If Mohandas K Gandhi’s maxim that “first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” is true, last Wednesday’s MPs’ report-back on same-sex marriage showed that opposition on the issue among conservative MPs has reached the “fight you” stage.
Resulting in just a handful of new MPs reporting support on the issue, either personally or in their electorates, the event was overwhelmingly hijacked by conservatives — including some who had not even actively sought the views of constituents on the issue — to go on the attack.
But had all the known supporters of marriage equality in Parliament spoken alongside all who have reported electoral support, and those who did not seek constituents’ views were subtracted, the numbers would have been fairly even.
However, with around 120 MPs not participating, the report-back has not revealed a clearer picture of the real level of support for marriage equality in federal Parliament.
What it does show is that the vast majority of MPs are either personally in favour but represent electorates where they feel support is a vote loser, or are personally opposed but represent electorates where they feel that being identified as an opponent is a vote loser.
Either way they’re keeping their cards to their chests for now.
What has been disheartening throughout this debate is the anti-equality camp’s need to take the love out of marriage in arguing their case — in the process reducing marriage to an “a penis walks into a vagina” joke.
Love doesn’t rate a mention in their arguments — marriage has to be all about procreation, not the declaration of an enduring commitment between two people who deeply love each other.
It doesn’t bear out in the culture though — Australians have greater opprobrium for a gold-digger than an unwed mother.
And if marriage as an institution was primarily about the protection of children, why have heterosexual rapists, murderers and serious category child abusers — people who have demonstrated beyond a doubt their unfitness to be parents — never been banned from marrying?
If marriage equality opponents are so keen on protecting children, why aren’t they calling for that now?
We also now have a large group of both Coalition and Labor opponents saying they would back civil unions and there will be a strong push from some quarters for the LGBTI community to accept that in coming months.
But the deficiencies inherent in civil unions will also be getting a lot of publicity in our region in the coming months as the fight for marriage equality heats up in New Zealand in the lead-up to that country’s November general election — while the UK Government has pledged it will begin a consultation process towards the legalisation of same-sex marriage as well.
Sometimes Civil Unions paves the way for Marriage Equality, othertimes like in the UK or NZ it just gives the government the excuse to tell us to shut up coz they gave us what they thought we wanted. Consider where we were 10 years ago on public opinion or even 5 years ago. We are so close, true it could take years, but it’ll happen by 2015, with Abbott in power or not. It’ll happen on a state level at first, prob in ACT. Which will challenge the Commonwealth, the states will win and then once a few states have done it they’ll just change it coz they wont see the point in keeping it illegal anymore.
Abbott for 3 terms? That’s just frightening.
There is NO way that the Australian Labor Party will pass ‘Marriage Equality’ policy at their conference at the end of the year. I cannot believe that so many people have not recognised that the Catholic right dominate the Australian Labor Party. The Gillard Government is going to get wiped out at the next Federal election. That means that Tony Abbott will lead an extremely right-wing Government for probably at least 3 terms- that is 9 years! A HUGE opportunity to gain civil unions has been missed! Where civil unions has taken place it paves the way for same-sex marriage. I think there are going to be a lot of very disappointed people in December!