Australians send a firm message to politicians with Yes vote

Vote Yes banners at Prince Alfred Park in Sydney. Photo: @WilliamBrougham, Twitter

Stop the shouting. The people have spoken. Australians can make mature decisions, respect other people’s points of view and get on with life.

By voting overwhelming in favour of gay marriage, Australians have sent a firm message to their politicians. After years of opportunistic, hypocritical and sometimes ugly debate — where certainly no political party and few individual politicians have managed to be true and consistent — voters have provided a clear path forward.

The final result of 61.6 per cent in favour and 38.4 per cent against shows Australians are ready for this landmark social reform by a factor getting close to two to one. Gay marriage was strongly supported in every state.

The turnout for a voluntary survey was outstanding. With near enough to 80 per cent of eligible voters having their say, the result carries great legitimacy and it vindicates the persistence of Malcolm Turnbull in finding an innovative way to give people their say after Labor and the Greens blocked Tony Abbott’s plebiscite compromise. We can safely presume the 20 per cent who didn’t bother with the survey are phlegmatic about the issue.

Woe betide our political class if they now seek to complicate this task and bog themselves in more delay and posturing over the implementation. Voters are entitled to expect a minimalist implementation of this reform before Christmas

As with any vote, activists and participants will look to find something in the results to support their arguments. The result has gone very much as expected, underscoring my view that Australians tend to be an accepting people. It is part of our fair go mentality.

While we can understand how the debate was seen by gays as an intrusion — a public dissection — of their very being, it is understandable that Australians wanted to have direct input into such a major social reform. Their overwhelming message, despite dissent and misgivings, is a public embrace.

This is the Australia we all know. For all the understandable focus by media and activists on extreme views and their occasional nasty expression, this process was handled maturely and respectfully by the vast majority — and remember this debate has occurred over at least five years, not just the last few months. The blocking of the plebiscite added an unnecessary partisan tinge.

Still, just as all the efforts of activists to paint us as a latently racist nation are overtaken by the lived experience of our matter-of-fact harmony, we have seen that homophobia is not the Australian norm. Support for gay marriage can be seen as act of acceptance; an act to remove any perceived discrimination and to invite gays and lesbians to share an institution previously put aside for heterosexual relationships alone.

This is not to dismiss the no voters and their religious beliefs or what they might see as their sensible conservative instincts to resist changes that could pose a risk to a foundational social contract. They expressed their view. But the point is that having considered these aspects of the debate, most decided that the benefits of tolerance and inclusion outweighed any risk of undermining respect for the institution.

The Dean Smith Bill, which was public before the postal survey, should form the basis of legislating same sex marriage. The James Paterson Bill goes too far in seeking to allow people to reject any connection to same sex marriage — in effect it allows people to discriminate against married same sex couples in a way that it is, rightly, illegal to do against unmarried gay couples.

Besides, there is scant evidence that any such incidents will arise. Australian florists, bakers and restaurateurs are more likely to be interested in selling flowers and food than imposing their religious beliefs of others.

Other understandable concerns about how free speech has been threatened on this issue are rightly the domain of other laws. Freedom of expression is a crucial and broad issue that does not need to be codified through gay marriage legislation.

The question put to the public was about legislating same sex marriage. That is what the parliament should do while simply ensuring no celebrant or church should be forced into breaking with their traditional or religious views. And even in the middle of its current shambles, the parliament should do this quickly, efficiently and without acrimony.

By Christmas we should be able to look forward to some long-awaited weddings — perhaps there will be a boom for florists — and it will nice to once again see rainbows and view them solely as a lovely treat from nature.