arndt has no credibility anymore. She was once a very outspoken feminist and then one day she discovered that her pupose in life was to have children and be a mother. Her whole philosophy is based on biological determination.
I think the fact that Julia Gillard is 48 and has not had children clearly shows that she is not interested in her "reproductive window"
Posted by: Rider1
|
June 29, 2010 2:55 AM
Yes and the gobbledock has returned!
Anwyllian, that poll is tight.
Looks like the poll where Bettina Arndt dribbled her drivel goes for another two days so we are going to have to keep an eye on it. As I said earlier, the fundies may come marching in!
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
June 29, 2010 3:09 AM
@Autumn, #61: What century do you live in? The usage you are suggesting for 'jealous' is fifth on dictionary.com's definition for the word. The usage I applied when using the word is number one. Get with the times. And you spelled 'possessing' wrong.
Ha...just kidding, I luvs ya...you language narc.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
June 29, 2010 3:25 AM
Wowbagger - re Ginger Nuts
There's a RedHead joke going begging there - but I can't think of it, dammit!
If anyone sees a report of Fred Nile or George Pell having a violent meltdown, link please!!
Posted by: hapalochlaena
|
June 29, 2010 3:30 AM
#79: I'd suggest the Tasmanian Devil would be most suitable for Senator Fumbly Godbot Fielding.
Posted by: AmandaS
|
June 29, 2010 3:34 AM
Pope M #77
No problems :).
I have to say that I was heavily involved in some of the work on same-sex reforms and it was genuinely a very high priority for the Rudd government. It was very odd to be working on stuff that was going to immensely improve the lives of same-sex couples in very practical ways while listening to the rhetoric about gay marriage not being allowed.
I have no insight greater than any other pleb worker on the why of that dichotomy. I always wondered whether Rudd's opposition to gay marriage was a bait and switch tactic to distract the fundies whilst quietly and very, very determinedly rewriting legislation so that, in every practical sense but one, same-sex couples ended up with exactly the same rights as de facto couples who ended up with exactly the same rights as married couples (it was all done at the same time).
I cried the day that the legislation passed. It was such a HUGE thing and done so quietly and it made the lives of an extraordinary number of Australians very, very much easier. Which, really, is what government should be about :).
Posted by: dezinerau
|
June 29, 2010 3:44 AM
Don't forget that a big deal isn't necessarily being made about this by the opposition because an election has not yet been called. Gotta save up something like this for the week before the polls, when it can really whip up the god-bothering horde.
That said, there has been some conservatives pointing out today that she's pro-choice, and by definition (apparently) promoting abortion.
The attacks haven't started yet. Give it a couple of weeks into the election campaign.
Posted by: Phasic
|
June 29, 2010 3:47 AM
This election is going to give me SUCH a headache. I'm already feeling all tense about it.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 29, 2010 3:50 AM
AmandaS, good for you. I take it then you’d have noticed that these reforms were completely ignored by Kevin as being one of the great achievements of his government that he was proud of, in his final speech as Prime Minister last week? His pride in the apology to the stolen generations, great; the national organ donor register, great; and so on. The law reforms to benefit same sex couples – not a word, unless I’m mistaken.
Kevin’s approach puzzled me; it’s the fact that he is a Christian that ought to make it easier for him to be able to implement a change in favour of same sex marriage, rather than using this “bait and switch tactic” as you put it, or the “softly, softly” approach of quietly changing everything except for the one the die-hards would make the most noise about. His being a Christian and yet being in support of it as a social justice to gay couples would immediately cut the ground from underneath his religious opponents, but I can only draw the conclusion that he was unwilling to follow that path because he doesn’t think it’s important.
Posted by: StevePr
|
June 29, 2010 3:52 AM
Bettina Arndt should know better. A defacto relation is by law , as long as your straight (and hopefully that will change soon), the same as, or de facto, a married relationship. Women have the same rights in a de facto as a married relationship as do children.
Now if Julia was a Lesbian then Bettina would have a leg to stand on as at the moment her rights would be restricted.
I expect the religious nutters to be in a spin at the loss of access to a fellow religious PM. Hopefully this will spell the end of rules for the religious at the expense of the rest of us. Damn shame she won't remove the blatant favouritism towards religious schools in terms of funding.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
June 29, 2010 4:24 AM
It might if you exclude me from the sample as an outlier... but...
Posted by: AmandaS
|
June 29, 2010 4:32 AM
Pope M #96
I know. Like I said, the dichotomy completely confuses me because I know how determined the government was to get the changes through. Why Rudd is therefore not out and proud about them baffles me. Maybe it's a case of ignore the politician, congratulate the government?
Steve Pr #97
The definition of de facto in Australian law INCLUDES same-sex couples, who have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples and have had since early 2009. Same-sex couples have exactly the same rights to property settlements, child support, Family Law access, mediation, Family Tax Benefits etc as heterosexual de facto couples. The only remaining discrimination against same-sex couples in Commonwealth law is that they cannot get legally married. That's a big one, but in terms of the rights of de facto couples, gay couples have the same rights as straight couples.
There are aspects of "families" that remain under State law and remain discriminatory but, other than marriage itself, there's nothing left under Commonwealth law that discriminates between same-sex and heterosexual de factos.
Sorry, but I liked working on those changes and I want people to know about them! Australia did good there, even if not quite good enough.
Posted by: Esa Riihonen
|
June 29, 2010 4:52 AM
The female prime minister of Iceland at least had the decency to do the right thing and married her female partner just a couple of days ago.
Posted by: Great Waves
|
June 29, 2010 5:08 AM
A radio announcer (Steve Price) just spieled on Australian television against Gillard because of her atheism (..."She doesn't believe in god. She doesn't believe in family"...). The host said they'd put a poll on the website http://7pmproject.com.au/home.htm (it's not up yet, though)
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 29, 2010 5:18 AM
Any Victorians out there? Check this out, seriously.
http://filter-conroy.org/
Hmm, Julia is an atheist, 48 year old, de facto unmarried, deliberately childless woman of Welsh background - there will probably never be another PM more like me! I have even been a redhead on occasion. Must be time for another henna job :)
Posted by: Paul Macgowan
|
June 29, 2010 5:21 AM
I was very happy to get rid of Howard, but Rudd was still a theist so I am over the moon that not only have we got a woman who is competent, but even better she's an Atheist ... the complete package.
Maybe she could attend TAM Oz, how about it TAM Oz get Julia to give the opening address ... I will be there and I would give her a standing ovation!
PS It USA's turn to have a out Athiest in power.
Posted by: Great Waves
|
June 29, 2010 5:21 AM
A Christian blog disapprovingly monitors Gillard's atheism; http://austchristianvoter.blogspot.com/ as does loopy Christian lobbying group; http://www.saltshakers.org.au/.
Posted by: Ramases_1
|
June 29, 2010 5:23 AM
Steve Price is a clown.
Fortunately he is the exception about making a deal about this.
I am aware such a claim would be a big deal in the US, but it is not making much of an impact in the media here.
After all Julia's non-belief was already well know, and in any case she is far from being the first non-believing Aussie PM.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 29, 2010 5:34 AM
Charlie Foxtrot, a US state governor is probably closest to Kenneally's job. We have split roles in Australia. Appointed ceremonial governors go around cutting ribbons and endorsing charities and rubber stamping legislation. Elected political party leaders run the government. Kenneally is the elected kind. The actual NSW state governor is also a woman, Marie Bashir.
That's a funny little gaffe, I really like it for a couple of reasons.
1) It seems it's a political liability to call gays sinners. Yes!
2) Although she is religious, her specific choice of imaginary friend speaks well of her.
Posted by: Great Waves
|
June 29, 2010 5:53 AM
The polls not up, but there is a forum thread on the question; ( http://7pmproject.com.au/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=129782&start=105&tstart=0 ) with genius reponses like "If she didn't want her personal preferences to affect the way I vote she should have been non-committal about her answer to the question. ".
Posted by: MadScientist
|
June 29, 2010 6:03 AM
I suspect Australia has previously had good ol' godless prime ministers. The anti-reality agenda of the god-bothering candidates is just plain creepy; the Ozzies should vote for the godless woman. Personally I think there should be an intelligence test; those who believe in gods should be excluded from positions in public office.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
June 29, 2010 6:19 AM
No doubt that Aussies, including Christians, prefer honest declaration of belief (or lack thereof) than BS. That's why Gillard beats Rudd.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
June 29, 2010 6:20 AM
Well since media and RIght bloggers in New Zealand regarded our recently departed to the UN ex Prime Minister Helen Clark as a lesbian despite being married for the simple reason that she did not have children. She is atheist too but that didn't seem to be such a big issue in NZ. Those Aussies, they is crazy, the heat and the salted fields will do that to you. Not to mention the stuff they regard as beer, which you can't taste since it's served @ -20C encased in foam so your skin doesn't stick to the can.
Posted by: godless.biz
|
June 29, 2010 6:26 AM
Great Waves @ #101
Steve Price is clearly confusing atheism with nihilism. I suppose it's reasonably common in dinosaurs like him to revolt against strong, intelligent, opinionated, childless, unmarried, firery red headed woman like Julia. I would say it's his problem, but some muppet put a microphone in front of him and gave him a public voice.
Not only did I lose faith in god, and I also realizing the harder lesson that our media are clueless as well.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 6:27 AM
ABQ, you're either ignorant or a liar.
Kevin Rudd: The God Factor (from ABC's Compass, 8 May 2005.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlL4D5kAFfHrBasdPPLMASLrboPGsyNYBw
|
June 29, 2010 6:43 AM
Here is another one...
Are you more or less likely to vote for Julia Gillard now that she has announced her atheism?
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/polls/popup/-/poll_id/55028
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney
|
June 29, 2010 6:47 AM
She cites Pat Rafter as a terrible role model for being awarded the Australian of the Year prize just as he was about to become an unmarried father, so presumably he dumped the mother of his child shortly afterwards.
From Wikipedia:
and
Oh.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlL4D5kAFfHrBasdPPLMASLrboPGsyNYBw
|
June 29, 2010 6:48 AM
"I can't get past their use of the term "de facto.""
The term "de facto" has legal meaning in Australia. It describes a relationship where the couple are not married. De facto couples have certain rights under law.
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 29, 2010 6:56 AM
Amongst all the things about Gillard that are issues, it impresses me that the fact she's an immigrant (with no Australian ancestry) isn't an issue. It strikes me as quite a big deal; I can't think of anything comparable to that in any democracy. Bonar Law and Sonia Gandhi were the closest I could think of, but he had a Scottish mother and she didn't take the premiership when her party was elected (as well as the fact that being a Gandhi made it a rather different situation)
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
June 29, 2010 7:08 AM
We're a nation of immigrants. As long as you're a citizen, that's almost all that counts for electoral office. Though to be honest, it probably does help that she's originally British, and not brown.
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 29, 2010 7:24 AM
Nation of immigrants or not, I'm impressed. The Americas are loaded with nations of immigrants and I'm not aware of one rising to be head of government. In the United States it's even unconstitutional. Well done on it not being a big deal.
Posted by: Al B. Quirky
|
June 29, 2010 7:26 AM
@John Morales
That's what Rudd said in 2005. In 2007, it went like this:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_who_is_the_real_kevin_rudd
As I keep saying, its not the belief, its the BS that Aussies can't abide by.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 7:49 AM
ABQ, that you cite Andrew Bolt is indicative of your perspective.
That said, if you're suggesting Rudd has been ambivalent regarding his Christianity, opinion pieces by demagogic pundits are not sufficient to sustain that claim.
I contend that it's no secret at all.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
June 29, 2010 7:51 AM
John Morales wrote:
John, that's an awful, wildly inaccurate thing to say and I demand you retract it immediately. ABQ is ignorant and a liar - and don't you forget it!
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 7:54 AM
Matt, Bob Hawke:
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 7:56 AM
Wowbagger, ouch!
Nay, I was using a logical disjunction.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 29, 2010 8:08 AM
In the US it means "in fact". It's mostly a legal term, and is never used to refer to cohabitating couples.
The closest US term would be "common law marriage", which is a similar legal concept, but the requirements are much more stringent for states to recognize it, and many states don't recognize it at all.
Posted by: MosesZD
|
June 29, 2010 8:39 AM
lol. They closed the comments after the author got a severe, and well deserved, drubbing...
One of the nice things about being old is you can see just how WRONG the cultural preservation warriors are, and continue to be:
1. Integration -- America has not yet collapsed.
2. Equal Rights -- To the extent protections have been put into place, America has not yet collapsed.
3. Rock & Roll -- Each generation's weirdness in rock has yet to lead to society collapsing.
4. Domino Theory -- Funny, but we've caused more problems than the old Soviets with our backing of every right-wing, tin-pot dictatorship...
5. Communism/Socialism --- Funny, but the social-democracies in Continental Europe do better, over-all/over-time than the Laissez-Faire crowd (basically most of those countries derived from British colonies).
6. Immigration by the: Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews, etc... Bzzzttt...
7. Atheism -- That's a real laugh considering THE MOST IMMORAL PEOPLE in America are the "Super Christian." One of the greatest joys of my life was the selling of my practice so I'll never, ever have to work with another group of Christian hypocrites...
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 29, 2010 8:49 AM
John Morales: That's a pretty awesome deconversion story, but I'm not sure why you've addressed it to me (assuming you did; there doesn't seem to be anyone else posting as "Matt").
Posted by: MosesZD
|
June 29, 2010 8:50 AM
No, but your quip doesn't ameliorate the fact that it's true. And that people, men and women, have suffered later in life for those very choices.
Like my wife. Who waited until it was too late because she had such a hard time, as a PhD scientist, in finding a solid, caring mate who was her intellectual equal.
Sure, she adopted my kids after I got the lunatic's parental rights terminated. So there's something...
But I will never forget the pain of her suffering through her six miscarriages. The months of hormone therapies as the reproductive endocrinologist tried various therapies to keep the healthy embryos from aborting.
I also haven't forgotten the shots she had to self-administer and the bloody bruises on her legs from the side effects of the injections. And I haven't forgotten about the biological clocking striking zero and it being "game over" at 45 (the last time she was able to get pregnant).
So, yes, there is more to a woman than reproduction. But your quip is still fucking inhumane and stupid as it glosses over the fact that, for women, there really are some fucking buggered hard choices to make. Choices that men don't have suffer unless they choose. And can pontificate from on high, because, for them, it doesn't fucking matter as they can trade in the "old, barren screw" for a young, hot model...
Just like it doesn't matter for the anti-choice bastards who'd enslave every woman to her uterus. Whom you resemble a lot more than you may think...
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 29, 2010 8:55 AM
Matt @126, because I was scatter-brained and mixed you up with Ramases_1, re Australian PMs and religion. Sorry.
Posted by: Philip Legge
|
June 29, 2010 9:01 AM
Matt, I think John Morales actually meant his observation to be for MadScientist at #108, by giving a concrete example to back up his suspicion that “Australia has previously had good ol' godless prime ministers”.
I’m fairly sure Gough Whitlam’s agnosticism is close to being de facto atheism, but I could be wrong.
Posted by: mattheath
|
June 29, 2010 9:04 AM
No need for apologies, it's a cool story.
Posted by: Snoof
|
June 29, 2010 9:12 AM
Paul Keating, on the other hand, was a fervent believer in the one true God. That god, of course, being Paul Keating.
Say what you like about the guy, but he had an ego the size of Neptune.
Posted by: Doug Little
|
June 29, 2010 9:12 AM
I'm proud to be an Australian!
I'd love it if she came over here to the US and did the media circuit. There would be heads exploding all over the place (especially at Fox News).
Posted by: Jason Ball
|
June 29, 2010 9:17 AM
Sooo many polls on every news website now regarding Gillard's atheism!
Any chance we can get PZ to Pharyngulate them all in one go with one post?
Also, I was on triple j's 'Hack' program today discussing the matter:
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/stories/s2940281.htm
Posted by: Aquaria
|
June 29, 2010 9:17 AM
Moses, I'm going to disagree with you about llewelly's remark.
It is hard to endure miscarriages when you're wanting a child. At any age. But I took the remark as criticism of Arndt for implying that women are nothing if they don't reproduce (in the married state only), rather than a comment on the biological clock issue.
We'll have to see if llewelly clarifies.
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney
|
June 29, 2010 9:22 AM
Right, so the obvious thing to do is not to let us make our own choices, but instead allow conservative newspaper columnists to dictate what we should do.
Posted by: simonhowson
|
June 29, 2010 9:23 AM
Sadly the Australian PM isn't Australia's Head of State. Australia's Head of State is (currently) Queen Elizabeth II.Posted by: simonhowson
|
June 29, 2010 9:25 AM
Actually, Paul Keating is Catholic.Posted by: ambulocetacean
|
June 29, 2010 9:28 AM
Yeah, well, I suppose it's kind of cool to have another atheist PM, at least until the election in a few months.
But I'm absolutely not voting for her unless she reverses Rudd's cruel and cynical decision to stop processing asylum claims from Afghan and Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in the hope that those places get better so they can be deported right back.
Re NSW premier Kristina "Saints and Sinners" Kenneally. She was born is Las Vegas and did all her early god bothering in the US before she came out here to get married in 1994. You Americans can claim her if you like. And no, that's fine, we don't need Ken Ham. You can keep him.
And will all you Kiwis stop skiting about how groovy you are on women's rights? I'll have you know that women in Australia got the right to vote way back in 1902, just a few years after women got it in ... er ... um ... New Zealand.
Posted by: Ramases_1
|
June 29, 2010 9:44 AM
ambulocetacean, I could not agree with you all.
The Labor policies on asylum seeker policies are a disgrace. This is not the only issue in which Gillard and Labor have proved pathetic.
Atheist fine. But I'd frankly find it more convincing if she showed the courage to stand up to the religious private school lobby.
In that regard as education minister she was absolutely pathetic. Caving in to the threat from the private school lobby to campaign against anyone who crosses them, she supported the continuation of the SES funding system which is so biased in favour of private schools to the detriment of the public education system.
Without the massive public funding they get most of the religious private schools would simply not exist. They extensive and backward Catholic is now almost completely taxpayer funded.
Atheist, fine.
I would rather a PM with some political courage and decent policies. Gillard has neither of these things.
Posted by: Ramases_1
|
June 29, 2010 9:46 AM
Sorry ambulocetacean, I meant I could not agree with you MORE. Typo.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
June 29, 2010 9:57 AM
By all means, PM, shack up!
Current poll results:
Yes, 22%
No, 78%
Total votes: 30050
Posted by: zeppo-marx
|
June 29, 2010 10:08 AM
I wish Canada would catch that infection this fully also. I mean, it's hard to believe that it has been 43 years since Trudeau shrugged and said "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation.", and I suppose we were tolerant of a bachelor PM who hung out with a married woman and had seances to talk to his dead mother and his terriers (all, save on, named Pat), but we still have far too many citizens to whom these things matter.
And I'm really not sure how a confirmed atheist would be taken. I mean, we don't flaunt the God thing like Americans do at election time, and beliefs are rarely brought up - but I think that someone actually claiming a lack of belief would still, unfortunately, be severely damaging their political career.
It's kinda a Don't Ask, Don't Tell thing most of the time.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
June 29, 2010 10:55 AM
Pope M @ 77.
British Consulate, you say? I wonder how that works? We do not have gay marriage in the UK but Civil Partnerships which are not the same thing.
It's legal recognition, yes, but gay folks can't get legally married here (and, fwiw, straight couples can't enter into a Civil Partnership). I'm sure that there are other people on here who are more knowledgable in these matters!
Posted by: Icaria
|
June 29, 2010 11:21 AM
@ #22
Financial settlements, in, or outside formal marriage, generally require that during the course of the relationship, finances become significantly merged. And even then, there will be attempts to determine to what degree and what portion of assets, or debt, is fair game. It only gets muddy, when it comes to figuring out whether to divvy up superannuation.
As for the poll, I have two wishes. The first being that it weren't Pharynugulated. The second, that it weren't phrased so misleadingly: stating a negative proposition and asking whether readers agree, or disagree with it - as opposed to just asking the question directly. Granted, results would be severely anecdotal but I'd at least like to have some feel for just how moronic people are.
Posted by: Icaria
|
June 29, 2010 11:31 AM
Gah, that should be *positive proposition, not negative.
Posted by: grapho
|
June 29, 2010 12:02 PM
Refreshing.
When PM Gillard mentioned her Baptist childhood she ironically invoked 1Corinthians 13 ....
"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became adult, I put childish ways behind me"
Posted by: James F
|
June 29, 2010 3:15 PM
#124
truthspeaker, you explained exactly what I was going to explain. Thanks.
I do enjoy learning about The Antipodes on Pharyngula!
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
June 29, 2010 3:41 PM
Yeah. I thought you needed to have at least two divorces under your belt to be taken seriously.Oh! - silly me. That's just in order to be a Conservative, families-man. The more families, the better, I guess.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
June 29, 2010 3:44 PM
Meathead wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "atheist". Sweden has among the lowest percentage of people who claim to believe in a god in Europe (23% according to a 2005 poll; only Estonia at 16% and Czechia at 19% ranked lower), but it doesn't follow that most of the population are right-thinking nonbelievers - just over half the population claim belief in "some sort of spirit of life force" in the same poll. France had the highest percentage of respondents saying they don't believe in any sort of god, spirit, or life force.
Posted by: StevePr
|
June 29, 2010 6:33 PM
Good to hear. I'd thought that some of the restrictions on super etc remained due to the liberal wackers voting them down.If that's not the case then good. Now Rudd's gone same sex marriages may have a chance.
Posted by: realthog
|
June 29, 2010 9:09 PM
Say…I just checked the front pages of a couple of Australian news sites. This satanic revelation isn't even mentioned. What's wrong with Australia? And can we get the same infection?
It seems you were optimistic, according to this Oz commentator:
http://mothincarnate.wordpress.com/2010/06/30/julia-gillard-has-no-religion-so-what/
Posted by: mothincarnate
|
June 30, 2010 12:54 AM
Cheers for the mention realhog - I certainly like being advertised.
I'm not much in the way of a commentator however. I just heard them discuss it on a radio station (Triple J) last night and on morning news while getting ready this morning and just had to say that I hope this blows over quick.
I just hope the relative lack of concern is a sign that most Aussies are beyond this argument nowadays. We'll see in the next election (very close at hand) - Abbott is a strong Christian.
Posted by: Jim Foley
|
June 30, 2010 6:45 AM
Damn, I'm proud of Australia when I imagine the hysterical meltdown half of the US would have had if this happened over there.
Over here, it rated a few inches of column space on the bottom of page 5 in the national newspaper. The Australian Christian Lobby's spokesman was quoted as saying "I think she's being honest and true to herself. Obviously, that position will alienate some in the Christian community and some in the wider Australian community."
Fair enough, it probably will. But he isn't saying that Christians should reject her. He seems to respect her and "expressed optimism that the new Prime Minister is pragmatic and will maintain predecessor Kevin Rudd's family-friendly policies, including respect for marriage and care for the marginalised."
And that's probably the last we'll hear of it...
Posted by: Rosalie
|
June 30, 2010 4:56 PM
I don't like the idea of common-law marriage (or de facto marriage, I guess) very much at all. I suppose there are times when it might be good, but in general I hate the idea. If I avoid getting married, I don't want the government stepping in and saying oh well, too bad, you're married anyway. If I don't get married, and therefore don't make any promise to stay with someone forever and take care of them, and then I leave them, why should I have to pay them a financial settlement? There was no promise that I'd take care of their finances in the future. What if I didn't marry them because I don't agree with their opinions on medical decisions and I'd still rather have my parents be the ones to make any critical decisions?
I also really hate the idea that it isn't very clearly defined and you can somehow accidentally be married without anyone telling you the rules.
Posted by: StevePr
|
June 30, 2010 8:14 PM
Luckily ignorance isn't a defense in law or so many people would be able to say I'm as dumb as a post therefore offing this person is OK (even though ignorance means something different in law than being as dumb as a post it fits well)De Facto laws arose out of common law marriage if my memory serves me correctly to protect women who despite contributing to the building of the mans wealth could be left penniless if they just up and left. Back then, as now to a lesser extnt, people could have complete control over assets and effectively dispossess their partner.
If you don't want financial responsibility for your shagging then abstinence works.
Posted by: Rosalie
|
June 30, 2010 8:58 PM
If you don't want financial responsibility for your shagging then abstinence works.
Seriously? Its one thing to say that there are some relationships where this "protection" would be useful (as I originally acknowledged) and quite another to imply that no one should ever have sex or live together unless they are planning to be responsible for the other person forever. You seriously think the two choices are "married" or "abstinent"?
How about this: If you don't want to be left penniless, and you also don't want to get married, then keep your own bank account. If you want the government to recognize you as having combined finances and property, then either write up a contract to that effect or get married. (I make an exception of course for people who are prohibited from getting married, like gay couples, but I'm sure all of us here think they shouldn't be prohibited).
Also, my point is not about "ignorance". If you make an informed choice not to get married, why should the state step in and say that you are married after all? I could also see that being used by an abusive partner to keep harassing their partner in court after the abused partner decides to leave.
Marriage is a contract. Isn't that the point of all this marriage equality rhetoric? Civil marriage is a contract entered into by two people, and enforced by the state. It seems very shady to me to say that people are in a legally enforceable contract that they did not enter into. It has no clear starting point, the rules are inconsistent from state to state, it may or may not be acknowledged, etc.
I suppose I could see that if your specific case has a specific reason that someone owes the other, you could sue them and take them to court, but it seems very wrong to me to call it a "marriage". Say any two people live together, romantically or not, and they both pay for some large item like a car, and then one of them wants to take the car away from the other. There seems to be a legal basis for a lawsuit that they own the car equally and should split the value. Or say they have a verbal agreement that one of them will quit their job to take care of the household and the other will work to support the stay at home person-- then they can sue over breach of that verbal contract (if they can prove it, which I suppose they would do the same way that they would prove they have a "common law marriage"). But why should they suddenly be called "married" when they explicitly did not choose to enter into a marriage together?
Seems to me its left over from Medieval times, and doesn't really fit our society anymore. I know tons of people, couples and not, who live together with no expectation that they will get married and be responsible for each other forever.