Yet more tedious posturing from Canberra-types

Little Johnny Howard's got his knickers in a twist again.

The ACT territory government (a one man outfit surely?) has decided to institute civil partnerships. With admirable thrift (you'd have thought) the proposal dispenses with a parallel registration system in favour of the utilising the pre-existing registrar/celebrants, though what they'd be providing in the case of a same sex partnership would not be MARRIAGE (as the proposal says over and over again, ad nauseum).

This ain't good enough, oh no.

Johnny and his sidekick Ruddock have put aside their ideological position on States' Rights (more honoured in the breach anyway - see IR) to kick the proposal and its proponent.

It shouln't tax the ingenuity of this pair of specialist saboteurs to render the proposal pointless.

In the meantime a more problematic push has emerged South of the Border. Tragically for second initiative the main driving force behind it is that lamentable soak (convicted drunk driver and all round embarrassment Olexander).

This is a black and white issue. Those who reluctantly drafted and voted through the original decriminalisation legislation knew it, but knew they could no longer sit on their hands; not when internationally respected academics saw drowning themselves in inches of water as preferable to taking yet another beating.

Either its illegal (and no bible-based correspondence will be entered into: I made my position on Leviticus clear when I opened my interest-bearing bank account) or it isn't. If it isn't, and in law it isn't and hasn't been for decades, then we have a responsibility to move legislation to a footing that reflects this. Either gays are inside or outside, but what's really, really unreasonable is to expect them to somehow be either both or neither simultaneously.

What the opponents of change fail generally to spell out is the logical conclusion of their position which is overtly that homosexuality is less acceptable than heterosexuality. Their position carries within it, though they rarely are required to cede this point, the necessity for some degree of circumscribing of the activities, rights and responsibilities of homosexuals. Advocates of advancement allow their opponents to wriggle off the hook again and again by failing to require those opponents to set out how much 'less acceptable' homosexuality is.

Once that point's established we can move on and explore quite how they would prefer to see society deal with the homosexual element within. Should we return to the 1970s when essentially vigilante justice ruled? Should we return to the 1930s when the new 'science' of psycho-surgery was being applied to homosexuals with or without their consent? Should we hang 'em, taking account of the fact that we'd have to re-introduce the death penalty in order to take up that option.

Johnny Howard's position is, as usual to have no meaningful position at all. And he'll probably continue to have no position at all right up to the time having no position becomes untenable. Which is not leadership of any kind at all.

And in the meantime any number of morons, imbeciles and idiots will take the perceived view of of the nation's 'leaders' which is that homosexuals are somehow different and in some deserving of less than full rights and responsibilities and use that as all they excuse they need to kick in a head or three.

So hope and pray one of those heads isn't attached to a friend or relative of yours (or indeed you).