Monday, November 15, 2010

This can't be right, can it? Or can it?

From the ABC website's report on the bill being introduced in Parliament tonight by the Greens' Adam Bandt in support of same-sex marriage:
Philip Ruddock, who was attorney-general in 2004 when a law was passed to define marriage as being "between a man and a woman", said marriage should be limited to those who could procreate.
So: does Ruddock think that not just gays and lesbians, but no women past childbearing age, and nobody of either sex who was born or has been rendered infertile, should be allowed to get married? And to take his remark to its logical conclusion, does he think that any existing marriage in which either partner has become unable to 'procreate' should be dissolved? Including, presumably, his own?

This man held important portfolios in the Howard government for eleven years, and is now on the front bench of an Opposition that came within the width of the fabric of a silk georgette hanky of getting back into government. If it's true that we get the politicians we deserve, then we have all been very bad, and if they are a reflection of us then clearly we have all been very bonkers as well.
at

10 comments:

  1. GSNovember 16, 2010 at 7:27 AM

    Just as well our Prime Minister, the deliberately barren one, hasn't expressed any desire to marry her beau. Ruddock would be running down the aisle screaming "I object".

    What century are we in?

    ReplyDelete
  2. firstkittenNovember 16, 2010 at 11:34 AM

    oh, so my partner and i (55 and 47) should not be allowed to wed then?

    does this man ever think through his thoughts?

    and was he wearing his amnesty pin when he uttered this nonsense?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nicole in NapaNovember 16, 2010 at 3:50 PM

    You are right on the money!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. lucytartanNovember 17, 2010 at 8:10 AM

    Gay and lesbian people CAN procreate, Phil. That one's not going to work for you. *walks off muttering, shaking head, mopping brow with silk georgette hanky*

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kerryn GoldsworthyNovember 17, 2010 at 8:35 AM

    Yes but they won't, Ms Tartan (except some of them, of course), they won't. They are deliberately barren.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BerniceNovember 17, 2010 at 5:46 PM

    Haz kiddies - can marry then Phil?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Beau JestNovember 17, 2010 at 6:29 PM

    "Just as well our Prime Minister, the deliberately barren one, hasn't expressed any desire to marry her beau."

    Not that I'm having a go at her bloke, but "beau" is rather over-gilding the Gilly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnthonyNovember 17, 2010 at 7:34 PM

    Bernice: marriage is for those who "could" procreate, not for those who've already gone ahead and procreated. You've jumped the gun. Philip wouldn't be happy, I'm sure.

    As someone opposed to heterosexual marriage, on equal opportunity grounds I've got to oppose same sex marriage. I take the same stance on employee share ownership schemes

    ReplyDelete
  9. BerniceNovember 18, 2010 at 9:24 PM

    Ah but think of the tupperware you're missing young Anthony

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnthonyNovember 18, 2010 at 9:54 PM

    Or, to do a Homer Simpson gargle,

    "Aaargh...whitegoods!"

    ReplyDelete

Please feel free to write long(ish) comments if you have long comments to make. Off-topic comments will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and deleted if they derail the discussion. Hostile or malicious comments will be deleted regardless.