Environment party calls gay marriage ‘radical’

Environment party calls gay marriage ‘radical’

By Drew Sheldrick
Gay activists and the Australian Democrats have voiced concern about comments made by the leader of a new Tasmanian pro-environment party that same-sex marriage is “radical” and “trendy”.
Dr Kathleen Petrovsky of the Ethics and Sustainability Party made the comments in an interview with The Sunday Tasmanian in response to questions about her party’s differences from the Greens.
“We feel there are some people who see the Greens as too radical,” Petrovsky said. “We don’t believe in changing society and its rules. We believe in the mother, father, children kind of nuclear family. I’m not into gay marriage.”
Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesman Rodney Croome said he’ll seek a meeting with Petrovsky about the comments.
“According to opinion polls, same-sex marriage  has the support of 60 percent of Australians, not to mention support from Tasmanian Labor Party state conference and numerous large Australian corporations and unions — it is anything but radical,” he said.
Croome called on Petrovsky to state her party’s positions on other issues such as same-sex parenting and financial and workplace entitlements.
“I’m sure the young voters Dr Petrovsky says she wants to appeal to will be interested in exactly how deep her party’s prejudices run,” Croome said.
The Tasmanian division of the Democrats has also criticised the new party’s position.
“How a party claiming to be ethical can support keeping part of our population as second-class citizens is beyond me,” division president James Irvine said.
Irvine added that if members and supporters of the Ethics and Sustainability Party are mostly professionals, as was reported, there would undoubtedly be a strong backlash from them over the comments.
“So far the Ethics and Sustainability Party has proven themselves to be unethical, unsustainable, and out of touch with its own base,” he said.
The Tasmanian state election is expected to be held on March 20.

You May Also Like

4 responses to “Environment party calls gay marriage ‘radical’”

  1. PARTIES IN FAVOUR OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND WHO TO VOTE FOR IN 2010:

    * Greens (I will vote for this)
    * The Democrats (they are still alive)
    * Socialist Alliance
    * The Australian Sex Party
    * What Women Want (WWW)

    PARTIES WHO OPPOSE OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND WHO NOT TO VOTE FOR IN 2010:

    * Labor
    * Liberal
    * One Nation
    * Australian Christian Lobby (also called the “Fred Nile Group”)
    * Family First (or as I call it “straight families first, gay families last”)
    * The National Party (forms a Coalition with the Liberal Party)

    NO POLICY POSITION ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE:

    * The Shooters Party
    * The Fishing Party
    * The Non-Custodial Parents Party
    * The Communist Party of Australia
    * Hope Party
    * Nuclear Disarmament Party

  2. I am not a radical or a leftist.

    I am a homosexual and I want the same rights as other Australians.

    We, the homosexuals and gays in the Australian community, do not need any percentage approval from the Australian community to support our demand for equal rights.

    What we demand does not infringe, reduce or restrict anyone else’s rights.

    We are legally discriminated against on the pretext that a god revealed his prejudice against homosexuals to an ancient Hebrew prophet 6000 years ago and therefore Australian law should follow that ancient tradition.

    The the advocates of discrimination assert that the ancient tradition of discrimination was confirmed by a god that came to earth in human form two thousand years ago.

    The fact that the only record of those events are ancient anecdotal records does not diminish the perceived need to adhere to those traditions by the advocates of discrimination.

    The Australian laws which disallow gay marriage are founded on hearsay evidence that a god does not like homosexuals.

    That hearsay evidence would be considered inadmissible under the rules of evidence used by Australian courts.

    If Australian marriage law is corrupt and it appears to be corrupted by ideological tradition then ignore it.

    If you want to marry, marry. Make your own ceremony of commitment.

    If you want to disperse your property to your spouse use contract law and the laws of wills and succession to disperse your property.

    If you want to wait for popular support from the Australian people to change Australian marriage laws you can but who knows how long you will have to wait for that support to materialise and effect a change to Australian marriage laws.

  3. “According to opinion polls, same-sex marriage has the support of 60 percent of Australians”

    Those are the same statistics the pro-gay crowd was citing in America … 60-70% approval. Nonetheless, 60% of the states have banned it by popular vote. It has not passed in any state where a popular vote was permitted. MORALE: Beware of radicals leftists with polls.

  4. Aboloshing slavery was radical, granting women & Aboriginals the right to vote was radical- basically the granting of any equal rights could be classed as radical at some point, but the world has moved on from that, apart from the “old” conservative parties who are last to be dragged along into modern times. This “new” party might as well pack up shop, as they are way behind the 8 ball.
    If “conservative” parties had their way, we’d still be “conserving” the proud “tradition” of slavery.