Marriage and freedom: promises ring hollow until the states act

This atrocious behaviour, in my opinion, should best be dealt with by existing criminal provisions relating to stalking, intimidation and destruction of property. However, there is a case that anti-vilification laws should deal with such matters.

Unfortunately, 18 years later and these same laws are being used to complain about political communication made by residents in another state altogether relating to discussions about faith, morals, marriage and LGBT political activism.

The legal definition of what constitutes incitement to hatred, serious contempt, severe ridicule or even offence has changed radically as the legal system has recognised homosexual relationships.

It is not a guess, but the hard-nosed reality: if same-sex marriage is recognised in Commonwealth law, state tribunals will once again redefine what kind of speech can be made about homosexual behaviour.

In a post-same sex marriage world, no one knows where the line will be drawn in the state tribunals.

But if the Archbishop of Hobart can already be dragged before a tribunal for issuing a letter that described homosexual relationships as ‘friendships’, and if I can be hauled into another state for criticising uniformed military participation in the Mardi Gras, then it is clear that what most people would describe as ‘freedom of speech’ is about to be reduced even further by law.

And it will all be done under state laws that the federal parliament has no control over.