Marriage case not made: MP
Liberal MP Kelly O’Dwyer has said she opposes marriage equality because she is yet to be convinced the Marriage Act should be changed.
Speaking at a press conference in Toorak last week, the Higgins MP said she had consulted with her electorate on the issue.
“I received a lot of feedback from people who believe very strongly on both sides of the debate,” O’Dwyer said.
“I’m not yet convinced there’s a need to change the Marriage Act. I remain to be convinced on this, so my view at this point in time is the case has not yet been made.”
In August this year O’Dwyer told the Star Observer her personal views on same-sex marriage were not settled and she was still “reflecting” on the issue, despite outwardly rejecting change in a 2009 ABC Radio interview.
In that interview, following her election, O’Dwyer said she “believes that marriage is between a man and a woman”.
Answering questions from reporters last week, O’Dwyer hinted she backed Liberal frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull’s calls for Coalition MPs to be granted a conscience vote on the issue.
“Backbenchers are entitled to vote on their conscience in the Liberal Party. There is no reason for any member of the Liberal Party not to vote according to their conscience, they do not get expelled,” she said.
“We are a broad church in the Liberal Party. We have slightly different views on [this] particular issue, but I do think if people have deeply held views … they should be able to express that.”
Turnbull was with O’Dwyer to launch the Higgins charity Christmas Gift-Giving Program.
Turnbull said he would make his views known on same-sex marriage when legislation is before Parliament.
“I’ve not said that I would vote in favour of it. I’ve never advocated gay marriage in the past,” he said.
“When I state my position on this legislation is when the legislation’s presented.
“I’ll state my position and vote in accordance with that position, subject to whether we have a conscience vote or not and make my reason known at the time.”
Wow, that’s really profound, Ms O’Dwyer — you’re opposed because you’re not in favour. You believe marriage is between a man and a woman, because…well, because marriage is between a man and a woman. I think we get it: you gave up thinking about it because you didn’t want to strain your conscience muscles, right?
[…] recorded a message to Kelly O’Dwyer MP in response to claims that she is yet to be convinced of the need for marriage […]
Did you expect anything different from this person elected only because her previous boss wanted her there??
Hope all the gay people who voted for her ( and there are many in her electorate) and Clem Newton-Brown remember what these people have done for them.
Oh She did not consult me or my partner or other gay people we know in Higgins>
What a healthy family presence this woman exudes. No hint of any of that alternative nonsense about her. Gosh, I can see her in gloves, hat and matching bag, like her Mothers before her, laughing at the silly ladies who wanted to burn their bras and enter parliament. Hang on … they weren’t allowed because of inequality, and now they can, thank goodness, so they can spread their own brand of inequality from that glowing family presence. What a load of crap! Catch up Kel!
I doubt any pollies are answering emails on this or any subject. After all, they have their nice fat bonuses to look forward to. What me worry on both sides.
The MPs of this parliament, both Labor and Liberal, who oppose equal marriage will go down in history as weak and shallow creatures, unable to grasp the simple truth that a human right is something to be acknowledged, not granted.
Would O’Dwyer have said 200 years ago that she had consulted her electorate and was therefore not convinced that slavery should be abolished? Just a century ago a male MP might have said the same about women’s right to vote.
Does Ms O’Dwyer believe women’s rights are also something to be granted, or not, based on the whims of a parliament, or does she believe women have an undeniable human right to be treated as equally as men? Why does she believe consenting same-sex adults deserve any less?
I live in Kelly’s electorate and I have already sent her many emails relating to this matter.
Her last response to me indicated that she felt “no religious institution should be forced to marry anyone that they do not wish to marry.”
I pointed out to her that 60% of marriages in Australia are performed by civil celebrants employed by the state, and asked if she would consider allowing marriage equality for weddings not conducted by a church.
She is yet to reply (my email is dated 24th Sept, 2011).
I am not convinced that the Marriage Act should stay unchanged