MPs won't jump on same-sex bandwagon

THE mounting evidence is that the Greens-led "bandwagon" strategy to introduce same-sex marriage backed by wide sections of the Labor Party has provoked strong resistance and is unlikely to prevail in the current parliament.

In a conspicuously under-reported event this week 30 MPs reported to parliament on the earlier motion moved by Greens MP Adam Bandt for community consultation, with 20 signalling their rejection of same-sex marriage and only seven MPs giving support to change the marriage law.

While it cannot offer a definitive guide, the omens are apparent. The same-sex marriage campaign is running into heavy weather guaranteed to get worse. Senior Labor ministers pledged to the same-sex marriage cause concede it is most unlikely to pass this term. This means further polarisation around the issue with Greens spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young telling The Weekend Australian she will proceed next year with her bill and aims to get a co-signatory from both Labor and Liberal.

The battlelines are now entrenched. The Greens will not cease their campaign from one parliament to the next and have made this cause pivotal to their identity. The Labor Party is dangerously divided, probably for the long run, over same-sex marriage, with a strong push at the coming ALP national conference to change policy to a conscience vote.

And Tony Abbott, in response to questions, said he viewed the issue as a policy matter. That means the Coalition will vote against same-sex marriage on policy grounds without a conscience vote (individuals have the right to cross the floor). Abbott's is the critical decision.

Frankly, it is hard to see parliament legislating same-sex marriage while Abbott is Liberal leader. Hanson-Young said she believed the new law "is achievable this term" but her proviso was a Coalition conscience vote.

Parliamentary sentiment at present would be opposed, with enough Labor MPs joining the overwhelming numbers on the Coalition side to vote against same-sex marriage. Despite the bandwagon effect driven by the gay lobby, the Greens, Get Up! and media organs led by the ABC and The Age arguing that religious prejudice is the main roadblock, a parliamentary majority may prove more difficult into the future than many assume.

There is, however, no doubt that opinion has moved and moved fast. This week's reports to parliament reveal strong backing for same-sex civil union recognition, notably from the Coalition side. This was simply not the case several years ago. The reality is that civil union recognition is there for the taking, but what was once seen as a significant advance for the same-sex cause is now largely dismissed as inadequate because the over-arching ideological goal has become same-sex marriage. Only time will tell whether this constitutes a serious tactical blunder.

Consider the position of former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull, one of the most socially progressive Liberals in the parliament. He is sympathetic to the same-sex cause, repeatedly urges his constituents to push for civil unions but stops short of advocating same-sex marriage.

The politics are long familiar but rarely learned: with the Labor primary vote less than 30 per cent this issue, like the republic or indigenous recognition, can be carried only by winning some conservative support. Yet the campaign from the Greens, Get Up! and much of the same-sex lobby only alienates conservatives. Anybody who doubts this should read this week's speeches from a range of Liberal, National and Labor MPs. These people, having voted in recent years to remove more than 80 items of discrimination against same-sex couples and being willing to back civil unions, are unimpressed at being branded as homophobic or religious nuts because they think marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Within the Labor Party, the dawn of political realism is arriving. The past year has seen a succession of journalists and celebrities telling Labor as a "no-brainer" to back same-sex marriage. Indeed, a number of state ALP conferences have called for the ALP at the national level to change its policy. It is now obvious, however, that same-sex marriage is a flammable issue for a weakened Labor government. Julia Gillard has been aware of this from the start.

The first risk for Labor is that it will be seen, yet again, as following the Greens agenda, a perception now poison in the electorate. The second risk is that Labor would elevate an issue on which the party is irrevocably divided. How smart is that? If the ALP national conference backed same-sex marriage, as many want, the Labor Party would split because a significant number of MPs would not accept such direction on their vote. In addition, this policy switch would constitute such a repudiation of Gillard's declared personal opposition to same-sex marriage that it would shake her leadership. The idea is political madness. That it has been entertained for so long within so much of the Labor Party and its forums is a commentary on its present malaise.

The conscience vote alternative will anger both sides but its sponsors, such as senior minister Anthony Albanese, a backer of same-sex marriage, seek to defuse and manage Labor's divisions while striking a formula that can be presented as allowing the parliament to legislate same-sex marriage in future years. An interesting feature of the debate is that the Labor Left, like the Greens, has moved beyond civil union recognition and will accept only same-sex marriage as the goal.

This week Bandt said the "report back" debate was a "very important step along the road to full equality". He said the universal sentiment in feedback to him was: why shouldn't someone marry the person they love?

Yet sentiments reported by MPs varied widely according to the disposition of the local member and the electorate with huge differences, for example, between Melbourne and Bundaberg. Bandt said yesterday with only 30 MPs involved the numbers were "not necessarily an accurate poll" of parliament's stand.

Those who spoke against same-sex marriage included Paul Neville (Nationals), who said his feedback was 595 to 14 against. He rejected as "ridiculous" the idea that support for traditional marriage was discriminatory. Chris Hayes (Labor) said his feedback was "overwhelming" against same-sex marriage and thus was his position. George Christensen (Nationals) backed the status quo and said his electorate had little interest in change. Kelly O'Dwyer (Liberal) said the Greens' campaign had been counter-productive, backed civil unions and said she was not yet convinced about the need for change. Alex Hawke (Liberal), a Christian, supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage. Shayne Neumann (Labor) said his feedback was "overwhelming" for marriage staying between a man and a woman. Mike Symon (Labor) did not support same-sex marriage and reported 93 per cent of feedback to this effect. Deb O'Neill (Labor) said 70 per cent of her feedback was for the status quo and the "depth of belief" of marriage as a man-woman union could not be overturned. Josh Frydenberg (Liberal) said relationships between same-sex couples were "equally special" yet "different", and did not constitute marriage, yet he backed civil unions. Others who opposed change included Darren Chester (Nationals), Luke Simpkins (Liberal), Alby Schultz (Liberal), Stuart Robert (Liberal), Scott Morrison (Liberal), Tony Crook (Nationals WA), John Murphy (Labor), Bruce Billson (Liberal), Kevin Andrews (Liberal), Mark Coulton (Nationals) and Paul Fletcher (Liberal).

Those who supported same-sex marriage besides Bandt included Graham Perrett (Labor), a Catholic who reported a narrow majority for change in his feedback, Andrew Leigh (Labor) who said "most people" who contacted him wanted change, Jill Hall (Labor) who said 78 per cent of her feedback was for same-sex marriage and Albanese who said "history was moving" but the task was to bring the community along. Sharon Grierson (Labor) backed change. Catherine King (Labor) did not declare but leans towards change. Andrew Wilkie (independent) was noncommittal, saying both supporters and opponents believed in the value of marriage. Rob Oakeshott (independent) was noncommittal, saying he would follow his community. Turnbull reported 73 per cent of his feedback favoured gay marriage, offered third party support for the idea but did not commit.

In these speeches there was a respect for both sides and recognition of passionate competing positions. The debate, contrary to media interpretations, showed the diligence of the MPs on either side. The focus now shifts to the ALP national conference, when Labor must determine its stand. The party is deeply divided but knows that letting same-sex marriage dominate its agenda would be seen as proof of its irresponsibility. It would expose Labor as obsessed about itself, not the issues facing the nation. Beyond this is the danger that dares not speak its name: that Labor's identification with same-sex marriage is actually an electoral negative, not the plus usually assumed. Senior ministers are split on the matter.

This step will constitute the starkest repudiation by the Labor Party of its long ties with the Christian tradition. Its abandonment of the traditional idea of marriage will disturb religious and non-religious people, many who have kept their heads down in the present climate of intimidation. More significantly, it will herald Labor's belief in a new social creed, that neither marriage nor child-rearing should be preferenced by a man-woman union or by the idea of fathers and mothers, just parents and different family types. In truth, the real debate has hardly begun.