s it true that all defenders of the traditional definition of marriage act out of \u201ccondemnation \u201d\u00a6 animosity \u201d\u00a6 casual and deliberate prejudice\u201d\u00a6 [and] hate\u201d\u009d towards same-sex attracted people, as Penny Wong suggests? Well, until a few years ago the senator herself opposed the redefinition of marriage; so did her leader Bill Shorten; and so did a number of other political leaders. I do not think they were being hateful bigots at that time.
\nStraight politicians don’t understand what it’s like to hide their relationships in fear<\/p>\n
Presumably, their views of marriage and family, or of the needs of same-sex people, or of the proper role of the state and culture etc then supported leaving marriage as it was; presumably, over time they were persuaded differently. Others still hold the position these leaders previously held: why presume they are driven by hate? Could it not be that they have real reasons for supporting the traditional conception of marriage? And real questions about the proposed alternative?<\/p>\n
Only a decade ago same-sex marriage was a radical proposal with little support among the major parties or general population. The then Penny Wong was in the vast majority. Shifting opinion might be explained by growing sympathy for those with same-sex attraction or changing views (and increasing confusion) about the meaning of marriage. But another reason might be that people have felt pressured into supporting this social change (or cowed into silence) by fear they will be tagged \u201cbigot\u201d\u009d if they don\u2019t.<\/p>\n
The fact is that many ordinary Australians are both pro-gay people and pro-traditional marriage….<\/p>\n