Same-sex marriage: Tony Abbott slammed by his sister Christine Forster

Christine Forster publicly criticises her brother Tony Abbott for the second time in as many days over same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage advocate Christine Forster has taken to social media to ridicule her brother Tony Abbott for linking gay marriage to teaching gender fluidity in schools.

Gay marriage advocate Christine Forster has publicly criticised her brother Tony Abbott for the second time in as many days for broadening the debate on same-sex marriage to other issues.

Ms Forster attacked her brother for his interview on 2GB this morning, where he said: “If you degender marriage a whole lot of things come in its wake.”

Mr Abbott continued to broaden his campaign against same-sex marriage this morning by declaring that people who “don’t like the direction our country is headed” should vote No in the postal plebiscite.

Ms Forster responded saying that people trying to link the same-sex marriage vote to religious freedom were “simply seeking to obfuscate and instil fear”.

“Nothing will come in its wake except a lot of people who love each other will get married,” Ms Forster said.

Nothing will come in its wake except a lot of people who love each other will get married #voteyes #marriagequality #auspol https://t.co/16gnB3tjP9

— Christine Forster (@resourcefultype) August 21, 2017

Yesterday Ms Forster ridiculed her brother for linking gay marriage to teaching gender fluidity in schools.

Ms Forster slammed Mr Abbott for again linking the same-sex marriage debate to broader issues, with the former prime minister previously claiming a No vote in the postal survey would be a vote for freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

It came after Attorney-General George Brandis said he would not be “tricked” by Mr Abbott into fighting the gay marriage debate on broader issues.

Mr Abbott hit back at the senator, saying that a bill that legalises marriage between “any two persons” raised issues beyond marriage.

“Would it be possible to exclude gender fluidity discussions from schools if gender fluidity is contemplated by the Marriage Act?” Mr Abbott tweeted yesterday.

A bill that legalises marriage between "any two persons" raises issues beyond marriage.. 1/2

— Tony Abbott (@TonyAbbottMHR) August 20, 2017

..E.g. would it be possible to exclude gender fluidity discussions from schools if gender fluidity is contemplated by the Marriage Act? 2/2

— Tony Abbott (@TonyAbbottMHR) August 20, 2017

Ms Forster joined the criticisms against her brother last night, arguing the same-sex marriage debate had nothing to do with gender fluidity.

“How does allowing two people to marry under the law raise any question of ‘gender fluidity’,” Ms Forster tweeted at her brother.

“The Marriage Act covers marriage and nothing more. Allowing two people to marry has nothing to do with ‘gender fluidity’.”

The Marriage Act covers marriage & nothing more. Allowing 2 people to marry has nothing to do with "gender fluidity" @TonyAbbottMHR #auspol

— Christine Forster (@resourcefultype) August 20, 2017

How does allowing two people to marry under the law raise any question of "gender fluidity" #voteyes #auspol #MarriageEquality https://t.co/voKBjpe5vC

— Christine Forster (@resourcefultype) August 20, 2017

Yesterday, Senator Brandis said the postal survey had nothing to do with religious freedom and it was simply a question of whether people believed the Marriage Act should change.

“What I am not going to do is be tricked by Tony Abbott and others who are trying to trying to turn a debate about one issue, that is about whether same-sex couples should be able to marry, into a broader debate about religious freedom because that is not what this is about,” Senator Brandis told Sky News.

“There is no doubt whatsoever that were the postal plebiscite to return a Yes vote in the course of the parliamentary debate that would then ensue any bill introduced by any Coalition member or senator, building upon or expanding upon senator (Dean) Smith’s bill, would have very thorough protections for religious freedoms much more thorough than any bill that a future Labor government might release.

“We do need to have protections of religious freedom but that is not what the postal plebiscite is about. The postal plebiscite is to inquire of public opinion whether or not in its view the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.”