The big gay marriage election fraud …

Leonie Hiscutt

Vanessa Goodwin

Jim Wilkinson

The big gay marriage election fraud: why it’s nonsense for Upper House candidates to say “marriage is a federal issue”

Nicole McBride is right ( Balance is appeasement. Fairness is truth ). It is not “neutral” journalism to uncritically report two different views and leave it at that. It’s legitimate, nay necessary, to report when an opinion is wrong.

The question of whether state same-sex marriage laws are unconstitutional is a good example, and a timely one given it’s how three key Upper House candidates, Vanessa Goodwin, Jim Wilkinson and Leonie Hiscutt justify not supporting such laws.

Each candidate declares “marriage is a federal issue” as if it’s a fact as obvious as the greenness of grass. Wilkinson and Goodwin seem to be asking voters to trust them because they know about the law. Hiscutt says she knows because she’s a marriage celebrant.

But they don’t know. Either that, or they are deliberately lying.

For a start, the decision about whether states can legislate for same-sex marriage lies ultimately with the High Court. Only it can make this judgement.

On this basis alone it is wrong for politicians to categorically declare “marriage is a federal issue”.

Can legislators make an educated guess? Yes, but only if they bother to educate themselves.

The first step in that education is reading the views of Australia’s leading constitutional expert, Prof George Williams, who says there are strong arguments for the constitutionality of state marriage laws.

This is the man who wrote the book on the constitution, literally. It’s called Australian Constitutional Law and Theory, and it’s at the top of every constitutional law student’s reading list.

But Prof Williams is only the start. His counterparts, like constitutional law professor, Kris Walker, at the University of Melbourne have backed him up.

So have some of the most conservative legal academics in Australia.

Take Prof Patrick Parkinson from Sydney Uni who is the president of the International Society of Family Law. He wrote a report for the anti-gay lobby group, the Australian Christian Lobby, called For Kids’ Sake, in which he declared children raised by married parents do better (he didn’t consider the possibility of same-sex married parents). He is no friend of marriage equality.

In a submission to the NSW parliamentary inquiry into state same-sex marriage laws Prof Parkinson wrote,

“I agree with Prof. Williams that such a narrowly drafted law along the lines of the Tasmanian or South Australian Bills, would probably avoid a problem of inconsistency with federal law.”

Even conservatives like Parkinson are against Goodwin, Wilkinson and Hiscutt.

Is there anyone on their side?

Yes. There’s Neville Rochow, a QC affiliated with the Mormon law network, the J Reuben Clark Society, who regularly speaks on behalf of anti-gay groups like Family Voice Australia, and whose advice was taken seriously by many Upper House members during last year’s debate.

But he doesn’t count because he has contradicted himself. Appearing before a Senate marriage equality hearing last year he conceded the states can legislate for same-sex marriage (to make his broader rhetorical point that the Commonwealth can’t).

Guy Barnett

Then there’s former Liberal Senator and lawyer, Guy Barnett, who is desperate to re-ignite his political career. Like Rochow, Barnett is a long-time anti-equality advocate who belongs to a church that stridently opposes marriage equality. And like Rochow, Barnett has contradicted himself, declaring in a letter to the editor in 2006 that the Marriage Act needs to be strengthened to stop states legislating for same-sex marriage.

That just leaves former Tasmanian chief justice and governor, William Cox. Cox comes to the debate with no obvious anti-gay religious affiliations. But his contribution is undermined by the fact he also has no actual legal argument. He simply asserts that Prof Williams is wrong. Just as bad, Cox shamelessly parades his bias by condemning same-sex parenting.

These are the people Goodwin, Wilkinson and Hiscutt are relying on: religious zealots and old-style homophobes who either contradict themselves or rely on their titles to obscure the fact they don’t have anything relevant to say.

Anyone who draws on these prejudiced men’s “opinions” is being either very foolish or very deceptive.

Either way they should be brought to account.

Which brings me back to the original point.

This is not a debate between equally valid views.

It is a debate between respected experts and barrow pushers.

The media has a duty to call it as such.

It has a duty to tell the voters of Nelson, Pembroke and Montgomery that the key reason key candidates don’t support a key reform is a fraud.

For more about where Upper House candidates stand on marriage equality go to:
www.tasunited.org

Rodney Croome

• Saturday on Tasmanian Times: Balance is Appeasement. Fairness is truth

• Rodney Croome: Marriage equality advocates reject referendum proposal

• Equality advocates make final vote bid with powerful personal story

• FamilyVoice Australia: ACT push for gay ‘marriage’ would open a can of worms

• Guy Barnett: Why are same-sex marriage advocates so opposed to a referendum