Originally Posted by
psycho joe
Our parliament is meant to be a place in which there is a free exchange of ideas. Proposed legislation is meant to be hotly debated and passed or rejected based on its merits. For big ticket items, especially where parliament remains divided a smart parliament will take the issue to the people during an election. This is demanded by the electorate and assumed under our democracy.
On the matter of proposed SSM the parliament has failed abysmally. Any and all debate in the matter has been completely stifled to the extent that any mention of traditional marriage is howled down as some sort of bigotry. In the case of a parliamentary vote on the matter, on one side of parliament politicians have been ordered by their party to vote yes or else. On the other side politicians have been allowed a "conscience vote". A conscience vote means voting based on an individuals moral code rather than representing their electorate. I don't want this any more than you do. A parliamentary vote in this circumstance may be legal but would be considered and argued to be illegitimate. It would sit like a festering wound. If you find this present parliamentary situation acceptable then it stands to reason that the obverse is true and a future parliament could rescind SSM with the same level of disdain for process and community expectations.
The best option under these circumstances is to give the people a say through a plebiscite. Whilst it is true that a plebiscite is non binding it's also true to say that only an arrogant or extremely foolish parliament would go against the clear and express demand of the people. Let the debate happen. Let the legislation rise or fail on its merits.
On the question of Howard changing the marriage act. As I've said before this was simply inserting what was always assumed in the act and by society. If society has changed then that should be easily determined through the plebiscite.
The very nature of the definition of marriage is discriminating, it's also exclusive but within marriage is equality. Marriage is also between a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage, irrespective of what you want to call it. Just as Julia found that a man disagreeing with her is not misogyny, as much as she wished the definition to change to change. Seeking change on the grounds of perceived "inequality" is folly. If cohabiting gays in a committed relationship wish to have a legal tag then so be it. But it isn't "marriage" just as my dog can never be a camel. This is something that should be debated in an open discussion amongst the community.
Democracy.
Sorry but equality is equality. Allowing one class of persons (opposite sex couples) to marry but not allowing same sex couples to do so is inequality.
By the logic of 'robust debate' and 'democracy' are you therefore of the opinion that Abraham Lincoln should not have pushed for the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery but should first have held a plebiscite to see if African Americans should be given the same rights as white Americans because to do so without a plebiscite would run the risk of doing something without community support??? It could just as easily be argued up until that time that African Americans not being slaves and having the same rights as white Americans could 'devalue' white American rights. Equality is equality, it doesn't need a damn plebiscite to affirm it's validity. People in opposite sex marriages will get over it, just as they did when inter-racial marriage was legalized. All the same arguments were made against that too.