We elected them, didn’t we?

There’s something fundamentally not right when politicians use their positions of power to inflict their own personal agenda on the rest of Australia when the majority of Australians have an opposing view.

John Howard refused to say “sorry” to the nation’s indigenous population despite an overwhelming populist movement to do so.

Kevin Rudd eventually did apologise, and did the sky fall in?

Ah, no.

Today, Kevin Rudd has declared that he is fundamentally against marriage being made available to same sex couples despite an overwhelming majority of Australians now supporting gay marriage.

 ”We went to the last election being very clear-cut about our position on marriage under the Marriage Act being between a man and a woman,” he said.

Mr Rudd always likes to use ‘the royal we’ to add weight to his position where in fact he should really be saying “I went to the last election with a very clear cut position.”

Neverthless his position is fundamentally and categorically discriminatory.  There is no rational argument to support the idea that marriage should not be an option available to same sex couples.

It is hard to avoid reaching the conclusion that the prime minister’s position on this matter is pure and simply his own personal opinion, and that he is seeking to impose his views on everyone else.

It is simply duplicitous for the prime minister on one hand to talk about equality for all Australians and ending discrimination while simultaneously denying a minority of the population access to a status of recognition that is made available to others.

His position is particularly tenuous and irrational when the majority of Australians hold an opposing view.  We live in a democracy after all, and surely it is the responsibility of our elected representatives to represent and act upon the interests of the electorate.

It’s about time that Mr Rudd put aside his personal beliefs and recognise that gay and lesbian couples are no less worthy than opposite sex couples when it comes to recognition of their relationships.

To maintain his existing position is an affront to the Australian community he supposedly represents and is disingenuous to say the least.