Hmmm, seems Guy Barnett was none too concerned about any lack of uniformity or confusion potentially created by different laws in different states in an article in The Australian of 26 Aug 1994 when he said that Federal Government moves to override Tasmania’s peculiar “anti-gay” laws of that time (and hence move towards national uniformity in the removal of such laws) should be “strenuously opposed”. The sternest argument he could muster against the repeal at the time in terms of actual consequences was that amendment to age of consent laws [i]might[/i] have been needed alongside gay law reform. (Most of the rest of the article consisted of getting stuck into the UN for its decision on the matter.)
While digging around for that one in the microfiche I found a lovely piece of similar vintage by one Tony Abbott, in which the then very newly-elected MP argued that overrides of this kind were resulting in the states ceasing to retain “meaningful powers”. Apparently in 1994 for Abbott the power to have “unenforced and unenforceable” and “out of touch” (his own words) laws on the books was an important part of retaining those powers.
We’ve just had Peter Gutwein objecting to evidence from the 1990s concerning homophobic views he expressed at the time and saying he no longer holds those views. It’s not a fully effective response, because it is quite likely that in decades to come the arguments being used against same-sex marriage now will themselves be seen as homophobic and unacceptable, and moral reactionaries of [i]that[/i] time will say that they no longer oppose same-sex marriage but that
I also wouldn’t put too much effort into rebuking Abbott if something he said now contradicts something he said 18 years ago; even 18 minutes or 18 words is just par for the course for him.
But when it comes to Guy Barnett, I don’t believe Guy Barnett has ever really changed on these sorts of issues. And I believe the reason he has not changed is that his political views are nothing but an extension of his religious views into a walk of life, the politics of a supposedly [i]liberal[/i]-democratic nation, in which they have no place.
There is an amusing contradiction in Barnett’s movement here. The spuriously so-called marriage defenders tell us that same-sex marriage is not really marriage because marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. Then they also tell us that the Constitution regulates same-sex marriage through a provision referring to “marriage”. If the Constitution really does regulate arrangements for same-sex marriage then that must be because same-sex marriage [i]is[/i] marriage whatever the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 seeks to define otherwise, and therefore that their claim that same-sex marriage is a contradiction in terms is false.
As for Barnett’s concern about “untold confusion”, give us untold confusion over unacceptable discrimination and fearmongering anyday.