For a social reform issue that apparently commands growing levels of public support, same-sex marriage has an extraordinary capacity to tie politicians and political parties in knots. In the latest series of contortions, the Turnbull government's bid to deliver on its election promise to stage a plebiscite next year has been torpedoed by an Opposition Leader who three years ago was advocating just such a strategy (in preference to a parliamentary vote) to achieve marriage equality. Bill Shorten now argues a plebiscite would be a waste of money, that it would subject members of the gay and lesbian community to ridicule and hatred, and that Coalition MPs would not be bound by an affirmative vote.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Labor went to the election promising to introduce a marriage equality bill if elected, so Mr Shorten is not strictly guilty of a policy about-face. But he does stand accused of political grand-standing, and of ensuring that reform will not occur until after the next federal election. The Coalition cannot claim to be virtuous in its commitment to a plebiscite, either, however.
Its leadership has long maintained the position that marriage be defined exclusively as a heterosexual union. But in acknowledgment of changing attitudes, Liberal MPs were at least allowed a conscience vote when private member's bills come before the house. The Nationals have always opposed same-sex marriage as a bloc. In August 2015, the Coalition party room overturned its long-standing policy, adopting instead a proposal to put the matter to a popular vote after the 2016 election.
Not surprisingly, perhaps, reform advocates saw it as a delaying tactic engineered by the Coalition's dominant conservative wing. That theory allegedly gained credence when Malcolm Turnbull, an advocate of same-sex marriage and of a parliamentary vote rather than a plebiscite, announced he'd abide by the commitment after succeeding Tony Abbott as Liberal Party Leader.
Mr Turnbull would not be the first leader, Labor or Liberal, to have had to put party solidarity ahead of personal beliefs, and while a parliamentary vote would entail a quicker resolution of the matter, an affirmative popular vote would have built up momentum for reform that no MP could have ignored – regardless of arguments that parliament is not legally bound to heed plebiscite results.
Almost to an individual, the LGBTI community has welcomed the plebiscite's demise, arguing like Mr Shorten that it would have licensed an outpouring of nasty rhetoric. This is an unfortunate by-product of democratic debate, and to some degree unavoidable, but the need for an open and robust debate does need to be balanced against real concerns for people's safety.
Ireland's LGBT community survived the hurly-burly of a referendum (and won the vote) and so too would have Australia's had they had a similar fight in the trenches. For all the attention this debate generates, gays and lesbians should not be surprised if the Turnbull government decides to move on to more urgent matters, and many voters would argue that's a reasonable outcome.