WHY DOESN’T JULIA THINK LIKE ME?
Julia Gillard is a right bloody pest.
According to a number of current polls, roughly 60 percent of Australians, including me, think that same-sex marriage should be legalised.
Protestors in support of same-sex marriage in Sydney in May. Photo via ABC News.
So why does the Prime Minister think differently? After all, she’s an atheist, she’s unmarried and she’s a member of the Left. Logic would dictate that she’d support same-sex marriage as well.
Of course, when I say “logic” what I really mean is “my stereotype of people like her”.
Perhaps the problem doesn’t lie in Gillard’s behaviour but our own: we have pegged her as a certain type of person and she has confounded us by behaving differently.
It’s a phenomenon called ‘para-social interaction’ which UniSA researcher Janet Pretsell has been studying for years.
Janet writes, “‘Relationships’ formed between observers and the celebrities they watch are referred to as ‘para-social interaction’, which is an extension of normal social cognition that specifically involves the use of imagination.”
Basically, we extrapolate. We see certain people regularly on television and in the newspapers and we build up assumptions of them based on that. From there, it’s a simple hop, skip and jump to being able to predict how they will think and act.
But then, to misquote an old song, Gillard went and spoilt it all by doing something crazy like acting three-dimensional.
If only she was a cardboard cut-out politician like Tony “No To Everything” Abbott, we’d be able to confidently predict all that she would say and do. Because we’ve got Tony all sorted out as well, right?
To be clear, I’m not arguing against marriage equality, nor am I defending Gillard’s position on it. But I am defending her ability to think cogently and independently.
Here’s a few of the arguments debunked:
Calling heterosexual marriage a tradition is solely a religious argument. It is therefore illogical and disingenuous for an atheist to support it.
For a start, ‘church’ and ‘tradition’ are not interchangeable words and our relationship with religion is far more complex than simply believing or non-believing. Custom, belonging, habit, history and many other factors are involved. There are people who get married both in and out of churches who would argue that heterosexual marriage is traditional. Some of them would identify as religious, some would not.
Perhaps this is what the PM is referring to when she says she respects marriage as a tradition.
You may profoundly disagree with her but that doesn’t mean her reasoning lacks coherence or authenticity. Irrationality is not the same thing as having a different opinion to you. Neither does her atheism disqualify her respecting religion, tradition or any mix of the two.
Gillard secretly supports same sex marriage, she’s just saying the opposite to appease conservative voters.
If that was true, she would have ditched the carbon tax a long time ago. She would have also given up on the mining tax, which took a long time to gain public support. And she would have revoked the decision to allow migrants to fill skills shortages in mines, given that the powerful union leader Paul Howes never misses an opportunity to berate her for it.
| Page 1 of 2 | next >> |
36 Responses to this article
-
Kelly Exeter June 18, 2012
What really bemused me in recent times is how when Barack Obama spoke in favour of SSM, people all over Australia were calling on JG to do the same ‘now that BO has done it’.
What kind of leader would JG be if she changed her mind on something like that just because another free world leader did so. The Australian electorate baffles me sometimes!
-
Kim Beedie June 18, 2012
I am disapoointed in her stance on gay marriage, do I expect her to be just like me, no I don’t think so. as I surprised on her opinion, yes I was. Anyone who expects us to respect their choices that differ from traditions (defacto relationships etc) should respect equality for all. She doesn’t, and as you point out that is her right. But for me it’s an election issue which means I cannot vote for her. At the moment there is only one party who supports gay marriage in this country so they get my vote.
-
Jen. June 18, 2012
I have a full understanding of people having their own opinions, I respect people for who they are and I do not pass judgement on people who have a religion. I do not understand how and why our PM’s personal opinion dictates the law. I do not understand why (even though its not mentioned) that the church contributes to the state. I do not understand why I am treated differently to my sisters and brother. I do not understand why I should be happy enough that they changed the superannuation for us, that we have all the legal rights as a straight couple but who I want to marry isn’t legal. I want equal rights, wheather like Miss Gildard I choose to get married or NOT at least I can have that choice.
-
Jen June 18, 2012
What a fantastic piece of work. Finally a rational analysis of our PM.
-
Lady Jewels Diva June 18, 2012
“why doesn’t Julia think like me”
Well duh!
Because she doesn’t have to!!!!
I’m going to believe this piece was nothing but a joke and that coming up with reasons why was a waste of time.
No one has to think like you or anyone else. We all have brains and we all have differing opinions, so expecting people to think like you is a waste of your time and energy.
Or is it because you’re a control freak and have some desperate need to have Julia think like you so that YOUR opinion is accepted and understood so that YOU can relax and feel okay with yourself and having the opinion in the first place.
Ah, acceptance, what so many seem to strive for.
Pft!
-
Daphne Alaksa June 18, 2012
Well, Lady Jewels Diva, you have put into words exactly what
I was thinking about this particular subject. As for acceptance, this is a very nice thing. However, I am not going to do something against my belief to gain it. Nor am I about to say anything I disbelieve for the same reason. We were all born with brains in our head with which to work things out, and it’s a pity that some people expect
others to follow every thing they say or do. -
corinne grant June 18, 2012
This is a classic case of what happens when you read the byline and not the article. Always best to read the story before commenting.
-
thefu50s June 29, 2012
“This is a classic case of what happens when you read the byline and not the article. Always best to read the story before commenting.”
Totally agree Corrine.
It’s a beef of mine that bylines are now a way for those that write them to show how witty they can be. But more often then not they are so ‘witty’ they have failed to nail the point of the argument.
-
-
-
Marg June 18, 2012
Thanks Corrine, what a refreshing article on the pm and SSM, I must admit to being a little bemused by the way SSM has become such a key political issue, when I have some trouble understanding why progressive enlightened people would want to participate in such a potentially oppressive institution like marriage. I do get the choice bit though. But thank you for your delightful insight into what so many people are saying about the Pam’s response
-
WENDY GREEN June 18, 2012
Great article Corine!
I think the problem with changing the legislation regarding marriage is that the churches won’t accept it – pure and simple. Changing the legislation will open up a huge, and I mean HUGE, can of worms. I think Julia Gillard knows this and also knows there is no way that a government can change the mindset of the churches, it has to come from the communities that make up the churches, the ‘grass-roots’ as they say.
So, okay let’s think about it … we legislate to allow same sex marriage, then what? No one will be allowed to get married in a church, temple, mosque etc so what is all the fuss about.
Personally I support same sex marriage, I think any person who truly loves another should not be denied the right to express that love in a public ceremony. So what’s wrong with Civil Unions?
I’m just wondering if the same sex marriage debate is really just a way of ‘getting at’ the churches and not about personal relationships at all?
-
WENDY GREEN June 18, 2012
Sorry Corinne, spelt your name wrong : (
-
-
Annie Also June 18, 2012
You have made me think, Corinne. I have done a bit of what you were talking about; Julia should agree with marriage equality because she is an atheist, unmarried and left.
Now I have changed my view, thanks to you.
I now think the Prime MInister of Australia should support marriage equality because;
1 The majority of the people want her to
2 It is a matter of human rights equality
3 It is the ‘right’ thing to do historically.I no longer care about her personal opinion. She is not a President..she is the PRIME ( first) Minister of the Commonwealth. She is the leader of a democracy. She should listen to and lawfully consider and abide by the wish of the majority.
Is that ok?
-
corinne grant June 18, 2012
Yep, that’s exactly what I was talking about! Disagree with her all you like, just don’t assume she has to think like you. You’ve made some great points.
-
-
julie p June 18, 2012
To those who can’t vote for JG because she doesn’t support SSM… don’t they understand that she is not running for President and that you vote for your own Member of the House of Representatives?As PM she has allowed a CONSCIENCE VOTE for the Labor Caucus so you can work on your local member to make sure they understand your position and that your vote is worthwhile to them.
-
the*sparrow June 18, 2012
I am straight, middle aged and married.
I support same-sex marriage, however I have much more socially conservative gay friends who want traditional marriage laws retained.
People don’t come all packaged up to make it easy for us to predict their views. It is best not to make assumptions about them.
-
Lyn June 18, 2012
I hear you say all this about Julia, but at least she lets you have a conscious vote. What about Tony Abbott. He is so much more straight laced when it comes to same sex marriage that he won’t even allow a conscious vote.
-
Carol Huish from the Valley June 18, 2012
Julia is Australian through and through. A bogan!
-
julie b June 18, 2012
Exactly Julie P JG has ensured she only has 1 vote when she allowed a conscience vote. Why are people not getting stuck into Abbott for not allowing the same. That’s what would make the difference. He has cowed the opposition so much they won’t stand up to his bully boy tactics- or do the opposition not have consciences? One really has to wonder
-
Hayley June 18, 2012
Thanks Corinne! Fantastic article – really opened my eyes. While I’m here I’ll say a big congrats on your book too – such a joy to read!
-
red June 18, 2012
See, for me, it’s nothing to do with projecting my ideas about ‘who’ she is
It’s that when she attempts to explain her stance, her argument really lacks credibility. When religious types reject same sex marriage on religious grounds, well, it sucks but it makes sense. Julia’s argument does not make sense.
That doesn’t mean she is not truly in opposition to same sex marriage, but it DOES make it harder to believe. If she said “I oppose same sex marriage because I am scared of what supporting it will do to my already appalling polling results”, well, that would make sense and I’d definitely believe it!
-
Jennifer Wilson June 18, 2012
I don’t feel the PM should think like me. I would like to know why Ms Gillard doesn’t wish to address same sex marriage as a human rights issue rather than a matter of personal belief.
-
surfcoastwombat June 18, 2012
It is 2012 and we have got this far without SSM. Why the hysteria over SSM at this very moment in time? JG has far more more pressing issues that confront her at the moment but at least we do know that if there is a conscience vote, she won’t railroad it.
She is entitled to her opinion as all of you here are, and so am I.
But wait – is it because the people pushing for SSM believe that if George Pell’s mate Tony Abbott becomes PM any time soon, they have Buckley’s chance of getting a conscience vote.
-
neeter June 18, 2012
I was really impressed watching Julia on Q & A, but my problem with her stance on Marriage Equality is that THIS IS NOT ABOUT HER. I just wish she’d reflect her electorate’s wishes and not just her own personal ones.
The end! -
Ro. Watson June 18, 2012
Interesting article which I may read again~ wasn’t Julia Gillard a practising family lawyer. Unconsciously avoidant on more spills and heartbreak perhaps? Or should the down side of uncommitting to committment be equally shared as a legal right?
-
Alberta June 18, 2012
Tony Abbot’t's mob aren’t allowed to have an opinion on SSM. His is the only one that counts in the (Not very) Liberal Party. At least the Labour Party is allowing a conscience vote. As an individual JG can think what every she likes, as can each of us. Good on you Corinne, people need to apply an little intellectual rigour to their thinking.
-
anthony June 18, 2012
A conscience vote, given the current number of votes in parliament, effectively means it won’t get the votes. By choosing it, Gillard has ensured its failure. Given Labor has binding votes for nearly everything else, it’s a freely chosen position against SSM and not something to be congratulated for or compared favourably against Abbott.
-
Benison O'Reilly June 18, 2012
The Labor Party is traditionally a Catholic Trade Union party and I actually think many Labor supporters might have quite a big problem with same sex marriage; that is Gillard may actually be appeasing her side of politics. She has certainly revealed herself to be a pragmatist over the years.
But otherwise I agree with you. Everyone’s entitled to their opinions…except Tony Abbott that is!
-
Ricky Rick June 18, 2012
I think the difficulty for JG is if she ‘comes out’ all of her conservative voters will leave her for Mr uber-conservative. Yes folks, you heard it here first – Julia is actually gay and her girlfriend lives in at the Lodge with her, the BF is just a front – true story.
-
Mez June 19, 2012
I don’t give a damn what she thinks or says. I just want her to go away and take the entire ALP and Greens with her. If people want something to fight for why not start with the Heiner scandal and the typical Labor cover up that surrounds it?
-
ellenni June 19, 2012
its not that we oppose same sex relationships its the word marriage. if you are a christian then you cannot get around Leviticus 20:13. i would prefer same sex couples to have a civil union ceremony with of course all the legal priviliges of a marriage. you cannot dictate to the church. they have to adhere to their doctrines.
politicians can legalise same sex marriage but the catholic church and the orthdox church will find some way to not marry same sex couples.-
Flip June 19, 2012
Other things banned in the Bible:
Leviticus 19:19 “You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together” – so that means no mixed fibres. All those polyester-cotton blend clothes in the wardrobe, out! Also the garden. You have roses AND garlic growing in the same garden (or daisies and snow peas, idk, I’m given to understand roses like having garlic growing near)? Out!
Deuteronomy 23:2: “No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord.” Better check the family tree. All the way back.
Timothy 2:9: “Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments.” I wonder if that also extends to nail polish…
Deuteronomy 22:5: “The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God” Because only men are allowed to wear the pants. Or anything boys wear. I suppose that makes the boyfriend-jeans fad doubly bad, considering the jeans might be mixed fibres and everything.
Things specifically permitted in the Bible include:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21: “Stone disobedient children” Well, that’s a bit different.
Exodus 21:7-1 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are.” Right, so, slavery. Although I’m given to understand that you can only do this if you’re poor and can’t sell anything else. And that you can only do this if the girl is under 12 & 1 day. And that the girl’s more-than-sorta expected to become her owner’s concubine.
Leviticus 27:1-7: “The Lord spoke to Moses: “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘When a man makes a special votive offering based on the conversion value of persons to the Lord, the conversion value of the male from twenty years old up to sixty years old is fifty shekels by the standard of the sanctuary shekel. If the person is a female, the conversion value is thirty shekels. If the person is from five years old up to twenty years old, the conversion value of the male is twenty shekels, and for the female ten shekels. If the person is one month old up to five years old, the conversion value of the male is five shekels of silver, and for the female the conversion value is three shekels of silver. If the person is from sixty years old and older, if he is a male the conversion value is fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.”" Is this why women usually receive a lesser pay grade in the work force?
If it’s so hard, as a Christian, to step around Leviticus 20:13, why is it so easy to step around these other rules? Never wearing mixed fibres (especially jeans), growing what you want in your garden, not wearing anything pretty or doing one’s hair, knowing your family tree all the way back so you know if you’re allowed into the church or not; while at the same time stoning children, selling daughters into slavery, and firmly believing that women are worth far less than men (complete with monetary valuations). These are all beliefs which have at some time or another been eroded through the realisation of basic human rights (and the discovery that jeans are far too comfy to only let the menfolk wear them).
Why does a single line in a book have such power as to deny a large population the ability to turn to the person they love and say ‘Will you marry me?’, with all their heart and knowing that there will be more intrinsic value to the ceremony than being able to file a joint tax return?
If a person who identifies as gay or lesbian did not have respect for the values that marriage represents, then they would not want it. It is that respect, and the knowledge that their own vows would be respected, which makes the marriage so important.The churches – any churches – do not have to agree to perform the wedding ceremonies. In fact, I agree fully that they should have the right to refuse, although I personally would prefer that refusal to be on personal conscience alone, rather than what is dictated by a distant leader or committee. They should not, however, be applying the kind of political pressure, both directly and through people who attend their services, that they are. Such behaviour undermines the very existence of the separation of church and state. The churches should not attempt to dictate to the state in this or any other manner – and nor should the state dictate to the churches by forcing them to hold wedding ceremonies on consecrated ground, or have priests act as marriage celebrants.
But it should still be called what it is, what any heterosexual couple has the right to: A marriage. Calling it a ‘civil union’, or a ‘civil partnership’, is precisely the same as saying ‘Separate, but equal’ under Jim Crowe laws in the U.S.A. meant. It is wrong to give one group of people a choice, and to deny another group of people the right to choose, simply because the person they happen to love is the same gender as they are.
-
-
cath June 19, 2012
If we are quoting the Bible shall we start in the Old Testament where it says on page one that cows were the first beasts to ever roam the earth? Ummmm, ever heard of dinosaurs people? Oh no that’s right, the big man in the sky forgot to tell the disciples that part or that the earth was round or that there were other planets. Ooops.
-
Jane Caro June 20, 2012
If only she hadn’t been such a really, really crap Minister for Education (and struggling public schools & the disadvantaged kids they teach had such hopes) and then turned round, when challenged on what she really believed in, and claimed it was education! Maybe then, I’d be less skeptical about her professed convictions.
Australia’s tragedy is we have one political leader who believes in too much (Tony Abbott) and the other who believes in too little.
Devil & deep blue sea anyone? I’ll be voting Green. -
neeter June 25, 2012
Flip, you rock!
-
Flip June 29, 2012
Thank you neeter. I don’t think I realised while I was writing that comment, just how long it was going to turn out to be.
-
-
Stephanie Mitchell April 23, 2013
I too have often wondered about JG’s stance in regard to gay marriage. It even seemed to be a big step for her to allow a conscience vote. It’s probably a pramatic political decision as it may lose too many votes and she probably figures gay marriages are inevitable anyway
