Homosexuality Controversy: SA Liberals Defend Candidate’s Extreme Views

Published: 11 March 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The South Australian Liberal party is defending a candidate who has publicly said homosexuality can open up “demonic realms” and described same-sex marriage as “not real.” Carston Woodhouse, seeking election for the Wright seat in northern Adelaide, has become the focus of national attention due to these remarks. Early voting for the state’s upcoming elections is set to begin this Saturday, bringing renewed scrutiny to Woodhouse’s public statements and the party’s stance on LGBTQ+ issues.

Labor’s Blair Boyer, who currently represents Wright, labelled the conservative candidate’s comments as both “shocking and extreme,” suggesting they reveal a broader shift to the right within the Liberal party. During a press conference, Boyer highlighted multiple clips of Woodhouse speaking on the ElijahFire Christian podcast, a platform where he has been a guest on numerous occasions discussing social and political issues.

In one segment, Woodhouse argued against abortion under all circumstances, including cases of rape or incest. He further claimed that accepting homosexuality opens up “demonic realms” and characterised feminism as “demonic,” sparking widespread criticism and concerns about the party’s vetting process. Woodhouse has referenced influential conservative commentators such as Michael Knowles, Ben Shapiro, and the late Charlie Kirk, framing his positions within a broader right-wing ideological perspective.

Speaking on the podcast in February 2025, Woodhouse suggested that the LGBTQ+ community was actively pushing its ideology onto society, dismissing the separation of gender and biological sex as “rubbish.” He also questioned the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, asserting that society cannot ignore the dynamics between a man and a woman, which he claimed were “designed by God” to uphold societal and familial structures. Woodhouse further argued that attempts to change one’s sex were illusory and inherently impossible.

State Liberal leader Ashton Hurn responded to Woodhouse’s controversial remarks by emphasising the party’s focus on policy rather than individual opinions. In comments to Guardian Australia, she stated she did not share Woodhouse’s views and preferred to address policies aimed at improving South Australians’ lives. Hurn also referenced a recent incident involving Health Minister Chris Picton, highlighting the consequences of distraction from meaningful political work when controversies arise.

Hurn defended Woodhouse’s right to hold personal opinions, acknowledging that political parties often include members with diverse viewpoints. She was quoted by the ABC explaining that individuals are allowed to express personal beliefs, even if they are not representative of party policy. On the SA Liberal party’s official website, Woodhouse is described as “strong, principled and community-minded,” with leadership qualities that purportedly “restore fairness for all South Australians.”

Boyer, however, characterised Woodhouse’s positions as offensive and unprecedented in contemporary political discourse. He told reporters the candidate’s statements amounted to both “an attack” and “insulting” commentary directed at LGBTQ+ communities, highlighting the potential harm in mainstreaming extreme views. Boyer insisted that the clips and statements clearly demonstrate the extremity of Woodhouse’s ideology, leaving little room for misinterpretation.

The Labor minister suggested Woodhouse’s candidacy was the result of a “last-minute scramble” by the Liberal party, citing the lack of proper vetting processes as a serious concern. Wright, a safe Labor seat since 1997, has not historically been vulnerable to conservative gains, yet Boyer stressed that careful candidate selection remains crucial for maintaining public confidence. He warned that such rushed preselection can inadvertently allow individuals with polarising beliefs to stand for public office, undermining democratic norms.

“The ramifications of a shambolic preselection process mean that political parties fail to properly vet candidates for fitness and suitability for parliament,” Boyer explained. He emphasised that careful scrutiny ensures candidates represent their constituencies responsibly and meet basic ethical standards expected of elected officials. According to Boyer, candidates with extreme views are no longer confined to the fringes but now occupy positions where they could directly influence public policy and community discourse.

Woodhouse’s statements have reignited debates in South Australia over LGBTQ+ rights and the role of personal beliefs in public representation. The state overwhelmingly voted 62.5% in favour of same-sex marriage during the 2017 national postal survey, reflecting widespread societal acceptance of diverse sexual orientations. Critics of Woodhouse argue that his remarks are not only out of step with public sentiment but also risk alienating constituents in increasingly progressive communities across Adelaide and broader South Australia.

The controversy also raises questions about how political parties balance internal freedom of speech with public accountability. While Hurn has maintained that Woodhouse has the right to his beliefs, some commentators argue that public office carries a responsibility to avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Observers have noted that controversial statements, particularly those invoking religious or supernatural claims, may have limited electoral appeal and could distract from substantive policy debates.

Analysts further suggest that the incident could impact voter perceptions of the Liberal party at a state level. By allowing candidates with polarising views to run, parties risk being perceived as endorsing extreme ideologies, even indirectly. The debate over Woodhouse’s remarks underscores the tension between individual expression and the collective responsibility of political organisations to reflect inclusive values.

Despite the backlash, Woodhouse remains steadfast in his positions, reinforcing a narrative aligned with conservative Christian values and traditional gender norms. His defenders within certain party circles argue that personal conviction should not disqualify a candidate and that voters ultimately determine suitability at the ballot box. Nonetheless, the episode has sparked vigorous public discussion about the limits of acceptable discourse in Australian politics and the mechanisms parties employ to select candidates responsibly.

Political commentators have highlighted the broader implications for upcoming state elections, emphasising that controversies like these can dominate media cycles and overshadow policy discussions. The interplay between media scrutiny, social media amplification, and voter reaction illustrates the challenges contemporary candidates face when expressing contentious viewpoints. Many observers caution that such debates, while rooted in freedom of speech, can profoundly influence party reputations and electoral outcomes in the long term.

As the state election approaches, attention will remain on Wright and surrounding constituencies, with early voting beginning imminently. Analysts predict that, despite Woodhouse’s extreme positions, Wright’s safe Labor history will likely safeguard Blair Boyer’s incumbency. However, the controversy has already prompted dialogue across the country regarding political accountability, the handling of diverse opinions within parties, and the importance of vetting candidates for public office carefully.

The South Australian Liberal party continues to navigate a complex political landscape, balancing freedom of belief with the need for responsible leadership. Woodhouse’s candidacy serves as a flashpoint in ongoing national conversations about LGBTQ+ rights, gender identity, and the ethical responsibilities of public officials. As voters head to the polls, the broader discourse surrounding tolerance, representation, and political strategy will inevitably shape perceptions of both the candidate and the party he represents.

Check our latest news