Letters to the editor

The mayor shows both political bias and political naivety when allowing himself to be used like this.

Sophie Mirabella is not a member of parliament and does not represent the people of Towong Shire.

Cathy McGowan is the elected representative and should be shown the respect and due courtesy as a member of parliament.

This shows very poor judgment at least and blatant political bias.

REVEREND Peter MacLeod-Miller “Marriage is for everyone” (The Border Mail, August 11) in his obsession to promote same-sex marriage seeks to portray compassion.

Using Sophie and Greg Mirabella’s wedding as a prop for his self-centred promotion is despicable and irreverent.

This is the Mirabella’s blessed union and special day with friends “rubbished” by Peter McLeod-Miller as collateral damage in his drive to influence Sussan Ley, Coalition party member for Farrer. 

In labelling Sophie Mirabella as “underdeveloped” it seems clear Peter McLeod-Miller also intends his incursion to advantage fellow same-sex marriage advocate Cathy McGowan member for Indi, who Sophie Mirabella will oppose in a bid to regain the seat at the next federal election.

While the Reverend is at pains to highlight youth suicide and by inference a concern for the GLBTI community, his own tactics are tantamount to bullying, and accordingly counter -productive.

Other than implying the GLBTI community has needs that override mainstream society, no case is made to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples – a measure that brings a legal right to children.

In turn the cultural narrative becomes one that tells children they have no right to the natural family structure, or their biological parents – another “stolen generation” in the making and ever increasing community discord.

TONY ABBOTT says he wants to run a plebiscite regarding marriage equality stating, “What’s wrong with that?” Well, that  goes against two things he said he would do in government.

He said he would be fiscally responsible. From several polls we already know that over 70 per cent of the population support gay marriage so why the need for a plebiscite? A plebiscite would require all polling booths to be open and staffed. This cost just under $200 million for the 2013 election. Why would you shell out this amount of money just to find out what we already know?

Secondly, he said he would get rid of red tape. Under a plebiscite, in addition to a majority having to agree with the same-sex marriage proposal, it requires a majority in all states and territories. This second rule is unnecessary red tape.

He says it is important to have a plebiscite so the people have a say (despite numerous polls where people have already spoken) because this is the first generation to want marriage equality (some cop out that is).

His inclusion of the Nationals in his party room meeting is pure branch-stacking and his promise of a future plebiscite merely a stalling procedure. Both are put forward to ensure marriage equality never happens.

If Abbott really wants to run a plebiscite he should do it on his proposal (being put forward by his mates on his behalf) to increase the GST by 50 per cent. I am sure we won’t be getting a say in that.