Labor shouldn’t adopt a binding vote in favour of gay marriage
LIKE almost everyone, I support marriage equality.
I hate the fact I’m legally equal to my peers in almost every way. The fact that I am almost equal is really just salt in the wound.
However, what I don’t support is a binding vote on Labor Party MPs in an attempt to make marriage equality a reality.
For me, it’s simply a matter of results. If we really want to achieve marriage equality, do we honestly think forcing people to vote in its favour will get us there? I think the answer is no.
The concept of binding for ALP MPs and senators is one in which they can be forced to vote a particular way, regardless of what they believe. You have an internal argument, one side wins, and then the whole caucus votes as a bloc.
It’s a crude tool but can be very effective.
But like any tool, you use it for a purpose. If the aim of binding is to secure marriage equality, then it will fail.
The goal has never been to get every ALP MP to vote for marriage equality. The goal is to get a marriage equality bill through Federal Parliament.
One of the better arguments for binding is that about 70 per cent of Australians support marriage equality, so just make it happen. But let’s not fall victim to our own success — it’s a number that’s open to misinterpretation. The simple reality is, those 70 per cent of people aren’t spread evenly across all 150 federal electorates. You will find some electorates, like Sydney, with incredibly high support. But you will also find plenty of areas with much, much less.
Saying there is 70 per cent support nationwide is not the same as saying 70 per cent of voters will vote for you if you support it. Voters have loads of issues going through their minds when they vote at the ballot box. Just because they support our cause for equality when a pollster rings, does not mean they will vote for it when it’s up against every other issue at election time. And that 30 per cent that are opposed to it? They are vocal. It’s easy to lose against a campaign of hate. This is an issue that will see the progressive movement lose seats to the conservatives.
MPs know how this can play out in their communities. Believe it or not, some don’t even care and are happy to vote for equality if it means losing their seat. And that’s great — they’re standing up to discrimination and are happy to pay a price.
However, 70 per cent public support won’t make equality happen.
What we need is at least 76 of the 150 MPs in the lower house to vote for it. Only 55 of the 150 belong to the ALP. A strong majority of this 55 already support marriage equality. There are also those who quietly support it and will vote for it if they think it will win but aren’t willing to cop the community backlash for nothing. They want gain for their pain.
Assuming binding is 100 per cent effective (it isn’t), it will secure 55 ALP votes at best. In reality it will be less, as there are MPs who will revolt against being made to vote for something they so inherently disagree with.
Even assuming 55, that’s still well short of the minimum 76 votes needed to win. If we want equality, there’s only one way that’s going to happen and that’s if Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the Coalition allow a conscience vote.
For now, they are bound to vote against it. No matter if they want it or not, every Coalition MP has to vote against marriage equality, and that includes Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull, whose electorate has a very large number of gay residents.
Why aren’t we talking about that? And how are we supposed to get the Coalition to allow a conscience vote if the ALP is doing the exact opposite?
Tony Abbott and the Coalition need to get onboard. We need to get people talking about why the Coalition won’t support a conscience vote. It’s not good enough to just be a supporter of marriage equality, MPs within the Coalition need to become champions of equality.
All this talk of binding for ALP MPs is just playing at the edges and is avoiding the hard conversation: getting to 76 votes and winning.
We’re fighting the wrong battle. Binding isn’t the issue. It’s the Coalition.
I want to win. I want equality. But binding isn’t how we get there.
There are true champions for marriage equality out in the community arguing the case for binding, both straight and gay. Our cause will never be won without their help. We need it and we should all be grateful for it. But in this one circumstance, this one approach, I don’t agree with their tactics.
I’m over being discriminated against and I imagine it’s the same for you. Marriage equality is just one form of discrimination that we face on a daily basis. But this is important and we need to do it right.
If you are like me, and this isn’t about protesting but about winning, then we need to change minds — not bind them.
Jeffrey Von Drehnen is an active member of the ALP.
RELATED: IT’S TIME FOR LABOR TO DIVORCE FROM ITS AMBIVALENCE ON GAY MARRIAGE — by Drew Sheldrick
You May Also Like
Both the Labor party and the Liberal party are full of homophobic bigoted pricks and cunts!
The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association are currupt to the core see this story now!
On courier mail website and with headline called “royal commission into trade union governance and corruption told shop distributive and allied employees association had fund to fight election challenges.”
Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association is a terrorist organisation under a law I just passed!
Add: “Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association” to list of terrorism organisations.
Under the Terrorism Act 2005.
Add: “Tony Abbott, Fred Nile and Cory Bernardi” to the list of individual terrorists. Under the Terrorism Act 2005.
Australia will have marriage equality – when hell freezes over!
Omit – “when he’ll freezes over”.
Substitute: “effective from January 1, 2100”.
Australia will have marriage equality in 2025!
My party called the Australian Sex Party just got de-registered by the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission), because apparently the Australian Sex Party did not have a minimum of 500 members!
[May 2015 Marriage Equality Within Policy Political Party Positions]:
DO NOT EVER VOTE FOR THESE PARTIES – IF YOU SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY (5):
LIBERALS;
LABOR;
NATIONALS;
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATES; and
SHOOTERS AND FISHERS
DO PLEASE VOTE FOR THESE PARTIES EVERYTIME – IF YOU SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY (5):
SECULAR PARTY;
SEX PARTY;
GREENS;
LIBERAL DEMOCRATES; and
THE DEMOCRATES
Mr Von Drehnen is currently a chief of staff to a Shadow Parliamentary Secretary. Surely this is relevant information to allow readers to more accurately judge what he has written – and therefore I believe should have been disclosed by the Star Observer (beyond simply describing him as “an active member of the ALP”).
Yes
Written by an active member of the ALP- Who is compromising human rights over loyalty to the party- Thanks for selling me down the river you mug
Not a matter of life and death. Which is what the conscience vote is for.
“Doesn’t believe his party should be bound to vote for marriage equality” aka “doesn’t want his party outed as having too many vicious and powerful homophobes in his party”.
Well well well, the Star finds itself a pawn in the ALP’s internal power game over gay marriage, finally thrown open by Tania Plibersek’s call for the party to actively support it with a compulsory vote.
We all know that the ALP still habrours Catholic neanderthals like Joe de Bruyn who heads the powerful Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, and always uses his clout to shut down gay marriage and equality initiatives.
But please, if you are going to give opinion space to people like Jeffrey Von Drehnen, be sure you don’t let him describe him just as an active ALP member: he’s the media adviser to conservative catholic Senator David Feeney who got his place on the ticket because of support from guess who: Joe de Bruyn.
I too am an active member of the ALP, and frankly, Jeffrey, you’d be better off keeping your nose right out of this important issue and getting on with fighting the Abbott government, which is exactly what Tania’s initiative will do, in the nicest possible way.
Like Jonathon, I have no intention of getting married, I don’t believe in it as an institution, but this is not about marriage, it is about equality.
The job of the gay press is to support gay issues, and your piece doesn’t deserve the space it’s been given.
Labour had the chance but didn’t under Gillard or Rudd. Time for both major parties to go!
The Greens also had a chance too being in an alloance with Julia Gillard’s/Kevin Rudds Labor back in 2010 with balance-of-power in the Senate, but as per usual political power and a carbon tax (that did noting for Australia mind you) was way more important hey and they both said with one finger to us “fuck you gay people!”
Vote 1 Australian Sex Party (ASP)!
NEVER EVER VOTED FOR THE LIBERAL, LABOR, GREENS, NATIONAL, CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATES, SHOOTERS AND FISHERS! EVER!
Lets just abolish marriage by repealing the Marriage Act 1961 in Australia. Some US states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Montana and Oklahoma have just introduced bills to abolish civil marriages and marriage licences! I say lets just abolish marriage, it is much more easier than legalising same-sex marriage!
So true Simon. If equality is the core issue then there are other options to expolre. The “we-want-what-they’ve-got” approach isn’t working. Probably because it’s more like tokenism than equality.
SDA who are full of Catholics that continually oppose marriage equality have control over Labor party votes – will just influence the Labor Party conference, like they do every time over the past 136 years!
A mate of mine who is gay, said to me this exact quote the other day:
“The Labor Party is full of union communists bankrupting Australia and the Liberal Party is full of bigoted homophobic rich cunts! Both ban gay marriage back in 2004 and Australia as a whole is truly fucked! I do not need sex, the government fucks me everyday! I am now moving to New Zealand!”.
I am Member of the Australian labor party I support binding vote of marriage equality equality is core value of the party
SIMPLE:
1. DO NOT VOTE LIBERAL;
2. DO NOT VOTE NATIONAL;
3. DO NOT VOTE LABOR;
4. DO NOT VOTE SHOOTERS/FISHING;
5. DO NOT VOTE CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATS; and
6. DO NOT VOTE GREENS
These all oppose advanced LGBTI rights!
IF YOU WANT MARRIAGE EQUALITY AND ADVANCED LGBTI RIGHTS – ONLY VOTE FOR THE AUSTRALIAN SEX PARTY (ASP) ONLY!
What a joke this country really is! We are still debating this, come on for fuck sake – LEGALIZE IT!
I want to marry my partner of 4 years – it is a fucking god dam constitutional right as an Aussie citizen, who will just continually and every time vote for the Greens exclusively!
Vote 1 Greens!
Counting to 76 will be tough but counting to 39 may we’ll be tougher.
There are a lot of contestable assertions in this piece, including that there is a high risk of electoral backlash in a significant number of seats if the respective Labor MPs are compelled to vote for marriage equality. As each year passes, and the majority of the community in favour of marriage equality grows – right around the country, it must be added – and the number of those opposed correspondingly diminishes, that argument is less and less convincing.
Without any actual evidence for this backlash – and the author presents exactly none – I am not inclined to take his word for it. Certainly not enough to back down from demanding the Labor Party, of which I am also a member, treat this issue in the same way it treats nearly everything else, by having a binding vote.
The author also seems fixated on the current term of Parliament – and the fact Labor is stuck on 55 seats – and to this I would respond that:
a) It is unlikely that marriage equality passes this term, even if both sides have conscience votes, because the numbers just aren’t there (the main way it could pass is if Labor binds and the Liberals adopt a conscience vote) and
b) We are more than halfway through this term, and only 16 months away from the next federal election – the argument about binding is as much about the next term as this one and, if Labor binds and then wins in 2016, it means they can deliver marriage equality, irrespective of what the Liberals do. Which is exactly what our community would (quite justifiably) expect of a newly elected ALP Government.
Finally, the author seems to be keen to avoid the primary issue – and that is that, given marriage equality is about discrimination (something which, to be fair, he does at least concede), then it is completely inappropriate for individual ALP MPs and Senators to be given a ‘right’ to vote for the continuation of this discrimination. End of story.
Too often we can get caught up in tactics or strategy – if Labor does x, the Liberals might do y, and then z could happen. In my opinion, the Labor Party would be better off determining what the core principle is – in this case, that marriage law should not exclude people on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status – and stand on that. More often than not the rest will then look after itself.
Either the Labor Party believes in equality, which includes marriage equality, or it doesn’t. Then the people can choose who to follow. So far the Greens are the only main Party that support equality. Labor is a farce.
I agree with you, Jonathon … furthering equality, respecting the human rights and dignity of all human beings should not be a matter of conscious for an allegedly progressive party like the ALP .. it should be a moral imperative … IMO it’s high time BOTH major parties stopped playing wedge politics with our lives .. it’s simply untenable for the ALP to continue speaking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue .. not least because the moment they take a unified position on supporting Marriage Equality, it will become a crystal clear point of difference between the major parties which IMO will put Abbott under ever greater pressure to allow a conscious vote within the Coalition
equal rights are not a matter of conscience, the Labor party platform is already pro marriage equality therefore the vote should be uniform for the party
It does not stop members crossing the floor but at least, if they do, it shows they don’t support party policy
This hiding behind a conscious vote allows MP’s to defy their own electorates who support marriage equality as a majority
No Ian. If a ALP MP crosses the floor on any other issue they get EXPELLED. Why a issue this issue be any different? (Because they are filled with homophobes and those who protect them – abit like the cathlic church is with pedos).
No it does not mean they will be expelled, they may receive disciplinary action which does not mean expulsion
So let them be “disciplined” instead of applauded for being homophobes.
It’s as bad as being a homopbobe when you stand by and let them do as they please.
Just proves that ALP is just after inner city gay votes and they’re not really interested in equality for all.
Cec, I don’t understand your attitude
I think the Labor party should make their current pro marriage equality position as part of their platform and not subject to a conscience vote
The conscience vote is about the individuals MP’s feelings rather than what their electorate or party want, by removing that the the politician needs to explain exactly why they are against marriage equality without bringing their personal feelings into the debate
Ian, my “attitude” is that too many people are giving a the homophobic Labour Party a free ride. It’s like “my husband only hits me on Tuesdays and Thursdays so he’s better than the husband across the road who hits his wife everyday”.
The Labour Party has homopbobes lurking in there. The Labour Party also has people who will Protect those homophobes by giving them a “conscience” vote in this issue when they don’t get a conscience vote on ANY OTHER ISSUE. That’s homophobia. And it goes to the core of what they stand for.
Currently they stand for “we want the inner city seats back from the greens, but not at the expense of bogan western Sydney seats and we are prepared to break our own rules to get what we want”.
If they allowed conscience votes on all issues then no problem. But they only have it on this one.
Labour Party MPs are prepared to cross the floor to defy their party if they are forced to vote in favour. That’s how large their homophobia is.
And there are others trying to protect them to be able to continue with their homophobia.
Wow, you have a lot going on in that head of yours
And it is Labor not Labour
I’m an ALP member and I’ll be voting for a binding vote at the National Conference. There is no difference between this policy and any other policy therefore there is no need for a conscious vote. I have no intention of getting married, I don’t believe in it as an institution, but this is not about marriage, it is about equality.
(ICYMI from last week, here’s an opinion piece with an opposing view: https://starobserver.com.au/?p=135698)