MP Tim Wilson says marriage equality debate has descended into ‘national silliness’
LIBERAL MP Tim Wilson appeared on The Bolt Report last night to discuss the debate around same-sex marriage with Andrew Bolt.
Both spoke of their support for marriage equality while condemning the activists who are working to make it reality in Australia.
鈥淭im Wilson is for same-sex marriage,鈥� said Bolt. 鈥淚 can be talked into same-sex marriage.
鈥淚鈥檝e seen happy marriages of that kind.
鈥淢y only concern really all along has been that any such change does not weaken what I think is a very important tradition that keeps parents of children together.鈥�
Bolt and Wilson were concerned that 鈥渢he left鈥� is oppressing conservatives over marriage equality.
鈥淭his bullying by same-sex marriage activists鈥攊t seems to me now immoral that I would give in to this,鈥� said Bolt.
鈥淚t鈥檚 an issue of the modern left progressive world view,鈥� said Wilson.
鈥淭hey can鈥檛 debate issues鈥� so what they seek to do is silence anybody or censor anybody they disagree with.
鈥淭here are plenty of people who argue for a change in law around marriage who don鈥檛 subscribe to this word view at all.
鈥淚t鈥檚 a culture of intimidation. We always have to stand up for free speech.鈥�
Wilson brought up last week鈥檚 controversy over Margaret Court鈥檚 on marriage equality, saying the left is 鈥渟ilencing and censoring鈥� her.
Court鈥檚 open letter about boycotting Qantas was published in The West Australian newspaper and shared widely online. The Bolt Report is broadcast nationally on Sky 今日吃瓜 Live.
Wilson has also his colleagues鈥� unwillingness to pass marriage equality for the 鈥渟illiness鈥� surrounding Court鈥檚 comments.
“Frankly, the discussion around marriage for same-sex couples has descended into a kind of national silliness where people are just taking more and more extreme and absurd positions because they’re not actually debating the issue,” he said.
“鈥淢y only concern really all along has been that any such change does not weaken what I think is a very important tradition that keeps parents of children together.鈥�” says Andrew Bolt in the article.
What does this mean in practical terms? Surely the only interpretation is that Bolt wants to reverse no-fault divorce laws for married parents, be they gay or straight. Is there any other interpretation? Please tell me if I’ve got it wrong because I just can’t see how it means anything else.
Andrew Bolt claims to be open to the idea of same sex marriage as long as folks like Christine Foster go back and resume their marriage to the father of their kids. Am I reading this wrong?