Australia | Gay Marriage | Kevin Rudd | News

Former Australian PM Kevin Rudd Flips: I Support Marriage Equality

Australian former PM Kevin Rudd, who opposed a 2009 amendment while in office that would have paved the way for marriage equality, declared today that he has changed his mind in a lengthy post on his blog.

RuddSaid Rudd, in part:

I have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions and practices on the question of same sex marriage. I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage. I also believe that this change should legally exempt religious institutions from any requirement to change their historic position and practice that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. For me, this change in position has come about as a result of a lot of reflection, over a long period of time, including conversations with good people grappling with deep questions of life, sexuality and faith.

Rudd said that he changed his mind after a talk with a former political staffer, a Christian active in his Pentecostal Church, sat down with the former PM and told him that he wanted to be married.

Added Rudd:

And so the re-think began, once again taking me back to first principles. First, given that I profess to be a Christian (albeit not a particularly virtuous one) and given that this belief informs a number of my basic views; and given that I am given a conscience vote on these issues; then what constitutes for me a credible Christian view of same sex marriage, and is such a view amenable to change? Second, irrespective of what that view might be, do such views have a proper place in a secular state, in a secular definition of marriage, or in a country where the census tells us that while 70% of the population profess a religious belief, some 70% of marriages no longer occur in religious institutions, Christian or otherwise.

Rudd adds that homosexuality is not a choice:

I for one have never accepted the argument from some Christians that homosexuality is an abnormality. People do not choose to be gay. The near universal findings of biological and psychological research for most of the post war period is that irrespective of race, religion or culture, a certain proportion of the community is born gay, whether they like it or not. Given this relatively uncontested scientific fact, then the following question that arises is should our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay be fully embraced as full members of our wider society? The answer to that is unequivocally yes, given that the suppression of a person's sexuality inevitably creates far greater social and behavioural abnormalities, as opposed to its free and lawful expression.

He continues, speaking about the arguments that it might hurt children, and debunks the right-wing arguments against that, concluding:

Finally, as someone who was raised for the most important part of his childhood by a single mum, I don’t buy the argument that I was somehow developmentally challenged because I didn’t happen to have a father. The loving nurture of children is a more complex business than that.

Rudd says he won't be taking a leadership role on the issue but just wanted to make his new position known, urging the legislature to enact the freedom to marry for all.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. "I have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions...I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognize same sex marriage."

    I'm glad Kevin Rudd has changed his mind, but it's fairly alarming that this career politician took so long to realize that in a secular state it's acceptable for the government to sometimes deviate from the church's wishes.

    Posted by: Brian | May 20, 2013 8:35:40 AM


  2. "I for one have never accepted the argument from some Christians that homosexuality is an abnormality. People do not choose to be gay."

    If he "never" accepted that argument, why did he oppose same sex marriage when he was in office? Doing what's right after you no longer have to fear any political backlash is just cowardly.

    Posted by: Eddie | May 20, 2013 9:12:46 AM


  3. This guy is a true politician.

    As for the mom and dad issue, I don't think dismissing the importance of having a responsible dad in a child's life is wise. We have too many kids being raised in single parent broken homes. Sorry if this offends some, but this is not a good thing for them or society as a whole. Men and fathers are too often dismissed and pushed aside, especially by hardcore so-called 'progressives' who are heavily influenced by radical feminist who believe in 'empowering' women and girls at the sake of boys and men. All available data clearly shows children are better off being raised in a 2 parent homes. This is especially true economically speaking.

    Posted by: ratbastard | May 20, 2013 9:14:30 AM


  4. This guy is a true politician.

    As for the mom and dad issue, I don't think dismissing the importance of having a responsible dad in a child's life is wise. We have too many kids being raised in single parent broken homes. Sorry if this offends some, but this is not a good thing for them or society as a whole. Men and fathers are too often dismissed and pushed aside, especially by hardcore so-called 'progressives' who are heavily influenced by radical feminist who believe in 'empowering' women and girls at the sake of boys and men. All available data clearly shows children are better off being raised in a 2 parent homes. This is especially true economically speaking.

    Posted by: ratbastard | May 20, 2013 9:14:31 AM


  5. Being gay is NOT a choice, we already know it. But it’s not genetic or formed in the womb either, science do not support such claims and the studies done do no define sexuality, if many people for politics begin to adhere to such false notion –that gays have something in their body that made them that way- it’s gonna be a rough way, plagued with pseudoscience and false claims of having found the gay gene or the gay cause. Sexuality is acquired very early on in infancy –while the wiring of the brain is taking place- under uncontrollable factors –you can not ultimately control the perception of the little infant, WHATEVER you do- but I understand that it is easier to say that one is born that way, as you can’t explain differently to people who won’t grasp such subtleties (and I imagine people misunderstanding the whole concept and subjecting 2 years olds to bizarre sure-to-be-straight quasi methods out of phobia).
    But again, please, NOT a choice, NOT genetic or born with. We are equal, wired differently, but –unless some medical condition- we are average in that bodily sense.

    Posted by: SayTheTruth | May 20, 2013 10:08:18 AM


  6. I don't know if he believes it or not - he is pretty desperate to lead his party again.

    Posted by: notmichaeljfox | May 20, 2013 10:10:08 AM


  7. @ ratbastard You diverged from what is frequently said, that being, "raised by 1 mother and 1 father". I would agree that it is easier with two parents, but refuse to infer that being raised by a single parent is detrimental to raising a good child.

    Excluding the biased and bigoted studies that insist parenting by 1 man and 1 woman is the only correct way, I fully believe that two men or two women fill the bill very nicely.

    My suggestion to people that say a child must not be raised by two men or two women I suggest that any child in foster care be appointed a set of parents randomly selected by the courts, then there would be NO children as wards of the state and the FIRST couple to refuse to do as ordered by the courts be imprisoned for the length of time for the assigned child to grow to the age of 21!

    That would eliminate child welfare, the ridicules claim that it can only be done by 1 man AND 1 woman.

    Two loving and caring parents will win every time!


    Posted by: John | May 20, 2013 10:12:27 AM


  8. @John,

    I was waiting for someone to come on and nit pick my previous post. This of course happens whenever I post anything that REMOTELY diverges from the 'progressive' narrative and talking points. Just surprised it took so long.

    For the record, I don't think 2 moms or 2 dads is bad. Neither do I think a single mom [or dad] is bad. I just said a responsible mom and dad is the most ideal. I do think children should be exposed to influences from both genders [men and women are different, think differently, in many ways], not to mention the fact a biological father should not be abandoned from his child's life unless he's particularly irresponsible and unstable. Ditto mom.

    And I standby my comments that dads shouldn't be considered disposable after conception and gestation.

    Posted by: ratbastard | May 20, 2013 11:22:28 AM


  9. Of course that's how Ratbastard feels. That's because Ratbastard doesn't actually support gay people or same sex families. His self-loathing is pretty strong, which is visible in his usual misogynistic, bigoted, anti-progressive, "anti-liberal," anti-gay posts.

    Posted by: MateoM | May 20, 2013 1:43:39 PM


  10. Why is it that it somehow comes to them that it's OK only after someone they know is gay and then it's OK. Shouldn't they have a good conscience anyway?

    Posted by: Joseph Singer | May 20, 2013 2:12:55 PM


  11. While I am deeply cynical about KRudd's change of heart, I am pleased that he has decided to go public. His previous statements have always been conflicted, as if he wanted to say something, but knew his support base within the party would not allow it.

    I suspect that is also the problem with the current leaders within the ALP here. They know what is right, but are trapped by being dependent on some unions for their power, whose leadership will not countenance gay marriage...

    Posted by: Stufromoz | May 20, 2013 4:52:18 PM


  12. @ratbastard You say that you feel strongly that a mother and father is best, but in what is this belief grounded? Your personal experience and social conditioning, presumably.

    For when scientists actually studied this, the children of stable same-sex couples turned out EXACTLY THE SAME as children of stable opposite-sex couples. They're both equally best.

    Children are exposed and socialized to people of both sexes quite readily. It happens with every trip to the grocery store, or the museum, or doctor's office, or friends/family, or school.

    You would have to go to extraordinary lengths to isolate a child from society thusly, and I would argue that such treatment would constitute child abuse.

    Posted by: Dave | May 20, 2013 10:09:29 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «UK Marriage Equality Legislation Threatened in Parliament« «