Kevin Rudd: No on Gay Marriages

[Tsukasa Buddha]

As the factions met separately yesterday to thrash out their positions in the lead-up to Saturday’s rules debate, the Right decided to offer no concessions and to support the existing policy. The Right controls the conference with about 55 per cent of delegates.
Left powerbrokers were confident they could persuade Labor’s gay activists to drop plans to put a motion to the conference calling for gay marriage as this would only be provocative.
Instead, they were working behind the scenes for incremental change to Labor’s policy on civil unions. But even this was in doubt last night.
‘‘The riding orders from the Prime Minister are not to move at all,’’ said one source intimate with the deliberations.


Linky. (http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-presses-labor-not-to-bless-gay-marriages-20090729-e1m5.html)

Ha ha, wow, this sounds so familiar :) ...

:(

[Safe-Keeper]

I've long since stopped caring.

Gay marriage will happen, and all these people are doing is ensuring everyone will look at them as idiotic bigots in 30 years. Which is perfectly fine with me.

[lionking]

As I said in a recent thread, Rudd is a conservative church-goer who regularly holds press conferences on Sundays in front of his church.

For those who are unaware, Australia has no state religion and the marriage act makes no mention of religion at all. Why do religions hold such sway here? I can't understand it.

[Old Bob]

Good for Rudd, we are a christian country and even if most people don't God bother it works as a way of life. As for the bent poofs get rid of them, don't incourage the spread of disease. Didn't Rome fall because of queers?

[Dr Adequate]

Didn't Rome fall because of queers? Sure --- after the Roman empire was built up by manly heterosexuals such as Julius Caesar, it was destroyed by a bunch of effeminate mincing Huns, limp-wristed Goths, and nancy-boy Vandals.

[Syameese]

Good for Rudd, we are a christian country and even if most people don't God bother it works as a way of life. As for the bent poofs get rid of them, don't incourage the spread of disease. Didn't Rome fall because of queers?

Sadly Krudd is a pathetic faith head of the worst kind. By that I mean he is articulate , intelligent and compassionate on most issues, but whenever his "faith" becomes subject to any challenge he reverts to a dictatorial godbot.

His Government's current attempt to filter (ie censor) the internet for all Australians is a case in point.

I voted for Krudd at the last election on the basis of his overall package, but his actions since mean that I will be left with no acceptable choice at the next election.

[lionking]

Sadly Krudd is a pathetic faith head of the worst kind. By that I mean he is articulate , intelligent and compassionate on most issues, but whenever his "faith" becomes subject to any challenge he reverts to a dictatorial godbot.

His Government's current attempt to filter (ie censor) the internet for all Australians is a case in point.

I voted for Krudd at the last election on the basis of his overall package, but his actions since mean that I will be left with no acceptable choice at the next election.
Just ignoring oldbob's diatribe and going off topic for a bit, my kids all feel the same about Rudd.

[ponderingturtle]

Sure --- after the Roman empire was built up by manly heterosexuals such as Julius Caesar, it was destroyed by a bunch of effeminate mincing Huns, limp-wristed Goths, and nancy-boy Vandals.

I blaim the christian influence. If they had stayed properly pagan it would have lasted.

[Ferguson]

Good for Rudd, we are a christian country and even if most people don't God bother it works as a way of life. As for the bent poofs get rid of them, don't incourage the spread of disease. Didn't Rome fall because of queers?

I thought it fell after it adopted Christianity?

[Wildy]

Sadly Krudd is a pathetic faith head of the worst kind.

So I guess Rudd is just a Labor, Mandarin-speaking, PM version of Tony Abbott.

His Government's current attempt to filter (ie censor) the internet for all Australians is a case in point.

There are very few people who like that idea. Especially since there isn't an opt-out option.

I voted for Krudd at the last election on the basis of his overall package, but his actions since mean that I will be left with no acceptable choice at the next election.

That's what the preferential voting system coupled with minor parties is for.

For the record I didn't vote for Labor in the last election, because I didn't like knowing that a footballers wife would be my representative. So they were my eighth preference... right after One Nation.

I thought it fell after it adopted Christianity?

It fell after it adopted Gay Christianity.

[Terry]

Good for Rudd, we are a christian country and even if most people don't God bother it works as a way of life. As for the bent poofs get rid of them, don't incourage the spread of disease. Didn't Rome fall because of queers?

Rule 1: NO POOFTERS!

Rule 2: I don't want to see anybody abusing the Abbos in any way at all, if there's anyone watching.

Rule 3: NO POOFTERS!

Rule 4: no-one is to be caught not drinking or not smoking this term.

Rule 5: NO POOFTERS!

Rule 5: There is no rule 6

Rule 7: NO POOFTERS!


Old Bob, mind if we call you Bruce?

[Mashuna]

Good for Rudd, we are a christian country and even if most people don't God bother it works as a way of life. As for the bent poofs get rid of them, don't incourage the spread of disease. Didn't Rome fall because of queers?

Aren't the bent poofs straight? Seems like a kind of double negative thingy there Bob.

[lionking]

Rule 1: NO POOFTERS!

Rule 2: I don't want to see anybody abusing the Abbos in any way at all, if there's anyone watching.

Rule 3: NO POOFTERS!

Rule 4: no-one is to be caught not drinking or not smoking this term.

Rule 5: NO POOFTERS!

Rule 5: There is no rule 6

Rule 7: NO POOFTERS!


Old Bob, mind if we call you Bruce?

You been reading our Constitution again Terry?

[Safe-Keeper]

I thought it fell after it adopted Christianity? It fell after it adopted Gay Christianity. Nominated.

[gtc]

Rudd's compromise is to argue that:

a) Marriage is between a man and a woman;
b) There is no difference in the way the government treats same sex couples and mixed sex couples as defacto relationships have equivalent status to marriage.

The hope is that gays will be happy that some progress has been made and the socially conservative will be happy that Rudd is protecting marriage.

However, the compromise is silly. If allowing gay marriage would be immoral then why would recognising gay relationships for all practical purposes not be immoral too. Surely God can't be fooled that easily?

On the other hand as we are already recognising gay relationships for all practical purposes then why not go one step further and allow gay marriage? It wouldn't have any effect other than formalising the recognition that already exists.

[Horza]

Sometimes I wonder what Rudd is doing in the Labor party - he's not actually all that fond of trade unions, he didn't come up through the party ranks, he doesn't go in for all that 'Light on the Hill stuff' even as a gesture, he's a prissy, stuck-up Anglican, etc etc. It seems weird that he's ended up where he is rather than a moderate Liberal shadow foreign affairs minister.

[lionking]

Sometimes I wonder what Rudd is doing in the Labor party - he's not actually all that fond of trade unions, he didn't come up through the party ranks, he doesn't go in for all that 'Light on the Hill stuff' even as a gesture, he's a prissy, stuck-up Anglican, etc etc. It seems weird that he's ended up where he is rather than a moderate Liberal shadow foreign affairs minister.
He doesn't scare the "Aspirationals". That's the only reason.

[Horza]

Well that just raises the question of what sort of country are we where not being Mark Latham is enough to get you high office? :p

[Undesired Walrus]

What's the difference between a marriage and a civil partnership (I'm not setting that up for a punchline)? As I've never been able to work out whether the UK now has Gay Marriage.

[lionking]

What's the difference between a marriage and a civil partnership (I'm not setting that up for a punchline)? As I've never been able to work out whether the UK now has Gay Marriage.
Legally, nothing. Symbolically, everything.

[MikeSun5]

I've long since stopped caring.

Gay marriage will happen, and all these people are doing is ensuring everyone will look at them as idiotic bigots in 30 years. Which is perfectly fine with me.

*ding ding ding* We have a winner, folks! :clap::clap::clap:

[MikeSun5]

Legally, nothing. Symbolically, everything.

Legally, nothing? Isn't there talk of people being denied hospital visits and such?

[Undesired Walrus]

If the term marriage is a religous definition, then I can't see how the Government can interfere with it. Perhaps straight ceremonies outside the church should simply be called civil partnerships too. After all, that's what they are.

[lionking]

Legally, nothing? Isn't there talk of people being denied hospital visits and such?
I don't think so in Australia. Inheritance of superannuation was once a problem, but no longer.

[lionking]

If the term marriage is a religous definition, then I can't see how the Government can interfere with it. Perhaps straight ceremonies outside the church should simply be called civil partnerships too. After all, that's what they are.
There is the Marriage Act in Australia which fully recognises marriage outside church (in fact it does not even mention religion), but defines marriage as between a man and a woman. A "marriage" which does not comply with said act is illegal.

I really don't understand why the Labor Party does not try to change the Act - they know full well it won't get through the Senate.

[Undesired Walrus]

I think the more intelligent approach would be working towards getting all the same rights that straight folk do when they get married. It just seems like the term 'marriage' is a superflous addition. The entire thing seems like a pointless argument, when the elephant in the room surely has to be getting universal rights applied to gays.

[MikeSun5]

I don't think so in Australia. Inheritance of superannuation was once a problem, but no longer.

Very progressive. :) It's weird in America. The law varies state by state. We used to have a domestic partnership law in Florida, but it was voted out last year.

[Old Bob]

When two people enter the contract of marriage (man & woman) the gov owns the fruits of the marriage(children) Nobody asks to read the contract but we sign it. That doesn't please me as that way (the gov) can conscript our kids, we signed them over. Now a pair of bent queers don't have kids so thats one reason the gov. holds back on giving them marriage status. In Rudds case I would say he doesn't like shirt lifters. I know some are harmless but I have run into queers trying to intice kids into there car a little violence fixed that and yes I knew them. The worry now is the homo push for acceptance in the schools.

[lionking]

I think the more intelligent approach would be working towards getting all the same rights that straight folk do when they get married. It just seems like the term 'marriage' is a superflous addition. The entire thing seems like a pointless argument, when the elephant in the room surely has to be getting universal rights applied to gays.
On one level I agree with you, and don't see what a big deal a walk down the aisle is, even though I did it 36 years ago. But it is clear that many gay people want the ceremony with all the trappings.

[lionking]

When two people enter the contract of marriage (man & woman) the gov owns the fruits of the marriage(children) Nobody asks to read the contract but we sign it. That doesn't please me as that way (the gov) can conscript our kids, we signed them over. Now a pair of bent queers don't have kids so thats one reason the gov. holds back on giving them marriage status. In Rudds case I would say he doesn't like shirt lifters. I know some are harmless but I have run into queers trying to intice kids into there car a little violence fixed that and yes I knew them. The worry now is the homo push for acceptance in the schools.
Keep your homophobic hatred to yourself Bob. You won't get any support at all here.

On the other hand, you might want to read a bit of Freud, and discover what you are really suppressing here.

[Undesired Walrus]

You do know there are plenty of straight pervs don't you me old bob?

[MikeSun5]

When two people enter the contract of marriage (man & woman) the gov owns the fruits of the marriage(children) Nobody asks to read the contract but we sign it. That doesn't please me as that way (the gov) can conscript our kids, we signed them over. Now a pair of bent queers don't have kids so thats one reason the gov. holds back on giving them marriage status. In Rudds case I would say he doesn't like shirt lifters. I know some are harmless but I have run into queers trying to intice kids into there car a little violence fixed that and yes I knew them. The worry now is the homo push for acceptance in the schools.

Aw hell, Old Bob. Now ya done stamped the fire out this here conversation, pardner. We was supposed to had gonna build up to the queer-bashin'.

[Hokulele]

Odd, I know several homosexual couples with children. I guess Old Bob doesn't get out very much.

[Undesired Walrus]

On one level I agree with you, and don't see what a big deal a walk down the aisle is, even though I did it 36 years ago. But it is clear that many gay people want the ceremony with all the trappings. But if they have all the same legal rights, identical legal rights as straight couples, then that is a marriage. It would be like wishing for universal human rights, getting all of them, and then arguing about wjat to call them. The rights make the title, not the other way round.

[Old Bob]

Keep your homophobic hatred to yourself Bob. You won't get any support at all here.

On the other hand, you might want to read a bit of Freud, and discover what you are really suppressing here.

Lionking, are you saying that I should have let the nice queers take the little kids for a ride? Was Freud queer? Did I ask for support or enjoy a reaction from you.

[lionking]

Undisired Walrus,

We're not really arguing, but technically and legally it is not a marriage because of the Marriage Act.

[lionking]

Lionking, are you saying that I should have let the nice queers take the little kids for a ride? Was Freud queer? Did I ask for support or enjoy a reaction from you.
No, what I am saying is that your level of hatred is typical of suppressed homosexuality. What I am saying is that, deep down in your psyche, you are really a poof.

[MikeSun5]

No, what I am saying is that your level of hatred is typical of suppressed homosexuality. What I am saying is that, deep down in your psyche, you are really a poof.

:D Wow. Case closed. Psychology 101. Maybe Bob's worried that gays will get married off and leave him surrounded by a bunch of us "breeders." :eek:
I wonder why Bob's only concerned with gay men? Or maybe he thinks lesbians are playground-patrolling perverts as well.

[Undesired Walrus]

Lionking, it just seems like a waste of energy really. I believe we should, and always should be focusing on getting gay couples the same legal rights as straight couples, and let society make up its mind as to what to call the ceremonies. Ditch the bill altogether.

We're not really arguing, but technically and legally it is not a marriage because of the Marriage Act.[/QUOTE]

[SezMe]

When two people enter the contract of marriage (man & woman) the gov owns the fruits of the marriage(children)
It does? Really?

[lionking]

:D Wow. Case closed. Psychology 101.

Aw, fair go. That was second year when I studied Psychology, so really Psychology 201. Oldbob deserves at least a second year diagnosis.:D

[Undesired Walrus]

What I am saying is that, deep down in your psyche, you are really a poof. In his underwear?

[Darat]

...snip..


However, the compromise is silly. If allowing gay marriage would be immoral then why would recognising gay relationships for all practical purposes not be immoral too. Surely God can't be fooled that easily?

...snip...

History shows that he can indeed be fooled so easily, i.e. Roman Catholicism and Judaism! :)

[Darat]

But if they have all the same legal rights, identical legal rights as straight couples, then that is a marriage. It would be like wishing for universal human rights, getting all of them, and then arguing about wjat to call them. The rights make the title, not the other way round.


See: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=48499

[lionking]

Thanks for that Darat. That thread obviously preceded me.

Really, the gutlessness of the current Labor Party is astounding. If Gough Whitlam was in charge today, the Marriage Act would be amended in the blink of an eye.

[Wildy]

Well that just raises the question of what sort of country are we where not being Mark Latham is enough to get you high office? :p

You have to remember that Mark Latham became the leader of the Labor party because he wasn't Kim Beazley.

[lionking]

Back to the OP:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/31/2641860.htm?section=justin


Gay and lesbian groups are angry Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has publicly rebuffed moves to relax his party's policy on civil unions and same-sex marriage.
But they are confident some progress will be made when the party's policy is debated tomorrow morning.
Mr Rudd has been at pains to make sure Labor's national conference is low-key and business-like.
But behind the scenes there is manoeuvring which could undermine his stage-managed dream.
Pink politicos are on the prowl.

[lionking]

BTW, I love the new faction: "pink politicos".:)

[Upchurch]

Odd, I know several homosexual couples with children. I guess Old Bob doesn't get out very much.
Completely off-topic, but the lesbian couple who goes to the same cafe we do on Saturday mornings have a little girl a few months older than my boy. They've decided he is her boyfriend. He's just that cute.

[lionking]

Completely off-topic, but the lesbian couple who goes to the same cafe we do on Saturday mornings have a little girl a few months older than my boy. They've decided he is her boyfriend. He's just that cute.
Gee the gay and lesbian perverts walking the streets wouldn't know where to start with this situation. ;)

[Upchurch]

Gee the gay and lesbian perverts walking the streets wouldn't know where to start with this situation. ;)

Yeah, they missed the memo that the goal is to turn everyone gay.

[zooterkin]

Interesting development in the UK today. The Quakers have announced they will conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8177536.stm)

Quaker registrars, like rabbis and Church of England priests, have the authority to marry heterosexual couples on behalf of the state.

But many British Quakers feel it is wrong to exclude a religious commitment from civil partnerships and want the right to marriage extended to same-sex couples too.

[Darat]

Interesting development in the UK today. The Quakers have announced they will conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8177536.stm)

Bloody Christians and their doctrine of hate!

[godless dave]

I wonder if Rudd will have Conroy add sites advocating gay marriage to the internet blacklist.

[MikeSun5]

See: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=48499

Wow. The OP in that thread brings up a few things I hadn't considered. "Domestic Partnerships" and "Civil Unions" and the like can force one to advertise their orientation whether they want to or not. At first I thought partnership policies like that in lieu of actual marriage were a step in the right direction, but it now it just looks like heterosexual politicians trying to shut gays and lesbians up...

[Wildy]

Aw, fair go. That was second year when I studied Psychology, so really Psychology 201. Oldbob deserves at least a second year diagnosis.:D

Considering that this is a thread about Rudd, shouldn't you have said "aw, a fair shake of the sauce bottle, ..."?

[lionking]

Stone the crows wildy you're right.

[lionking]

The Labor Party makes a characteristic and heroic non-decision:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/government-refuses-to-bend-on-gay-marriage-20090801-e4x8.html


Labor looks set to remove the explicit definition of marriage being between a man and a woman from its national platform but the Rudd government won't move to legalise same-sex civil unions or gay marriage.
Gay rights advocates lost a backroom battle at the ALP National Conference to advance the recognition of same-sex couples.

[Hokulele]

Completely off-topic, but the lesbian couple who goes to the same cafe we do on Saturday mornings have a little girl a few months older than my boy. They've decided he is her boyfriend. He's just that cute.


Hmm, wouldn't that mean, by Old Bob's logic, that since that couple isn't legally married, the country doesn't own their children?

I can see a stampede of Freeman On the Land-type CTist's off to declare themselves homosexuals to free their children!








OK, maybe not...

[MikeSun5]

Hmm, wouldn't that mean, by Old Bob's logic, that since that couple isn't legally married, the country doesn't own their children?

...and as such are exempt from being conscripted. :confused:

[gtc]

Legally, nothing? Isn't there talk of people being denied hospital visits and such?

I think the more intelligent approach would be working towards getting all the same rights that straight folk do when they get married. It just seems like the term 'marriage' is a superflous addition. The entire thing seems like a pointless argument, when the elephant in the room surely has to be getting universal rights applied to gays.

Australia has long had the concept of defacto marriage. That is where people in a permanent relationship are treated as if they were married for all intents and purposes. The government removed most if not all the legal differences between heterosexual defacto couples and married heterosexual couples over the last couple of decades and have now done the same thing for homosexual defacto couples.

This cuts both ways. Some gay couples have had their government pensions reduced as the couple rate is less than twice the single rate.

As a result legalising homosexual marriage would be mostly symbolic. However, I heard a gay marriage advocate on the radio today who said that it can still be very hard for a gay person to prove that they are in a relationship when it comes to gaining hospital visits or the like - particularly if the family don't want to know or were against the relationship. Marriage would obviously circumvent that.

[lionking]

I don't disagree with any of this.

The thing that annoys me most of all is that Labor's position has absolutely nothing to do with principal and logic and everything to do with re-election in just over a year's time. I saw Bob Hawke, the atheist ex-PM, given a life membership of the party today and sharing the stage with Rudd. Yes he was a master of real politik and the art of compromise, but he must be embarassed by the gutlessness of Rudd.

[Old Bob]

The master of politik (lionkping mate) raped a 16 year old at a Melbourne party when he held power and all hushed up, Rudd's morals would be way ahead. Rudd's home town is Nambour which has no same sex couples. ( the place to live)

[lionking]

The master of politik (lionkping mate) raped a 16 year old at a Melbourne party when he held power and all hushed up, Rudd's morals would be way ahead. Rudd's home town is Nambour which has no same sex couples. ( the place to live)

You get these two "facts" from the same place you got your "facts" about Port Arthur?

Anyway, keep on repressing those urges.

[MikeSun5]

The master of politik (lionkping mate) raped a 16 year old at a Melbourne party when he held power and all hushed up, Rudd's morals would be way ahead. Rudd's home town is Nambour which has no same sex couples. ( the place to live)

Old Old Bob... How could Hawke possibly have raped anyone when you imply homosexuals are doing all the raping? You know Mr. Hawke's been married before. To women.

Anyway, if you're worried about morals, maybe you and Kevin Rudd should pray to your Cosmic Jewish Zombie God to save us from the immoral gays.

[ponderingturtle]

On one level I agree with you, and don't see what a big deal a walk down the aisle is, even though I did it 36 years ago. But it is clear that many gay people want the ceremony with all the trappings.

The rational is that while gay people can have the ceremony in most western countries it has no legal standing.

As for legal standing it would be easier and more sensible to have one status that applies to everyone than have two identical statuses. Once you start differentiating between them legaly it would be easier for an employer to say cover marriages but not domestic partnerships. They never mention homosexuality in this way only legal statuses.

[Damien Evans]

I wonder if Rudd will have Conroy add sites advocating gay marriage to the internet blacklist.

The one that still doesn't exist no matter how much you keep acting as though it does?

That one?

[ponderingturtle]

Australia has long had the concept of defacto marriage. That is where people in a permanent relationship are treated as if they were married for all intents and purposes. The government removed most if not all the legal differences between heterosexual defacto couples and married heterosexual couples over the last couple of decades and have now done the same thing for homosexual defacto couples.

This cuts both ways. Some gay couples have had their government pensions reduced as the couple rate is less than twice the single rate.

As a result legalising homosexual marriage would be mostly symbolic. However, I heard a gay marriage advocate on the radio today who said that it can still be very hard for a gay person to prove that they are in a relationship when it comes to gaining hospital visits or the like - particularly if the family don't want to know or were against the relationship. Marriage would obviously circumvent that.

And there is the Emmigration issue, so legalizing gay marriage would let more poofs in.

[lionking]

The master of politik (lionkping mate) raped a 16 year old at a Melbourne party when he held power and all hushed up, Rudd's morals would be way ahead. Rudd's home town is Nambour which has no same sex couples. ( the place to live)
By the way, the word is realpolitik. You might want to look it up.

[Hokulele]

Rudd's home town is Nambour which has no same sex couples. ( the place to live)


Iran has no same sex couples as well, but I wouldn't want to live there.

[MikeSun5]

Iran has no same sex couples as well, but I wouldn't want to live there.

By Bob's logic, Iran's morally superior because of that.

[zooterkin]

Rudd's home town is Nambour which has no same sex couples.
You know this how?

[BTMO]

Come to NZ.

Civil unions are a fact of life here.

:)

[lionking]

Come to NZ.

Civil unions are a fact of life here.

:)
Sure they are, just like Australia, but there are no same sex marriages in NZ.

[BTMO]

Sure they are, just like Australia, but there are no same sex marriages in NZ.

I went hunting again today (deerstalking this time).

I am tired....

:bgrin:

[Skeptic]

The thing that annoys me most of all is that Labor's position has absolutely nothing to do with principal and logic and everything to do with re-election in just over a year's time.

Which is different from every other group of politicians because...

[lionking]

Which is different from every other group of politicians because...
I have followed the history of the left wing Labor Party and "the light on the hill". It has traditionally prided itself on principle above popularity, but politicians like Bob Hawke realised that this was not going to get it elected in a consistent way, so unashamedly went for the middle ground.

However he never abandoned the core principles of the party and legislated for land rights for aborigines and a more tolerant immigration policy, for example.

The coward Rudd will do nothing to upset conservative Australia and the churches. He not a Labor leader in any sense of the word. Will he win the next election? Probably. But he will drive a lot of young people to the Greens. He is sowing a bitter crop.

[Old Bob]

Lionking, we don't agree on much but I must admit you have "the gift of the gab" So why don't you stand for a seat? Then and only then would you get the respect and honour that the status of being a polli brings forth. This would show by the number of votes you receive, could you rival Rudd?

[SimonD]

...But he will drive a lot of young people to the Greens.

You make that sound like a bad thing. I can think of worst parties then the Greens

[lionking]

You make that sound like a bad thing. I can think of worst parties then the Greens
Well, yes. Family First and One Nation would be two. But seriously, Greens policies would destroy the Australian economy.

[SimonD]

Well, yes. Family First and One Nation would be two. But seriously, Greens policies would destroy the Australian economy.

I find myself liking a lot of the Green policies and I also think that Bob Brown is an honest Politian, who stands by his ideas rather then tow any party line.

They do seem to be a little 'pie in the sky' when it comes to the economy. I don't mind the idea of them having the balance of power.

[Damien Evans]

Well, yes. Family First and One Nation would be two. But seriously, Greens policies would destroy the Australian economy.

If they were in Government yes, as a third party with balance of power in the senate, they're usually pretty good.

[Wildy]

Stone the crows wildy you're right.

At least you didn't say "stone the croweaters"...