It appears to have backfired. She originally said:
"On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."
Which of course is silly. Women, Asians and gays wouldn't have got into the Senate in the past for "cultral, religious, histroical" reasons. Perhaps she would like us to return to that? No I thought not.
In the article above Queerty found this statement from 2006
"I hope there will come a time when this country can look back and wonder why some in this place and some in this government were so frightened of and antagonistic to certain types of relationships. I look to a day, to paraphrase a great man, when we not only judge people by the content of their character but also where we judge their relationships by markers such as respect, commitment, love and security and not by the gender of their partners. I look to a day when government policy and articulation is not so mired in prejudice that it can address these issues fairly. One thing I do know is that that will only come under a Labor government." (Emphasis ours.)"Oh Penny, I think the game is up. Of course she came back with some statement about discrimination which made no sense.
I find this more often than I'd like. The other day I was having a Twitter battle with Chris Bryant, who told me off for questioning his LGBT rights stances. I'm still awaiting his reply to explain why he failed to stand up and even MENTION marriage equality during the Civil Partnership Bill debates. In fact all I found from him was a strong defence of the party line, whilst he threw LGBT rights under a bus.
Never, ever trust a politician who can't even stand up for their own rights because how will they ever have the guts to stand up for yours?
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist