John Howard changed the Marriage Act in 2004, surely Malcolm Turnbull can change it in 2015

BACK in 2004, John Howard did something bold. Now, Malcolm Turnbull could get rid of a big political issue by doing the same thing. Why won’t he?

PM Malcolm Turnbull during Question Time in the House of Representatives Chamber, Parliament House in Canberra.

OPINION

MY best friend, one of the mainstays of my existence, one of the strongest, funniest, silliest people I know, is gay. She has an amazing partner. They have a baby boy. He is beautiful.

He is so beautiful I could happily baby-nab him, which I should not admit in a national publication, but I think they know this and forgive me for it, and carefully check every night to make sure I am nowhere near the house.

They are one of the most stable, loving, amazing couples I know. They have been through hell on earth to get to this stability. Why is their sexual orientation relevant? It shouldn’t be. I don’t say whether they are Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish. I don’t say whether they are black or white. Because none of those things matter when it comes to their right to get married in this country.

The fact they are gay still does.

Tim Ross was one of many celebrities to turn Facebook into a rainbow.

Em Rusciano also showed her support for marriage equality.

In June this year, I proudly helped turn Facebook into a rainbow, as the LGBT community in the US were granted the right to same-sex marriage under the Constitution. I will never forget the closing paragraph of what is now known as the Obergefell v Hodges ruling, made by Justice Kennedy:

“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfilment for themselves.”

I cried. One of my dearest friends, a woman I call my sister, whom I refer to with love as ‘wifely’, and who, like me, has a truly horrible degenerative disease, could get married — if she wanted to. Her sister, as a Texan, had married her fiancee not long before in California as they could not marry in their home state. They were now legal in all 50 states. Hooray!

Surely I thought, Australia now HAS to follow. We can’t let the US, those bloody All Blacks, and Ireland, keep ahead of us! We’re too strong, free and Mardi-Gras fabulous!

Because in May, Ireland, one of the staunchest Catholic nations in the world — 90 per cent of state schools are still run by the Catholic Church, and baptism remains a preferred requirement for entry — said a resounding yes to same-sex marriage. This is a nation where abortion remains illegal, unless it is performed as a medical intervention to save the life of the mother.

We are loud and proud at the Mardi Gras but say no to same-sex marriage. Picture: Jeremy Piper

We’re strong, free and Mardi-Gras fabulous. Picture: Jeremy Piper

Ireland. Yes to marriage equality. America — a country where there is still such deep-seated racism that men like Dylann Roof felt he had ‘no choice’ but to kill nine beloved elders of a black South Carolina church community — yes to marriage equality.

Despite being held up as a purported model of humanity with our hard stance on gun control, and our understanding that life circumstances need to be considered when it comes to termination of pregnancy, not just medical risks — Australia — no.

This week, in a Parliamentary tango with the party line, Malcolm Turnbull, a man I have a great deal of personal and public respect for, made it quite clear that until 2017, we are highly unlikely to. How? By announcing the decision on marriage equality will be made not by the government changing the Marriage Act, but — potentially — and I stress potentially, as a plebiscite does not bind the government to act — by one of the most costly and useless exercises Australian bureaucracy is capable of.

This is, of course, if the current government stays in power. My best friend, my beautiful, brave, funny best friend, and her gorgeous partner, stay in limbo until then. Officially, that is. I know they are married to each other in heart and body.

I am not going to even pretend to be a political journalist. I find distinguishing the variances of (and explaining) the minutiae of plebiscites and referendums intensely irritating and I did so in first year law, which perhaps partly explains why I am not practising said profession now.

A public plebiscite. So myself, and all of Australia, can say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a question on marriage equality. A question. Not a change of law; a question on whether or not the government should change the law.

As their friend, and as a member of the great unwashed, should I be deciding whether my best friend and her partner, and all same-sex couples who want to be legally married, can or cannot, simply because of their sexual orientation?

Is there a question being posed at the same time as to whether they — or any Australians — have the right to legally practice black magic (as far as I know they don’t)? Whether they — or any Australians — raise their son as an atheist, a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian?

No; because none of these things are any of my, or our, business. None of these things affect my happiness, my freedom, or impede my living a normal, peaceful, life, as they don’t affect any other Australian, unless my friends started imposing their beliefs in a forceful or violent way on others.

No religious group or racial minority is denied the right to marry. Picture: AFP photo/Martin Bernetti

But the first one — the right to live as a married couple — that does affect their rights of freedom of choice, and their right to happiness. It affects their right to legally be equally as miserable as everyone else, with a potentially horrible gift registry.

It affects their son’s right to say ‘my parents have been happily married for 20 years’.

In 2015, because they are not heterosexual, they are not entitled to marry in a legal and binding ceremony in this country. No religious group or racial minority is denied this right. They will be denied this right for another two years.

Mr Turnbull said in his announcement of the plebiscite: “We will take the issue of same sex marriage to a popular vote. I have great faith in the decency and the common sense, in the humanity and the wisdom of the Australian people.”

Do you, Prime Minister? I read the comments on social media after your announcement. I also read the statements from some of your Senators, including that of a woman who considers herself ‘biracial and bilingual’. Hers in particular saddened me greatly; her comments on the impact same-sex marriage would have on Australian society were those of a person who clearly feels religion has a higher place in the decision-making process of this issue than fundamental legal rights.

This is not an Instagram moment, Malcolm. This is real life. So stop playing #partypolitics, and instead play fair. John Howard changed the Marriage Act in 2004. Surely you can change it in 2015.

And, to quote Justice Kennedy, become something greater than you once were.