And the Golden GLORIA winner 2010 is:

Thanks to everyone who participated in the first ever GLORIA's.

40 nominations were received in 7 different categories - Politics, Religion, Sport, Media, Law, Online/Misc and silliest GLBTI.

Over 2000 votes were cast online to decide the winners in each category. The Golden GLORIA was decided via a "boo off" by those who attended the dinner.

The winners in each category are:

Politics: Tony Abbott for his comments about feeling threatened by homosexuality and his follow up comments saying that [homosexuality] challenges the orthodox notions of the right order of things

Religion: Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby for saying "Some of you won't like this but it is fact. In Australia, in Ireland, in America the people who are prosecuted for sexual offences against minors have in Australia been over 70%, [homosexual] and remember that the churches who have been the victims of this have had a policy where they don't accept homosexuals as part of their clergy. Yet in Australia over 70% of the offences have been committed by homosexual clergymen."

Sport: The Footy Show for skit in May 2009 featuring the fictitious gay brother of NRL siblings Matthew and Andrew Johns called Elton Johns. In the skit, the Johns's father attempts to return the gay son, played by Matthew Johns, to hospital saying "I want to return this, it's faulty".

Media: Australian Communications and Media Authority for ruling an episode of Dante's Cove breached of the Code of Practice because it simulates male / male sex rather than male / female. Nine is questioning the decision-making and points out that similar depictions between males and females have been aired without incident.

Law: US Court of Appeals - 4th circuit: for ordering the father of a dead solider to pay $16,000 to Westboro Baptist Church when he took them to court for protesting at his sons funeral. Westboro believes that military deaths are the work of a wrathful God who punishes the United States for tolerating homosexuality.

Online/Misc: Bill Muehlenberg, Secretary of the Family Council of Victoria for saying "OK, for the sake of argument, let's just assume for a moment that there may be some biological basis for homosexuality. Even if that is the case, does that mean homosexual activity must be engaged in? After all, people may well be born with an orientation or predisposition to getting angry, to arson, or to over-eating. Should they simply indulge therefore in these various activities, or instead learn how to resist and modify such urges?

As Turek rightly argues, "But let's suppose that some homosexuals cannot change their orientation. Does that mean they cannot control their behaviour? Why do we expect paedophiles to resist their desires but not homosexuals? Because we know paedophiles are human beings who can choose not to act on their sexual desires just like anyone else. We also demand them to resist their desires because our children will not be safe if they don't....

The truth is, sexual behaviour is not compulsory. It is always a choice. We all must resist our sexual urges at times. And while it's not desirable, some do so for their entire lives and never have sex. That's possible for people with any sexual desire. After all, if I honestly believe that I've been born with heterosexual desires, am I required to engage in heterosexual acts? Am I not capable of controlling my sexual desires and remaining celibate? If you claim that I am not, then you have also made the absurd contention that no one in the history of the world has ever been morally responsible for any sexual crime, including rape, incest, and child molestation."

Silliest GLBTI: Journalist, Christopher Pearson for writing "One is determined to assert the moral equivalence of marriage and gay relationships and the moral entitlement of gay couples to adopt children as of right or to have access to in-vitro fertilisation. Another asserts that everyone is basically bisexual and that converting straight people is a liberating act. Adhering to that view doesn't prevent some from seeing psychological treatment to unleash the nascent heterosexual in unhappy homosexuals as a kind of violation.

Then there's an element of the ghetto subculture that goes out of its way to display disdain for breeders, some of them out of a general hatred of heterosexuals, some on equally misguided ecological grounds.

Another insane gay agenda drives some AIDS bureaucrats to insist on issuing condoms as a non-judgmental policy even when it has proved to be catastrophically ineffective.
Last, there are the gays who for ideological reasons trivialise offences against adolescents and minors, even if they don't personally engage in them."