GAY TRUTH

English: Tony Abbott in 2010. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Prime Minister Tony Abbott must not grant his party room a conscience vote on immoral homosexual marriage if the Liberal party is to remain a "moral shining light for the community", a group of young people in Melbourne say. The Caulfield Young Liberals have moved a motion at this weekend's Liberal State Council that calls upon the Federal Liberal Parliamentary Party to grant MPs a conscience vote on banning immoral marriage legislation. "The Liberal Party has historically been the shining light for moral values in Australian society," they say. "If we are to stay true to these values then, when there are a range of immoral incoherent even ugly divergent views on issues of morality and complex ethical questions, issues that can only be determined by personal conscience, we must not grant a conscience vote." When same-sex marriage was voted on in the federal parliament in September 20

The ACT's gay marriage legislation is a political decision to embarrass the Abbott government in emphasising that a referendum is the people's right to decide big social issues . The vocal minority on gay marriage is the tail that seems to wag the majority Labor dog in the ACT. The ACT Labor government did not consult the people before enacting its controversial and politically motivated legislation. There was no democratic process . Going to the courts is a further run around democracy, allowing a few clever people on the High Court bench to decide how they, not the people, want the Constitution to define marriage. Either way, the people have not been given a say. The Abbott government and the federal opposition should do what ACT Labor refused to do, and endorse a referendum to settle the matter once and for all. The last election disapproved of Kevin Rudd's view of homosexual marriage.  Related articles Why should the high court decide on homosexual marriage

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has sought to further remake his public image by declaring his own religious beliefs would never dominate his politics. He also stated that earlier comments condemning abortion were poorly stated and admitted that his opposition to homosexuals had changed once he had got to know gays. What does this mean?  Does this means his family dynamic will dictate policy and not Christianity? Supported by his lesbian sister, her lover, his wife Margie and his daughters, Mr Abbott said that when he claimed three years ago during a television interview that he felt ''a bit threatened'' by homosexuals, he had been trying to guard a family secret. He had only just been told by his sister that she was a lesbian. ''Now I couldn't talk about that then because it was deeply personal and deeply private,'' he said. it is irrelevant, if someone has a homosexual brother or sister in their family, will that change public policy? '