With the federal Coalition divided on whether it should be bound by a successful plebiscite and Labor saying it no longer supports a popular vote, a political resolution to the prolonged cultural conflict that is same-sex marriage seems further away than ever. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has promised marriage equality will be his first legislative act if he becomes prime minister. But the implausibility of the ALP forming government after Saturday, and Malcolm Turnbull's equivocation, suggests same-sex marriage will remain a political football for some time yet. It's an extraordinary state of affairs given the solid, even majority electoral support that marriage equality allegedly enjoys.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
The dread with which major parties approach same-sex marriage is well-founded: the divide between supporters and opponents is deep and wide, and the perceived requirement for party unity too great to risk a divisive or rancorous split. Tony Abbott understood that as well as anyone, which is why his government resolved two years ago to stage a popular vote in its second term. It was a way of short-circuiting attempts to introduce divisive private members' bills, though Mr Abbott being a social conservative himself, many commentators saw the tactic as nothing more than a delaying one.
Nonetheless, there was a view that a plebiscite – if successful – would secure a popular mandate for change and lock politicians into giving that mandate legislative effect. Mr Turnbull's decision to cast fresh doubt on the obligation of MPs to abide by the will of voters is surprising given his clear advocacy for marriage equality. While he's dressed up allowing a conscience vote as a Liberal party "tradition", it's almost certain Mr Turnbull's concession is linked to a desire to avert future skirmishing by members of party's social conservative wing.
Members of that faction may pay a price for bending Mr Turnbull to their political will, however. Several, including – ACT Liberal Senator Zed Seselja – have indicated they will probably abstain from voting if the plebiscite is carried. Senator Seselja's right to cleave to the trustee model of political representation (where MPs reserve the right to exercise their own judgment and not merely act as mouthpieces for the constituents' wishes) is not in dispute. However, it's an odd position for a Senator representing a socially progressive polity like the ACT. Moreover, it exposes him as a politician loathe to change his mind, even when political circumstances might change.
Mr Shorten also risks censure over his retreat on a plebiscite, having said three years ago that he was "relaxed" about leaving the matter to the judgment of voters. His reasoning, that it will embolden homophobia, is specious. A plebiscite will entertain all manner of arguments: that is the nature of robust democracy. The possibility that passions might become inflamed should not be seized on politicians as justification for kicking the can on same-sex marriage (and euthanasia) endlessly down the road.
