Australia | Gay Marriage | Julia Gillard | News

Young Boy Asks Former Australian PM: 'How Come You Didn't Let Gay People Get Married?' — VIDEO


Last night, at a forum at the Sydney Opera House, a young boy got a huge round of applause and cheers when he asked former Prime Minister Julia Gillard:

"How come you didn't let gay people get married?"


Gillard laughed, saying, "It’s a politician in the making there I think."

She then said:

"I do understand that the position I took on gay marriage perplexed many people, given who I am and so many of my beliefs. I’ve actually had lots of conversations with many of my old friends about this – some of them have got a different view than me...But I’m a lot older than you, and when I went to university and started forming my political views of the world, we weren’t talking about gay marriage. As feminists, we were critiquing marriage....I’m conscious that these views are dated and that the way people interpret marriage now is different...I think marriage in our society could play its traditional role, and we could come up with other institutions which value partnerships, value love, value lifetime commitment...I have a valuable lifetime commitment and haven’t felt the need at any point to make that into a marriage.”

Gillard then added that there needs to be a conscience vote on the issue.

(h/t samesame)


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Because she is a narcissist who got in bed with religious extremists for her own political ambitions.

    Posted by: Steve | Sep 30, 2013 9:16:57 PM

  2. The hubris of politicians never fails to astound me... that's lovely that she chose not to be married, but she overlooks that she at least had the option.

    How on earth she justifies treating other people equally under law is beyond me.

    Posted by: petensfo | Sep 30, 2013 9:18:13 PM

  3. her voice still makes me cringe...

    That poor boy - he asked a serious question and she laughs at him.

    The conscience vote is rubbish. Our representatives should be voting in line with their constituents beliefs NOT what their conscience tells them.

    Posted by: michael | Sep 30, 2013 9:44:58 PM

  4. "marriage could play its traditional role"? What is that role? Not raising kids, single people do that all the time. Having "the little woman" stay at home and house keep? Nah women are more than maids. What is the "traditional role" of marriage?

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Sep 30, 2013 9:49:13 PM

  5. He's so cute !

    And she's right, you change the law by changing the public's collective mind.

    So, get to work !

    Posted by: Pookie | Sep 30, 2013 9:58:38 PM

  6. So her answer distills down to: "I don't like marriage so no one should have it."

    Pretty much the same as the Tea Party in the US.

    Posted by: Gregory in Seattle | Sep 30, 2013 10:04:10 PM

  7. "Tradition" is not a valid basis to discriminate. You also do NOT vote on the civil rights of other citizens. End of story.

    Posted by: David in the O.C. | Sep 30, 2013 10:04:39 PM

  8. Pookie, the last poll I saw prior to the recent election showed that marriage equality was in the mid to high 60's amongst Aussies. Much like the US it boils down to intensity- those against marriage equality are a loud minority and the majority in favour aren't willing to pressure their MP's; it's not sustainable and Oz will join the Kiwis sooner rather than later.

    Posted by: mike | Sep 30, 2013 10:14:54 PM

  9. Child abuse at its' highest.

    Posted by: Criminal | Sep 30, 2013 10:22:06 PM

  10. Personally, I can't believe she had the gall to say what she did.
    I admit that while I personally agree that marriage is not something that I would probably do when it does become legal down here (and it will - just a matter of time - and further to that, sooner rather than later I reckon), but what gets up my left nostril about her comments is the fact that she is basically saying that 'I don't like marriage, so why would anyone else?'. Stupid logic.
    It's not about marriage per se - it's about equality. One of the major and basic platforms of the Labor party in this country that she blithely betrayed without any thought. Again, although I am certainly no fan of the newly elected regime in this country (God help us, but sometimes our conservatives can out-flank the tea party!), she totally ignored one of the major founding principles of her own party in deciding to not support marriage equality in Parliament. Like others, I feel it was purely motivated by trying to hang on to the Xtian vote - the Labor party is heavily in bed with the Catholic Church in this country - more is the pity!

    Posted by: Greg in Oz | Sep 30, 2013 10:35:09 PM

  11. If I were an Australian of any persuasion, I would be deeply disturbed by how this woman arrives to her decisions. Her answer is lackluster and selfish. I can only imagine how many other issues she considered with the same apathy and poor performance.

    Love is love. And her comfort is not my concern.

    Posted by: Jay | Sep 30, 2013 10:47:50 PM

  12. Jay. I have a pet pig that I love. Love is love.

    Posted by: Closet | Sep 30, 2013 11:13:30 PM

  13. @CLOSET, your pig is exceptional indeed if she can sign and enter into legal contracts!

    I suspect that you marrying a pig wouldn't be a crossing of species.

    Posted by: TampaZeke | Sep 30, 2013 11:19:49 PM

  14. She is wrong and so is Chris Christie. A popular vote is just two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner, to paraphrase James Bovard.

    Posted by: jleo71 | Sep 30, 2013 11:26:34 PM

  15. Oh I wish this site had like buttons.

    Just loved Tampazeke's reply to Closet!!!

    Posted by: Greg in Oz | Sep 30, 2013 11:40:30 PM

  16. Was her stand on gay marriage known before she got elected? (I'm not Australian)

    Posted by: Manny Espinola | Sep 30, 2013 11:43:05 PM

  17. @ Manny,
    Basically, yes. She has never supported SSM, but at the last election, she was outed to be replaced by Kevin Rudd a few months prior to it being called (Kevin Rudd Mark II, I should add - Julia had knifed him in the back 3 years prior to that and got the party to dump him when he was the PM the first time around. In other words, she got her just desserts).
    They then lost the recent election but there was no way the Labor party were going to win. They had wasted the last 3 years in Government in-fighting - so the public got sick of them and gave them the boot.
    Unfortunately, the replacement PM - the Mad Monk (his name - Abbott - and Catholic-based political bent make this moniker particularly apt) - is only going to make matters worse.
    One thing Julia did do that was right though, was to allow the members of her party to vote on 'Conscience Lines' for SSM - which means you have the right to vote on an issue using your own free will and are not obligated to tow the party line.
    The question everyone is waiting to see here now is whether the Liberal Party (confusing name for some of you in the States I know, as this is our conservatives, despite their name) will also allow a conscience vote as well - the last time a vote was held on SSM, they didn't. Again though, it is doubtful whether it would have passed at that stage as there were not enough MPs in the previous Parliament to support it anyway.
    This time around though there are more supporters there, so it's a wait and see game.

    Posted by: Greg in Oz | Oct 1, 2013 12:07:05 AM

  18. Some people are saying she opposed marriage equality for political reasons. But a majority of Australians and members of her own party support same sex marriage, so her position actually seemed to hurt her politically. I think she is just flat out an anti gay bigot. There is no political motive at all.

    Posted by: Ken | Oct 1, 2013 12:37:06 AM

  19. @Ken
    Well, considering she is a self-confessed atheist and lives in a de-facto relationship, here stance on gay marriage was always confusing.
    I think that you assertion about her bigotry is about the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from her stance, but don't agree that there wasn't some political motivation feeding into it. Like most politicians, she can be frightened by her own shadow and is too gutless to move on an issue in fear of some sort of public backlash.
    Although it has been shown many times, both here and in the USA, that public opinion supports SSM, pollies are always behind the times.

    Posted by: Greg in Oz | Oct 1, 2013 12:46:45 AM

  20. How nice that she had the opportunity to decide whether or not to marry. Would that she had afforded that opportunity to those of us less fortunate.

    Posted by: Keppler | Oct 1, 2013 1:07:13 AM

  21. Trampee: I got the idea from a guy I saw walking a pig on Montana. I obviously struck a raw nerve with you, but I would guess you're all raw nerves. Lucky guy who gets you.

    Posted by: Clo | Oct 1, 2013 1:37:08 AM

  22. This borders on Nazi. Stop exploiting kids.

    Posted by: AB | Oct 1, 2013 1:39:05 AM

  23. Her answer took a surprising turn. I thought - as she described the most traditional type of marriage imagery - that she was going to conclude that marriage is an evolving institution. What marriage means to one generation is not the same to the next generation. Therefore.....SSM is an evolution that she would support.

    Instead, she went to her own example; she doesn't want a marriage, so others don't need/want one either. That's ridiculous...and illogical.

    Posted by: gr8guyca | Oct 1, 2013 2:59:26 AM

  24. If the boy wanted a lesson in twisted logic and self-centered shallowness, she just gave him one.

    Posted by: Ernie | Oct 1, 2013 3:09:30 AM

  25. Shouldn't use children for adult head games and politics. No one should, for whatever the cause.

    Posted by: rstbastard | Oct 1, 2013 6:52:26 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Despite Institutionalized Homophobia, Sochi Gay Scene Stands Strong« «