Time for compromise on same-sex marriage

There is merit in both approaches. But either way also has its problems.

Even though a plebiscite is entirely justified and is the only assured way to effectively resolve a matter of such social importance, there is sure to be disagreement over the question to be put and the balance and fairness of the for and against campaigns, and with all the rancour and divisive issues to which it will give rise.

 Similarly, if the matter were to be determined by Parliament the question must be asked as to whether it is ethical for each member to be exercising his and her personal ‘conscience’ vote on a profound moral issue for every one of their constituents who has an opposing ‘conscience’ view to that of the member? 

It would also be electorally risky especially in those electorates where the member holds the seat by a small margin and may well suffer a backlash.

As well, the debate and the outcome could be much more divisive in the ‘ramming’ of the matter through Parliament and ‘down the necks’ of everyone who disagrees with it. To do so by conscience or by political expediency, would be seen as a travesty.

Finally, if the reader has acknowledged this analysis so far then it is time to turn to what alternative approach the process might take by way of sensible compromise and resolution.

Put simply: leave the Marriage Act and the definition of traditional marriage alone and recognise same-sex unions in their own act of parliament with their own definition of their own kind of marriage.

Now before someone starts crying “discrimination!” consider this: As recently as 2013 when the ACT introduced an act to recognise same-sex marriage which the Commonwealth Government successfully challenged in the High Court as unconstitutional, the organisation representing the interests of same-sex unions, Australian Marriage Equality Inc, appeared in the hearing of that matter in support of that act being deemed valid. 

That being so, there could be no objection by the gay lobby to the Federal Parliament introducing a Bill in similar terms, distinguished from the provisions of the Marriage Act and with a separate definition to the effect that, eg, “marriage for the purpose of this act shall mean the union of any two persons of the same sex…”

There are more than 25 countries and states that have recognised same-sex unions in similar ways without changing the definition of marriage. To insist on some illusory notion of equality in all respects simply defies logic.

Nor could there be any valid objection by the ultra-conservative right to this approach as the Marriage Act and the definition of heterosexual marriage would not be touched. Their opposition would be simply ideological.

Such solution should be acceptable to any thoughtful, reasonable and objective-minded person. It would certainly attract much greater support for the cause of same-sex marriage in any plebiscite if one were to be held on that option, whilst the margin of support over any opposition based on a conscience vote in the Parliament would be less acrimonious and vastly more acceptable to the electorate.