Reviving the tradition of local marriage laws

In Australia today most social reform emerges at the local level and the term "national consistency" is mostly a euphemism for crushing mediocrity. Rather than representing an aspiration to replicate the the best possible laws across the nation, the term usually just ensures that the "lowest common denominator" will reign supreme.

Fortunately, the decision to have a national marriage law did not mean the states gave up their power to also enact such laws.

The movement for marriage equality is reviving the tradition of local marriage laws.

If misrepresenting the history or marriage law was the Federal Government's only

misdemeanour it could be excused, but its case against the ACT does something far worse - it dog-whistles homophobic prejudice.

The Federal Government may use the word "binary" to describe the difference it sees between legally married partners and everyone else. But that word sounds suspiciously like how opponents of marriage equality describe the critical difference they think exists between different-sex and same-sex relationships.

Then there's the Feds' use of "natural" to describe a national marriage law (that just happens to be for heterosexuals only) and "mimic" to describe a state law (that's for same-sex couples).

Again, the Feds' may ostensibly be talking about laws, not relationships. But that doesn't change the fact that these are exactly the words the religious right uses to perpetuate two of the worst stereotypes about same-sex relationships

: that they are unnatural couplings and that they don't match up to the real deal of heterosexuality.

Finally, there's the Federal Government's observation that if states are allowed to legislate for same-sex marriage there's nothing to stop them legislating for polygamous and incestuous marriage.

Here we see the rhetoric of homophobia, in the form of the infamous slippery slope, woven directly into the Federal Government's case.

To get a sense of how outrageous this is, imagine the following scenario: The federal Marriage Act bans interracial marriages, a state passes a law allowing such marriages, and then the Federal Government challenges the state law in the High Court as not "pure" marriage because only a national marriage law can be "pure".

There would rightly be an outcry about this barely concealed racism. It is a measure of the acceptability of homophobia that there isn't an outcry now.

Inevitably, the focus of the High Court case will be on the constitutionality of the ACT's attempt to bring greater equity to marriage law.

But that shouldn't distract us from the Federal Government's misuse of the case to send reassuring messages to those who detest same-sex relationships.