No to marriage equality in Australia - unrepresentative democracy

However, when elected representatives enter Parliament their intentions and loyalties change as they succumb to the prescriptive reality of parliamentary party politics. A few snapshots of key politicians illustrate how the democratic process is attenuated, as idealism, commitment and best intentions are compromised by the pragmatism and expediency of adversarial politics in Parliament.

On the issue of marriage equality, the wishes of a number of electorates were gauged from reputable public opinion polls, over time. When installed as a Member of the Coalition in Parliament, Ms Gambaro abandoned the commitment in her maiden speech to be the voice her electorate, by conforming to the prescribed "No" vote of the LNP. In so doing she forwent the opportunity for a conscience vote which would have allowed her to consider the wishes of her electorate.

Ms Gambaro voted against marriage equality, despite the fact that 73% of her electorate were in favour. Furthermore, it has been suggested that her strong personal beliefs in Catholicism prevented her taking a non-religious stand on this (civil/secular) matter. Parliamentarians should be more circumspect about their personal religious bias in this context. We are talking here about the social reality of civil marriage in secular Australian society today.

The quest for (civil) marriage equality is about: firstly, equality, legitimacy and recognition, based on an entitlement to natural justice, procedural fairness and human rights; and secondly, preventing discrimination and social prejudice. This statement is consistent with that part of the definition of "democracy" (above) which refers to:

....a state of society characterized by normal equality of rights and privileges.

Thus the unkept pledge in Ms Gambaro's maiden speech has come to sound hollow and untrustworthy, and undermines her credibility as the Member who vowed to voice the wishes of her electorate of Brisbane.

Take the case of Malcolm Turnbull who polled his Liberal electorate to gauge public opinion. A clear majority were in favour of same-sex marriage (68 %). On many public occasions Turnbull has been forthcoming in his support of same-sex marriage and has acknowledged that community views on this issue were changing. He has spoken out in support of marriage equality in Parliament. But when it came to changing the Marriage Act, he was not prepared to make the big call of resigning from Shadow Cabinet which would have allowed him to cross the floor, follow his conscience and represent the clear majority view in his electorate. He voted against the Amendment.

Prime Minister Julia Gilliard's stand is puzzling. She has repeatedly stated her opposition to same-sex marriage:

We believe the Marriage Act is appropriate in its current form, that is recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman, but we have as a Government taken steps to equalize treatment for gay couples.(Emphasis added)

However, it is unclear just who the "we" are, because she seems unaffected by the results of a Senate inquiry which drew 75,000 submissions and which resulted in a clear majority supporting same-sex marriage (44,000 in favour and 31,000 against). She is also out of step with public opinion in her own electorate of Lalor, where many more are in favour of same-sex marriage than against (45% in favour, 34% against, and 21% don't care.).

This calls into question the coherence and integrity of the PM's personal position. Consider reported statements the PM made during a dinner held at the lodge with marriage equality advocates earlier this year. Present at the function were three same-sex couples. and the PM's partner, Tim Mathieson. During the course of the dinner the PM indicated that marriage equality in Australia was "inevitable". She also led the group to believe that her opposition was not immovable. Furthermore, the PM virtually admitted that Australia's lagging behind the increasing number of developed Western nations which have already granted same-sex marriage laws, was putting increasing pressure on Australia to come on board. She pointed out that as more countries embrace this reform, it will become increasingly apparent that this is a reform whose time has come. Following the dinner, it was reported that, "The Prime Minister listened carefully to the case for equality, and gave us all hope when she said the reform would happen one day." On the day the PM voted against the amendment. How can her electorate know who or what she is representing on this issue?

In Queensland, it seems principles and promises delivered on the hustings gave way to pragmatics and expediency in Government.