Liberals are putting politics before people. The church billboard controversy

Guy Barnett’s new marriage equality poll shouldn’t be taken seriously as an indication of where Tasmanian’s stand on the issue. But it should be taken seriously as an indication of how the Liberal Party is failing Tasmanians on this issue.

Yesterday, Barnett’s Save Marriage Coalition* released a Myriad Research poll of 400 people which he says shows Tasmanians a) think marriage equality is a low priority compared to jobs, the economy, education, health care and public safety, and b) believe it is an issue for the federal government, not the state. The press release is below.

Oddly, the poll doesn’t include a question on the principle issue – should same-sex couples be allowed to marry. I take this to be a tacit admission by Barnett that there is a solid majority in favour, making it not even worth his while asking (an EMRS poll from August last year found 61% support). But this is speculation. Let’s focus instead on what he did ask, starting with the priority question.

Of course most people will rate jobs, health etc higher than same-sex marriage. They are directly affected by health care and the economy in a way they are not affected by marriage equality. In fact, I’m surprised over a third of Tasmanians rate same-sex marriage among their top three concerns, higher than some of the other, broader issues on Barnett’s list. This shows support for marriage equality is strong, not weak. It shows Tasmanians understand the balance between economic and social issues.

Then there’s the point that jobs, health and marriage equality are not exclusive categories. Independent research from UCLA shows the wedding-spend of same-sex couples coming to Tasmania to marry would be at least $100 million. As the Mental Health Council of Tasmania has said, research shows marriage equality has a direct and positive impact on the mental health of same-sex partners and their families. Tasmanians who support jobs and health should support marriage equality as a high priority.

But even if we take Barnett’s claim at face value, what difference does it make? Should we put off marriage equality until everyone goes to Uni, finds a job and is in perfect health? Should Guy Barnett shut up about the Shearwater shopping centre, a VC for Teddy Sheean, and all the other community campaigns he fronts, simply because these aren’t high priorities for most people? Obviously not.

Now let’s turn Barnett’s second claim that most Tasmanian’s think same-sex marriage is a federal issue. Two people who were surveyed by Myriad contacted me to express their concern this question was leading and politicised. They said the preamble was:

“Given the Marriage Act is Commonwealth legislation and that the same sex marriage bill was rejected last year by the Legislative Council; and any marriages may not be recognised by other states; do you support Nick McKim’s proposal to again pursue same sex marriage legislation through the Tasmanian Parliament later this year?”

I’d like Guy Barnett to declare whether or not this loaded preamble was in fact put to respondents to this survey, and if so, how he justifies such framing bias, especially the obvious attempt to tap into anti-Green sentiment? Last year’s EMRS found that 54% of Tasmanians believe Tasmania should take the lead on the issue if the federal government doesn’t. I take that to be the more reliable figure.

When it comes to marriage equality, Guy Barnett’s survey is unreliable and irrelevant. But it is a reliable and relevant indicator of how the Liberal Party, which was represented by Barnett in the Senate and which he now wants to represent in the Tasmanian Lower House, is mishandling this issue.

The Liberal Party’s two responses to state marriage equality laws have been that it’s a low priority compared to jobs, health and education and that it is a federal issue. Both claims have been made without any explanation or rationale. If marriage equality isn’t a priority for the Liberals now, when will it be? If they value jobs and health care why don’t they support a reform that promotes both? On what advice do the Liberals base their federal/state stance? Why are they so certain the High Court would rule against Tasmania when no-one else is? There are no answers to any of these questions because the Liberals don’t have any. They simply repeat their opposition to state marriage equality because it fits a broader narrative about the current government not addressing bread and butter issues and being beholden to minorities.

Parents of same-sex partners will die before they see their children wed. Children of same-sex couples will grow up without the opportunity of having married parents. Young gay and lesbian Tasmanians will continue to be at risk of suicide because the law says they’re second-rate. And why? Because the Liberals think these people’s lives are less important than adding another talking point to some throw-away political storyline.

*It’s about time Guy Barnett explained what his Save Marriage Coalition is saving marriage from? From couples who want to uphold the values of marriage by vowing lifelong commitment? From families who want their loved ones to be treated fairly and equally? From people who value love and commitment wherever it is found? Like lots of other Tasmanians, I’m very keen to know.

Till then, here’s his press release:

TT: Same-sex marriage least important

• WYNYARD ANTI-MARRIAGE EQUALITY BILLBOARD SPARKS COMPLAINTS

ADVOCATES CALL ON CHRISTIANS TO LISTEN TO PLIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES

WYNYARD COMMUNITY LEADERS URGED TO REPUDIATE PREJUDICE

Marriage equality advocates have called on Tasmania’s churches to “open their hearts” to same-sex couples and their families, following the erection in Wynyard of a billboard against same-sex marriage sponsored by some church groups.

Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesperson, Rodney Croome said,

“Church groups have every right to make their views known, but they also have an obligation to open their hearts to same-sex couples and listen to how exclusion from marriage hurts and disadvantages these couples and their families.”

“Polls show 53% of Australian Christians support marriage equality and I believe this number will grow as more Christians come to see that many same-sex couples value marriage as much as they do.”

Mr Croome called on community leaders in Wynyard to make it clear their town repudiates discrimination and prejudice.

“Following the erection of this sign, Wynyard will rapidly acquire a very negative reputation around the nation unless civic leaders make it clear their town welcomes everyone, regardless of sexual orientation.”

Mr Croome said he has received several complaints from residents of Wynyard, and that some residents have already written to the local council with their concerns.

“I urge all those residents who are offended by this sign to make their concerns known to their local and state government representatives.”

The billboard has been erected in the main street of Wynyard west of Burnie. It features a male and a female symbol, an equals sing and then two interlocked gold rings. The text reads “Designed by God / Sponsored by Somerset and Wynyard Churches”

The billboard was erected by Graham Hodge. Earlier this year Mr Hodge erected a similar sign in Camdale which was removed soon after.

For a news report, click here:

http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/1548434/same-sex-message-a-sign-of-things-to-come/?cs=87

• The prejudice this billboard will foster and the damaging message it sends about their town …

• Paul O’Halloran: Tolerance and unity urged over marriage equality

• Guy Barnett: Save Marriage Coalition welcomes Kevin Andrews

• Rodney Croome: Wynyard billboard vandalism condemned

• Peter Whish-Wilson: Australian Greens marriage equality advertisement sends message to Tasmanian MPs

• Family Voice Australia: New gay parenting study queried

• Leonard Colquhoun, in Comments: In our constitutional history, “parties” did not formally arrive in the House of Commons until the 1700s; many of our colonial-era parliaments had only the vaguest of party arrangements. Wikipedia on “Political Party” notes that the “administration of George Washington and the first few sessions of the United States Congress were nonpartisan. Washington also warned against political parties during his Farewell Address”, possibly in much the same ways as in this thread..