Rita Panahi: Please let voters end gay marriage circus
JUST about everyone in the country is thoroughly sick of the same sex marriage debate. It’s time voters were given the chance to put this issue to bed, writes Rita Panahi.
Rita Panahi
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rita Panahi. Followed categories will be added to My News.
- Turnbull Government facing legal challenge over same-sex marriage
- James Campbell: Liberal’s ability to resolve gay marriage question now hostage to High Court
- What is a postal plebiscite?
JUST about everyone in the country, other than Bill Shorten and the commentariat, is thoroughly sick of the same sex marriage debate.
Whether you are pro- or anti-gay marriage chances are you don’t share the political and media class’s unending obsession with the issue.
If you’ve had the misfortune of watching Q&A or The Drum on the ABC you’d see the depths of the obsession now afflicting segments of Malcolm Turnbull’s malfunctioning government.
It’s a fixation that trumps all other concerns, including the ballooning national debt, energy policy, taxation reform and matters relating to immigration, national security and cost of living.
That the Liberals have allowed a small, unremarkable group of mediocre MPs to hijack the Coalition’s agenda says a great deal about the malaise infecting the once great party of Menzies and Howard.
Personally, I couldn’t give a flying continental about changing the Marriage Act. As an unmarried atheist it doesn’t impact my life or sensibilities one iota if gay men and women are permitted to marry.
Indeed, I see plenty of positives for individuals, the community and the economy in allowing people in committed relationships to be lawfully married.
Polls show the majority of Australians are in favour of gay marriage but most also want a national vote on the issue with only 23 per cent wanting parliament to decide, according to last month’s Essential poll, which followed a Newspoll that showed more voters back a plebiscite than having politicians decide.
Yet, we have much of the media and LGBT activists fighting against a national vote. The same people who celebrated the Irish voting for SSM think Australians aren’t sophisticated enough to discuss it without resorting to “hate speech”.
The argument that a debate would unleash bigotry is backward malarky and denies the reality that Australians have been discussing SSM for years.
Another popular argument against a plebiscite, traditional or postal, is the cost; it’s been amusing to watch economically illiterate media pundits suddenly overcome with concern about government spending.
If Turnbull wasn’t so utterly hopeless at putting forward a succinct argument he could put pressure on Shorten and Labor to back the plebiscite or hold them accountable for standing in the way of democracy and a clear path to SSM.
If it weren’t for Labor and the Greens blocking the plebiscite, SSM would likely be a reality today. Labor not only failed to act on the issue when in government from 2007-13, but under Shorten it has blocked a plebiscite that would’ve delivered marriage equality.
And yet it’s the Coalition tying itself in knots with party room divisions and plan Bs.
The arguments against the postal plebiscite range from the sound to the hysterical. Fears of young people unfamiliar with “snail mail” being disenfranchised are best ignored but concerns of a High Court challenge should give the government pause.
If it cannot have a traditional plebiscite then spending $122 million on a voluntary postal plebiscite that would face legal challenges seems a recipe for prolonged disaster.
It’s astonishing that the Liberal Party is destroying itself over a second-tier issue of limited importance to its base and one where its political opponents are wide open for criticism.
Extraordinary, too, is that Turnbull’s own “moderate” faction is the one causing him the greatest damage. Meanwhile, the man most likely to be Australia’s 30th prime minister has struck gold in facing a rudderless government hellbent on self-harm.
The truth is that as a senior minister in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments Shorten stood by Labor’s anti-same-sex marriage policy. In 2013 Shorten supported a national vote and said he was “completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite” on SSM.
“I would rather the people of Australia could make their view clear on this than leaving this issue to 150 people,” Shorten said
Other Labor figures also lack credibility on the issue, including leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong, who despite being an openly gay minister in a long-term relationship argued against SSM when serving under PM Julia Gillard.
On Tuesday, Turnbull said he would vote “yes” in the plebiscite.
The government has a mandate for a plebiscite and it’s time voters were given the opportunity to put this issue to bed.
Rita Panahi is a Herald Sun columnist
Human cost of pandemic goes much further than virus
Whether you are pro or anti-lockdown the grim, unintended consequences of the fixation on coronavirus are undeniable, as other diseases — including cancer and heart disease — go unchecked, and despair from joblessness, poverty and financial stress rises, writes Rita Panahi.
Will buck really stop with Dan after disastrous decisions?
While Daniel Andrews repeats the “we’re all in this together” mantra, the reality is only the private sector is making huge financial sacrifices as he refuses to face up to scrutiny over the hotel quarantine fiasco and contact tracing chaos, writes Rita Panahi.