Luke Foley’s immaculate conversion to same-sex marriage

Luke Foley’s immaculate conversion to same-sex marriage
Image: NSW Labor leader Luke Foley

NSW opposition leader Luke Foley, who has consistently voted against measures in support of marriage equality, has today announced he is now in favour of same-sex marriage.

However, a rival party has suggested Foley’s road to Darlinghurst conversion may have more to do with building support in inner-city electorates ahead of next month’s state election.

Talking to Fairfax Media, Foley said he had “come somewhat late to the table on this” and it hadn’t been a “black and white issue” for him.

“For me it’s been far more complex. I grew up with a very traditional view of marriage,” he said.

“That it was between a man and a woman.

“But I also believe in equality. My whole political involvement has been about promoting equality.”

In November 2013, Foley voted against a NSW upper house bill on the legalisation of same-sex marriage which failed by just two votes.

Speaking in the upper house in 2012, Foley said that a “procreative relationship open to the possibility of children” was an “essential feature of marriage”.

He said that he instead favoured civil partnerships for gay couples.

However, since taking on NSW Labor’s top job in January, Foley said he had spoken to marriage equality advocates who had convinced him that civil unions were not equal to marriage.

“I’m now at a point where I’m willing to give my support to a change to the law, to the [federal] Marriage Act, so as to provide for same-sex marriage,” he said.

Foley’s announcement echoes Kevin Rudd’s change of mind on the same issue.

In May 2013, four months before a federal election, the former prime minister said he had been persuaded to back same-sex marriage by a gay staff member.

NSW goes to the polls at the end of next month with a particularly tight battle expected between Labor’s Penny Sharpe and the Greens in the LGBTI-centric seat of Newtown.

Dr Stewart Jackson, a politics lecturer at the University of Sydney, told the Star Observer that Foley’s support for same-sex marriage now took an issue off the table that could have harmed Labor’s chances in the inner-west seat.

“It’s a very positive move for Penny Sharpe as now people can vote for her both because of who she is and where the party stands,” Jackson said.

However, he said Foley now had to follow through on his new commitment to marriage equality or voters would become cynical.

Newtown’s Greens candidate Jenny Leong said Labor was reducing marriage equality to an election ploy: “I can understand that to many this would seem more like cynical political positioning rather than a real change of heart.”

Leong added that Foley was “outsourcing his responsibilities to Canberra” and criticised Labor’s approach to equality.

“Ending discrimination isn’t about a personal ‘pick and choose,” she said.

“It’s not enough to say you are committed to equality – it’s about the actions you take to end discrimination in all forms.”

Australian Marriage Equality national director Rodney Croome congratulated Foley for his decision and the “reflective, consultative path” he took to reach it.

“His evolution on marriage equality will encourage other MPs to do the same and provides a positive example for community members still conflicted by the reform,” he said.

“If, as a Catholic, Luke Foley can evolve on marriage equality then so can Tony Abbott by allowing a free vote for all Coalition MPs.

“If, as a boy from Sydney’s western suburbs, Luke Foley can evolve on marriage equality then so can other western suburbs Labor MPs who have previously voted against it like Chris Bowen, Ed Husic and Julie Owens.”

You May Also Like

51 responses to “Luke Foley’s immaculate conversion to same-sex marriage”

  1. Politicians lie every day, so trying to work out if they actually believe what they say to the public is an exercise in futility. Accept the vote and move on.

  2. Labour bindingly voted for the statutary ban, advocated for the ban’s retention even to the extent of changing their party policy to support a ban and voted to investigate a constiutional ban when no other political party supported them. How dare Labor expect the LGBTI vote when they still cannot even promise to vote for same-sex marriage without one of their ridiculously offensive concience votes.

  3. I think there’s a serious problem with that question, it frames the issue so that if he kept his position consistent he was an anti GLBTQI and if he changed it, it was just a ploy – essentially a lose/lose situation. Perhaps now we can focus on the Premier’s position which is still anti-marriage equality in a party which does not even allow a conscience vote.

  4. Let’s see more than their support. Let’s see a written policy with a time Line for introduction post election or an outline of their proposal for pressuring the federal government to change the current legislation… Then I may take it seriously

  5. Does it matter? If our political pressure has made it necessary to support this publicly, do we really care what he thinks privately? Isn’t that the whole point?

  6. Wow, while its a step in the right direction I’m so completely underwhelmed by his totally uninspiring way of explaining it. I think we should expect and demand some people with vision and balls to be running the joint not this wishy washy crap.

  7. To be honest his personal beliefs are total of no interest to me. His voting intention on the other hand is. Once full federal marriage equality is passed we can move on to some other minor issues like actual equality. Like the marginalization of our Trans and Intersex communities. Not to mention the total exclusion of them from the marriage equality discussion.

    • Total exclusion?? How are they excluded considering when a trans person legally changes their gender they can get married to the opposite sex and when we pass the gay side of things the same applys?
      Here is some reading for you…

      The bad news is that a pre-operative transsexual cannot marry a person whose sex is the same as theirs (which, legally, is usually the old sex on the pre-operative tranny’s birth certificate), despite being of opposite gender.

      The good news is that transsexuals can have a sex-change operation and then marry their now opposite-sex partners.

      The good news is that a pre-operative transsexual can marry her/his same-gender partner, as they are still legally of opposite sex.

      The bad news is that a post-operative transsexual cannot marry his/her same-gender partner, as they are legally of the same sex.

      The good news is that if a pre-operative transsexual (or pre-transsexual) marries someone of the opposite sex (and, for pre-ops, the same gender), there is no mechanism for dissolving the marriage on same-sex grounds. That is, presuming your partner is willing, there is no legal reason why you cannot stay married even after it becomes a same-sex marriage. The law makes it clear that marriage in Australia is between a man and a woman, and that same-sex marriages made overseas will not be recognised in Australia. There is no such non-recognition legislated however for couples who are a man and a woman when married but this changes.

      So nyah, nyah, nyah, transsexuals can marry whomever they want, providing they are willing to have surgery if that’s necessary to make them an “opposite-sex” couple, or to get married while still pre-op, if that’s what’s necessary to make them an “opposite-sex” couple.

      Feel free to google plenty of info out there on the subject.