My name sake is quit delusional, superstition is a good starting point for a fairy story but not public policy. It’s quite sad even now in these enlightened times when the light goes out there still a ready supply of cockroaches scuttling from under the bed.

Bozzie fails to understand the issue here. Increasing the age of consent (for gay males only) *is* re-criminalisation.

Currently, 16 and 17 year old guys can consent to male-sex sex. It's legal. If the consent age is lifted to 18, these guys return to being deemed criminals. Fines and jail sentences will apply to consensual sex in private for all 16 and 17 year olds, and their partners. This law will not apply to straight couples or lesbians.

Prior to the law reforms of 2001 (when the WA gay consent age was 21), gay men were being arrested, prosecuted and in some cases jailed - under these anti-gay laws. The consent age for everyone else was 16.

Colin Barnett, in a clumsy radio interview last month, said that he, "didn't want the law to apply to two 17 year old guys for example." But when pressed, failed to say how that could happen with his policy as its written, failed to say what would happen to a 17 and 20 year old gay couple (for example), failed to say what the criminal penalty would be under his Government, and failed to say why he was targetting only gay guys with this dogs breakfast of legal confusion - while at the same time pleading he was, "not homophobic."

Kelpie
PERTH

Bozzie... it is YOU who hasn't read the Position Statement accurately. Lesbians and single women would no longer have access to IVF (they currently do), age of consent for men only would be increased to 18 (it's currently 16), thus re-criminilising them and opening the possibility that a 17 year old could be jailed, access to Family Court for gay/lesbian couples with children would be banned as it would for straight de facto couples (currently these families have access)...

Read it again, I suggest... and next time, engage brain before commenting.

ConcernedCitizen is only partially correct when claiming that a majority of Western Australians do not support rollback.

The relevant Westpoll results were:

Do you support a coalition plan to ban same-sex couples having adoption rights?
44% -- support ban
48% -- oppose ban

Do you support a coalition plan to raise the age of consent
for homosexual males?
38% -- support raising the age of consent to 18 years
54% -- support keeping age of consent at 16 years

Clearly there is no majority support or opposition for rollaback on adoption, and the majority support for maintaining the age of consent at 16 for all, is significant but not overwhelming.

As others have mentioned in these comments and elsewhere, the care factor is low. The WA election will not be won or lost on the issue of rollback.

With all this healthy discussion and articulate offering of 'position papers and policies and social re-invention.. let me show u where it will all lead to in a few years. "PROPHETIC STATEMENT COMING UP".....
welcome to "NAMBLA" (yes.. do a search) For those old enough like me, to have watched with sadness the politicization of the gay movement, and its subsequent impact on public policy, never for a moment suggesting that it was in fact advocating 'open slather moral relativism' which is in fact what they ARE advocating. But all along using politically effective slogans like EQUALITY FOR ALL etc blah blah. But now, we are starting to see references to the social icons, the psychological data (APA) and general 'fair go'ness, among ANOTHER group.. ie. Nambla. Now.. who can show me ANYthing which would make their goals LESS morally right than those of the gays ? I can sure show why BOTH are morally wrong, but then..its in that obscure book called the Bible, and that is a big no no.. sheesh.. 'wowsers, bible bashers, loonies.. pulpit pounders..not to mention they old standby, "hyporcrite++" and lets not forget all those bad badd baddddd priests. (4getting of course that such priestly action is condemned by Christ MORE than any other)
Well I for one would re-criminalize homosexual BEHAVIOR.. and would probably rarely if ever enforce it. But sure as I write this, I would send a message that its 'THIS' far and no further. If anyone doesnt like that, then why not go ALL the way as far as the next politicized lobby group will take us. Call me what u will, but that, is where I stand.

BOAZ_David - No one has ever compellingly dismissed the linkages between the development of gay lobby politics and NAMBLA in the US. Has anyone tried?