GOD here we are again. You may remember me last year in August following the ACT bill that would allow gay and lesbian couples to enter into a civil union, and how our fucking government vetoed the measure because the ACT is a territory and therefore apparently unable to make decisions for itself without government Big Brother breathing down its neck. Well the ACT has re-introduced the measure, replacing the words 'civil union' with 'civil partnership' because according to the infinite wisdom of Philip Ruddock the 'civil unions' were still essentially 'marriage' and "undermined the institution of marriage." Could somebody please tell me what the fuck exactly would the institution of marriage lose or be threatened by if gay unions were made legal? And legal only in the ACT I might add, not even the entire country or, god forbid, a state. Oh, and excuuuuse me, but why the fuck do you, Mr fucking Philip Ruddock, believe that civil unions shouldn't be allowed to have a FORMAL CEREMONY? You're going to tell people what they can and cannot celebrate in however manner they choose?? Why don't just you go and tell all the straight people just how THEY can enter into marriage, huh? Why are you our Governor-General? Why is Australia still part of the fucking Commenwealth? May I remind you that the United Kingdom HAS LEGALISED GAY UNIONS?? AND THAT GAYS AND LESBIANS ARE ALLOWED TO ADOPT CHILDREN TO BOOT?
Alright, I'll concede that one's a long reach, but really, perhaps maybe, you could just tell us EXACTLY what you have against gay unions, and not give some baffling vague excuse as the "protection of the institution of marriage", because frankly, I doubt many people believe or accept that. I realise that you're an old geezer with outdated ideas, but if you could just clarify as to what, specifically, the institution of marriage needs to be protected from that apparently only the evil gays threaten? Why don't you just ask the goddamn people of AUSTRALIA WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND SUPPORT, and leave it at that. The people of the ACT elected their government for a reason; and chief amongst them was the promise that their government would legalise gay unions for them. A clear democratic vote wanted gay unions legalized. Why must you feel the need to interfere in how people want to live their lives?
God I truly hate our government sometimes. Scratch that, most of the time.
Alright, I'll concede that one's a long reach, but really, perhaps maybe, you could just tell us EXACTLY what you have against gay unions, and not give some baffling vague excuse as the "protection of the institution of marriage", because frankly, I doubt many people believe or accept that. I realise that you're an old geezer with outdated ideas, but if you could just clarify as to what, specifically, the institution of marriage needs to be protected from that apparently only the evil gays threaten? Why don't you just ask the goddamn people of AUSTRALIA WHAT THEY BELIEVE AND SUPPORT, and leave it at that. The people of the ACT elected their government for a reason; and chief amongst them was the promise that their government would legalise gay unions for them. A clear democratic vote wanted gay unions legalized. Why must you feel the need to interfere in how people want to live their lives?
God I truly hate our government sometimes. Scratch that, most of the time.
feeling decidedly:
irate
irateget some
