Magda Szubanski slams Jacquie Lambie on Q and A 71



View Profile

Things certainly got heated on Q and A last night when panellist Magda Szubanski clashed with Jacquie Lambie and Deputy Nationals leader Fiona Nash.

The three women were joined on the panel by singer Jimmy Barnes and things turned ugly when the subject of gay marriage and a plebiscite arised.

Magda, who is gay, does not want a plebiscite and said she can’t understand why politicians think it’s ok to deny her of the right to get married.

She took aim at Jacquie saying she knew she had an “unconventional” family and would support her rights no matter what.

“I want to address you on a more personal level,” Szubanski said to Lambie.

“You have an unconventional family yourself, Jacqui. You’re a single mother. I would fully support you in that and always have and it’s been because people have pushed through humane reforms that you know, however many decades ago, you would have been treated terribly.

“I think that is so wrong. That is what is happening to me and my community now.”

But Lambie refused to engage with her, saying there were still plenty of single mums who were being treated wrongly.

Magda also clashed with Fiona when she asked her if she thought they were equals.

Szubanski: “One simple question: Do you think I’m equal to you?”

Nash answered: “Of course I do.”

Szubanski: “If I was your daughter, and I’m being gay, would you think that I should have the right to be married?”

Nash: “I’ve been asked this question a lot over the last 12 months and my response was that my view is still the traditional view of marriage. I love my children regardless of what they ever brought home for me would make absolutely no difference at all. I completely respect your view and your desire to see that as equality …”

Szubanski: “But you won’t give me my rights. Thanks for nothing.”

The exchange had many members of the audience looking uncomfortable, with opinions over the issue divided down the middle.

For his part, Jimmy said he doesn’t think there should be a plebiscite and that the government should just go ahead and make gay marraige legal.

Who do you side with in this debate? Do you support gay marriage?

Starts at 60 Writers

The Starts at 60 writers team seek out interesting topics and write them especially for you.

  1. I think the plebiscite is a disgusting waste of money because our government can’t make or pass a simple law and allow people to marry who they love (straight or gay).Once again we are being shown as a Nanny country.Just pass it and stop wasting time and resources.Maybe then you can address issues affecting the country and gay people can marry.Hooray!!!!!

    1 REPLY
  2. The plebiscite is a waste of money but we must also remember some of those who opposed gay marriage laws in the past. Only a few years ago PENNY WONG BILL SHORTEN and the rest of Labour opposed it. Now when they can score points hyprocrisy is rearing its head. Remember when Labour wasted so much money they never did a thing under Gillard and Rudds government to fight for Gay Marriage.

    1 REPLY
    • Coincidentally or not marriage equality is going to be a mine if gold
      Surprise, surprise

  3. I support a union between people of same sex…..i DO NOT support the removal of the words man and woman in the marriage act…

    6 REPLY
    • That’s not good enough, just like using separate toilets for races was not good enough even though they functioned adequately.

    • The marriage act has only said “man and a woman” since 2004, when Howard changed it. Hardly much of a tradition

    • I totally agree with your opinion Annette. Let them have a “union” but not marriage. Marriage is between
      a man and a woman.

      1 REPLY
      • Totally agree, Janet!
        It’s not a ‘marriage’!

        No two females can create a human baby together.
        No two males can create a human baby together

        The design by ‘Nature’ is one male plus one female, to create, & look after a human baby, & THIS is a MARRIAGE!

        1 REPLY
        • I’m pretty sure that the ability to create human babies does not equal marriage! Plenty of married couples are unable to create babies and SO MANY babies are born to men & women who have not entered into a marriage. Completely invalid and ridiculous point.

    • Yes union is good term for this arrangement l and not against two.people of the same sex loving each other and being partners big BUT marriage is between a man and. Woman .and surely the so called government can make better use of money but we know that won’t happen to busy giving handouts to all the wrong people for wrong reasons . And to make matters clear it’s only the word MARRIAGE I would like left for man and women

    • I agree with Annette. The word marriage is between a man and woman. I am happy for a same sex couple to have a legal document, but to use the word Union. My granddaughter is gay, i would be happy for her to have a civil ceremony with her partner.

  4. I support a gay security contract. I fear they, with full marriage rights have access to adopting children.
    NO, I do not think they are bad for kids, they love as passionately as any, it’s just I have not seen enough evidence that the children from a gay “family” comes out the other end “evenly balanced” .
    My problem while wrestling with this is I see homosexuality as un-natural. This, I know is at loggerheads with others, but I’m stuck in this position.
    The children’s future is all I worry about.
    Any couple consenting to a relationship that are knowledge enough to be aware of the consequences of thier actions should be free to live together in security and happiness.

    5 REPLY
    • How many children from what you may call ‘traditional marriage’ have grown up to be heinous criminals? The vast majority. Therefore, it does not matter the make up of the family at home, be they single parents, same sex etc, just as long as there is love and support. You even said yourself that gay people ‘love as passionately as any’. Your concern is moot. Also, gay couples can already adopt.

    • What a load of nonsense – Not evenly balanced HA! I think more heterosexual parents destroy their children then what is reported by homosexual parents, all you need to do is check the mental health rates and look at the prison systems – all filled with dysfunctional people from heterosexual hands

    • Eugene Thomas…there already same sex couple fostering and adopting babies and children. It is already happening.!!!

    • People worried about gay couples ‘being able to adopt’ if marriage laws are changed should remember how many fostered and adopted children are abused sexually, emotionally and mentally by same sex couples. Those children are not ‘evenly balanced’ from the experience. Children who are loved and given a stable environment in which to grow become happy, productive members of society. I really don’t understand your thinking!!!

    • You clearly have not read the research. In fact children from same sex families do better than those from more “traditional” families. Why is this? Because same sex couples have been found to have a much more egalitarian relationship. Hence the children have better role models. Therefore better outcomes in terms of their psychological development.

  5. Let them marry, as so called normal marraiges are not as they were 50 years ago the world has changed.Too many people involved in a decision that effects so many peoples feelings, rights and human rights to live life the way any other person should. Government was elected now pass the law that they can marry and spend money on more relevant projects.

  6. I support my right to have an opinion without being lambasted by the gays. The most disappointing aspect of the whole issue is that it is not a debate at all. If one happens to disagree with the vocal gays, then the only argument seems to be “do you think I am not equal?”. I happen to support the status quo and retain marriage as between a man and a women. I don’t actually care if gays want to gain some other recognition for their union, but call it something other than marriage.

    4 REPLY
    • I agree with John marriage is a union between a man and a woman if someone wants to be gay thats there choice why does it have to be legalized and more to the point dont people realize this government has more important things to focus on and spend this money on than wasting it on something that is never going to be agred on anyway Its the gay community that is making issue out of this not ones that arent

      3 REPLY
      • The Marriage Act was only changed to be between a man and a woman in 2004. so what was happening before then? Nothing? What will happen if it includes same sex couples? Nothing, other than their right to marry. It will not affect you in anyway.

      • When did you decide to be straight Andrew? Sexuality is not a choice it is part of your identity.

    • Dare I say I agree with you John? (Answer is no I dare not!) it will be very interesting to see if traditionalists who have been silenced for fear of being branded bigots etc etc will ‘come out’ and the vote surprise those who seem to think it’s a foregone conclusion that same sex marriage is approved of by most of the nation. Personally I think they might be in for a shock so if it takes a plebiscite to reach a fair and democratic conclusion, I don’t think the prime minister has a choice.

      1 REPLY
      • Sharon, Appreciate and agree. Bottom line for me is that if over 50% of people say yes, fine by me. I would then expect, without delay that it is legislated. I may not personally agree but I accept! I actually doubt if the other side would – or am I just being a cynical bigot!

    • I agree with you. Have a civil union. Nature said man and woman make children. I suppose I just feel uncomfortable.

  7. I don’t know what part of the show your writers went to sleep in. But the Audience certainly were supporting and clapping the points put forward by the QA visitors. Do you have Donald Trump on your Staff?

  8. This is a non-issue that John Howard made an issue by adding the words “marriage between a man and a woman”; the Parliament can remove these words and that will allow all consenting adults to marry. The money put aside for a plebiscite may then be put to good use in health or education. Many of the politicians in the current Liberal government were in John Howard’s government and they saw no need to ask our opinion in a plebiscite then…what a farce we have foisted upon us in this democracy!!!!

    1 REPLY
    • So true Annie,they tell us to tighten our belts,but it’s ok for them to spend all of that money ,of our taxes,when it could be put to a much better use!!!!

  9. Give it another name – marriage is a man and a woman as has been defined for many years – equal or not it isn’t equal it is different and let’s accept it for that – our parliament is there to oversee the whole of this country so get this same sex marriage of the agenda and sorted and get on with getting this country back on its feet otherwise this country will be so much in debt we will never get out.

    1 REPLY
    • In this country marriage has only been defined as between a man and a woman since 2004 when Howard changed the marriage act. Not much of a tradition here. The core element of marriage is love, gay people love and so do straight people. Hardly different.

  10. Marriage has always been defined as a union of a man and a woman. No-one is being discriminated against in this. They just have to meet the criteria. Same sex unions are not the same and should not be called marriage.

    2 REPLY
    • If you cannot see the discrimination in that, then you’re absolutely blinded

    • Marriage between a man and a woman was added to the Act in 2004 with no consultation, let alone a plebiscite, so can hardly be called “always”. Or are you referring to the Bible, which tells us that Abraham had two wives, Jacob had four, and Solomon had hundreds. So should we impose polygamy as it’s “always” been the way of marriage?

      As recently as last century, marriage between different races was illegal. Should we have a plebiscite on that while we’re at it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *