Warren Entsch MP rules out championing marriage equality if plebiscite doesn’t go ahead

Warren Entsch MP rules out championing marriage equality if plebiscite doesn’t go ahead
Image: Warren Entsch (Supplied photo)

FAR North Queensland MP Warren Entsch, who has been a vocal supporter of marriage equality for the past 14 years has revealed his commitment to the issue will not continue after the February 11 plebiscite.

Speaking to Star Observer, Entsch said the plebiscite was the closest the country has come to achieving marriage equality since he started campaigning on the issue and to not go ahead with a public vote on the issue would be a squandered opportunity.

“Quite frankly, I am over it, I just want to get it over with,” he said.

“My commitment (to marriage equality) goes until February 11. There’s a lot of other issues I’ve got to deal with… there’s transgender issues we need to address.

“These are the cards we’ve been dealt with and for the first time Australia has an Attorney-General and Prime Minister committed to making it happen.

“For God’s sake, give us some credit, we’ll make sure its right.”

Entsch warned the marriage equality issue has reached its peak and like other issues once it hits its peak interest in it “declines at an accelerated rate”.

In an opinion piece published in The Australian today Entsch wrote: “Every issue has its time in the sun, when the national conversation is at its peak. But when that moment passes, it can be years – or decades – before momentum again reaches the point for change. Marriage equality is no different”.

“You need only look at the poll figures to see where support for marriage equality is at – 62 per cent in favour and only 32 per cent against. The issue is white hot right now, and if not resolved on February 11th then I suspect many people will feel they have given it their best shot, and walk away to focus on other issues.”

The Liberal MP warned plebiscite opponents who want to wait to the next federal election in the hopes of Labor winning and then allowing a free vote in parliament on the issue that politics is an unpredictable game and they were taking a huge risk with that strategy.

“My crikey it’s a hell of a gamble,” he said.

“I think they’ve got to be careful what they wish for, there are those saying we’d wait another three years,  I’d remind them of the (John) Howard years. You couldn’t place a bet on Howard to win in 2001 and he smashed it

“If those are supporting marriage equality do not allow the plebiscite to go through, they’re going to have to accept some responsibility for the failure.”

La Trobe University professor Dennis Altman said he found it the Liberal Party would deny their own politicians a right to a free vote.

“A plebiscite is clearly an abrogation of parliament’s responsibilities; and it is particularly odd that the Liberals, who claim to respect individual conscience, are denying that to their own parliamentarians,” he said.

“But it appears the great majority of those who will be most affected do not want an electoral campaign around their relationships and I respect that.

“I have sympathy for Warren and others who have been out smarted by the right: the conservatives in government can now claim they want a plebiscite when what they really want it to defer any decision which they will almost certainly lose.”
Altman believes “marriage has now become a symbol of overall acceptance of sexual diversity”.
“I wish the marriage movement would now say fuck it, our relationships are equal to everyone else’s, and we don’t need the blessings of church and state to sanctify them… he said.”

While Entsch will always support marriage equality he has vowed not to be its “champion” after February 11, but he does believe if a plebiscite goes ahead, Australia will vote in favour of changing the Marriage Act.

“I personally believe we will be celebrating on February 11, we can toast with some champagne and celebrate that night, because it won’t take long to count the votes,” he said.

You May Also Like

6 responses to “Warren Entsch MP rules out championing marriage equality if plebiscite doesn’t go ahead”

  1. Neil – breeding biology does not necessarily define marriage as you suggest, nor has it for many years. Breeding has nothing to do with many marriages and whether gay people choose to create families by “other means” it takes nothing away from the core issue. Marriage is about two people’s commitment to each other – and that’s all there is to it.

  2. I disagree. We’ve been together for 36 years, and would love to be able to ‘tie-the-knot’, but not at the expense of the projected $170M to the taxpayers, when the parliament then have a ‘second’ vote to disregard any of the polling. A number of politicians have already stated that they we still vote no to Marriage Equality, even after the public’s vote. A waste of time and money. They liken the plebiscite to what the Irish vote was all about, wrong! Tricking the general public. In Ireland, they had a referendum that constitutes the government abide by the public vote. In a plebiscite, government are not bound by the public outcome, it’s more like a recommendation to the parliament, who can, and possibly will say no! The government have the power to vote this in, as stated by the High Court. John Howard changed the Marriage Act without a plebiscite, so they can do the same now. We will wait a bit longer for our ‘official’ vows.

  3. If we had a US style constitution & Bill of rights you wouldn’t need all this nonsense, if your a Secular Democracy as we frequently claim to be then you shouldn’t need stupid costly plebiscites or free votes politicians ought to just do their jobs based on a Secular Values and make it so no law abiding Australian is denied the right to participate in the social & legal institions of the country just because of some one else’s pathetic religious point of view, even convicted heterosexual murderers & rapist can get married there’s no ‘moral qualms’ about that, what’s immoral is that politicians claim to be secular and don’t promote Secular Values they’re just full of it… And you know what I mean there don’t you.

  4. This is utterly delusional. Yes, Malcolm Turnbull would have a hard time in the party room, but the idea that the public at large would not back him 100% if he for once acted in accordance with his known beliefs and instincts is rubbish. If he were to call upon Bill Shorten and a Richard Di Natali to join him in sponsoring an equal marriage bill tomorrow, everyone bar a few fruit loops in the Nationals and the outer fringes of your own party would applaud him to the rafters. His courage would win over the Australian people and sweep him back to power at the next election.
    People are not tired of the issue, they are tired of the silly games you and your party are playing with it. The plebiscite – thankfully now dead, whatever you may think – was the worst idea ever from our worst PM ever and should have gone overboard with him. By trying to stick with it when everyone else simply wants you to buckle down and pass marriage equality, and damn the lunatic tail that is wagging the LNP dog, you, the PM and the rest of you cowards on your side of the party are trashing not only your own reputations, but your party’s as well. Open your eyes and do the right thing.

  5. Australia already has marriage equality. The laws of marriage apply equally to every single Australian citizen. Every single Australian has the same right to chose from a range of people that he or she can marry – and are constrained by the same laws that prevent he or she from marrying. These are defined in the Marriage Act 1961: Section 5 defines marriage as being the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. This applies equally, to everyone. Section 23 defines those people who you cannot marry. For instance – a brother cannot marry his sister; And a daughter cannot marry her father; And Section 94 makes Bigamy an offence with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years. Now, all these laws pertaining to marriage apply just as equally to me as they do to any homosexual man and apply equally to my wife as they do to any lesbian woman – it’s just that homosexual men and lesbian women choose not to marry this way. Marriage is always a choice. So where is the “marriage inequality” to which same sex marriage types continually refer?…..The real issue is not to be “equal” at all (they already are), but rather what they want is to broaden the range of people that anyone can marry by re-defining the word “marriage” – that is all. They want to be able to marry people of their own sex where that is currently not permitted and this is a restriction that equally applies to all (yes….equality already exists). So both the ABILITY to marry is applied equally to everyone and the RESTRICTIONS applies equally to everyone. There is already marriage equality. But same sex marriage proponents dress it up as a grievance using emotional poetry and propaganda so that you can milk the issue to deceive as many people as they can – mostly young people because they are more naive to political manipulations and easier to sway using emotive slogans. Try the simple $2 test. If you have one $2 coin or two $1 coins they are of equal value but they are not the same.
    The plebiscite is important, not just because it was an election promise to uphold the will of the people, but also because it addresses the legal definition of marriage which is about law and families – these are much plainer and much more boring than the emotive propaganda slogans of “equality”, “love” and “rights” (which are not relevant to changing the Marriage Act). Legal Marriage is solely a unique legal institution that joins law and biology. The rights, both written and assumed or extrapolated, exist to join a man and a woman and any children they may have. A gay man’s relationship with another man is already equal in love, in status & in respect but it is not identical: they cannot have a baby without a woman. Building the assumption into law that men have babies is insisting that law reject objective reality simply because that reality offends homosexuals. That is the nub of this and why same sex marriage cannot be “equal” with heterosexual marriage. Giving straight marriage to gay people sounds like generosity, feels like doing good but it fundamentally redefines a legal institution and then leaves that institution perfectly in place with an incompatible definition. That is a grenade going off in family law and while we know where some of the shrapnel goes, some of the effects won’t be seen until courts are asked to rule. Jurisprudence has a terrible habit of making lovely intentions into legal nightmares. Religious marriages are legally recognised as part of a religious service (including references to God). The current religious marriage certificate has the seal/signature of the church leader along with the official seal of the Commonwealth of Australia. No secular registry required. Religious marriages are under the very Act that the same sex marriage advocates seek to amend – so the re-definition of marriage affects all religious marriages that currently exist because it removes the inherent religious component. One of the rights found to accrue to married couples is the right to have children. Since same sex people can only vindicate this right to procreate using a surrogate, a woman, the ability of the government to do anything to regulate surrogacy must be severely curtailed by this legal change. The rights that accrue to same sex couples create a right for opposite sex couples too. Marriage is therefore fundamentally changed more and more as these legal ripples flow through into Law. Homosexuality is trying to become heterosexual by “willing it into existence”, but never the twin shall meet due to biology. Children are fostered or adopted into designer children for the confected lifestyle of their same sex parents….just luxury accessories to a lifestyle choice. Evolutionists and feminists see through all this too – the former see that it doesn’t “propagate the human species” and the latter see that any man trying to perform the role of a woman simply cannot cut it. Of course you are free to believe that the purchase of eggs, the rental of women, the removal of children from their birth mother are perfectly good ideas but honesty demands we face the consequences of making a bad trade unstoppable. We inevitably face another age of stolen children along with the damage that children face by not having a male and female input into their upbringing. Since same sex partners can never both be the biological parents of the child; they always require the State to vindicate their parenthood – that is all same sex marriage is. In the absence of “the natural” family, there can only be shallow, superficial, parent-indulging “legal parenthood”, with the State deciding between the various parties to the child’s birth and custody. This discarding of “the natural” for “the legal” will apply to all subsequent marriages, even of men and women, with “the natural” having no real meaning in law. This is a massive change that transfers huge, dangerous power to the government. Constitutions protect us not from the government we have, but the one we will have. The Marxist agendas are being exposed by people pushing for same sex marriage and “gender fluidity” – they see it as a way for governments to control families and parents are told to stay out of raising their children. We already see incestuous and polygamist marriages being pushed in other countries where same sex marriage has become legal. The “slippery slope” argument never goes away because it is undeniably real and relevant. It might be argued that this is an expansion of marriage, that the same sex couples can be given marriage without affecting the legal institution for other two gender couples. This is obviously not true as the changes effected in law by taking gender out of marriage but leaving marriage at the centre of family law are too obvious. Equality simply cannot be applied to same sex and opposite sex relationships in this way because the former lacks the biological capabilities of the latter – it is their biology that makes marriage unequal…..and any attempt to make man-man “sex-based” marriage (with multiple partners and group sex mixed in) exactly the same as a man-woman “family-based” marriage for life hits the iceberg of biology.