Why there should not be a conscience vote on gay marriage

Why there should not be a conscious vote on gay marriage.

There are periods in history that all political parties face issues that will forever define them. For the United States Republican Party it was slavery. For the Democratic Party in the United States it was the adoption of Keynesian economic frameworks, particularly the New Deal under Roosevelt and the Great Society under Johnson. For the Australian Labor Party it was arbitration.

We are now at a crucial moment in Australian history, will we honour and defend our pluralistic society or allow religious intolerance to dominate our mainstream political parties?

At the heart of the struggle is a very simple concept: will we provide human dignity to homosexuals by providing recognition of their relationships and family life equal to that we provide to heterosexuals?

We say that human rights provide equal recognition and protection without discrimination on the basis of sex, religion, age, political beliefs, race or sexual preference.

Why is it that mainstream politics baulks at the provision of the same rights and protections for homosexuals?

Why is it that a homosexual's love of their partner is not afforded the same status as a heterosexual's?

The Australian Labor Party has a proud history of embracing a modern secular pluralistic society. So too have elements of the Liberal Party.

However, our history abounds with religious organisations attempting to subvert our cultural and proud support of a pluralistic society. In the 1950s we had the Movement led by B.A. Santamaria attempting to control Australian unions to deliver a Christian Democratic society. Thankfully the broad Labor movement was successful in resisting this intolerant crusade.

However, Tony Abbott, one of his disciples, has taken control of the Liberal Party hence any chance of bipartisanship on gay rights is impossible. The Christian soldiers have a mission to end our secular society and unless they meet opposition they will continue their crusade.

Gay activists are lobbying the ALP for a conscience vote. This is a mistake. We should demand that elected representatives legislate to provide equal status and protection for homosexual relationships. Providing the ability for a conscience vote on a fundamental human right is intolerable. To suggest that it is OK for elected Labor representatives to succumb to the power of the Christian crusaders and abandon fundamental human rights would be a tragedy.

This sort of weakness to take a principled stand can only lead to further erosions of human rights.

We have already seen the major parties lacking the courage to conduct a senate inquiry into the Church of Scientology. This is an organisation invented by a science fiction writer with serious accusations raised against it, not only here but also in France and other nations.

In Queensland the influence of the religious right saw the Bjelke-Petersen Government ban an education program called MACOS. The Queensland Labor Party did not shirk from attacking this crude censorship.

To fight the crusaders and missionaries requires strength and conviction of principles. Not pragmatic compromise or cowardice.

The fundamental principle of a pluralistic society is that there should be no barrier to election to parliament based on a person's religious beliefs, but the quid pro quo is the parliamentarian's religious beliefs should not be foisted on the population at large through laws that restrict or impinge upon the freedoms or rights of others.

The leader of the Christian Soldiers in the ALP, Joe De Bruyn has said "I see it as particularly dangerous for the Labor Party to be contemplating supporting gay marriage. I can't understand why anyone in the Labor Party would be pushing for it."

He said Nationals senator Ron Boswell had been "dead right" in saying Labor backers of gay marriage would not have the support of people in the front bar of working class pubs. "Out in the real world people do not want this. It's an issue of interest in a few inner-city seats only."

I think punters out in the real world or in the front bar of working class pubs are more concerned about penalty rates being traded off by out-of-touch union leaders who are meant to be representing their interests.

But more importantly as the majority of Australians support gay marriage, why is that those that wish to foist their morality onto the rest of society have to hide behind the stereotyping of blue collar workers.

We see this on issues of race, refugees and homosexual rights, it is simply dog whistling to disguise their own views.

There is no place for redneck intolerance in the ALP, it's because of the Joe De Bruyns of the world that Labor has suffered a collapse in its primary vote.

Joe, I am sure if you were in 1930 strolling through some beer halls in Munich you would have found support for Nazis prosecution of gays, Jews, communists and Trade Unionists, that does not make it right.

The cowardice De Bruyn is showing is the same cowardice shown by moderates in Nazi Germany that allowed the prosecution of minorities to flourish.

The Labor party needs to show courage to take a principled stand against the Christian soldiers. Bigotry shrouded in the cloth of religion is still bigotry.

We see the same Christian soldiers condemning the evils of gambling yet see organised religion inflicting parasitic tithes targeted to those in society in desperate circumstances, are the Christian soldiers really concerned about the impact of the lives of the gamblers or do they see gambling as a rival to their precious revenue stream and power.

Quite simply the Labor Policy should support equal recognition of homosexual relationships under the law. Those Labor politicians who cannot support this basic Human Right should leave.

We should not support a conscience vote on intolerance and bigotry.