Same-sex marriage not a vote winner

None of the election commentary I have heard in the past 24 hours has mentioned the role played by one of the most prominent of Kevin Rudd's campaign issues.

At the first leaders' debate, Mr Rudd surprisingly catapulted same-sex marriage to front and centre of the campaign promising to legislate within 100 days of being elected.

He was asked about it at the second debate, a 'peoples' forum' in Brisbane. Instead of addressing the question he went straight to what he must have begun to realise was a big vulnerability for him on the subject – religious freedom.

Even though the questioner made no mention of religion, Rudd's reply was all about how churches would be exempt from providing "marriage equality" by way of church weddings for same-sex couples.

Those of us who have been following this debate in the small number of countries overseas who have gone down this path are well aware of the vulnerabilities to religious freedom that same-sex marriage has opened up.

It is clear that the idea that churches and people of conscience will be exempt from "marriage equality" ideology is fanciful.

That Rudd could be so naïve about this and other consequences of changing the definition of marriage is testament to the power of the simplistic campaign being run by same-sex marriage advocates which have captured large swathes of the Labor Party.

But despite being a centre-piece election promise, same-sex marriage didn't rate a mention by Rudd at Labor's launch the week before polling day.

However, he did bring it up again last Monday in a special video message played at ACL's election webcast to the Christian constituency.

In it he admitted he had disappointed Christians by changing his position on marriage. His tone was muted and conciliatory.

However, by 10:30pm it was a very different Rudd bullying pastor Matt Prater on ABC1's Q&A.

Suddenly same-sex marriage was front and centre again for the remainder of the last week of the campaign.

Labor strategists must have been tearing their hair out. They would have been aware that same-sex marriage barely rated with focus groups.

Rudd was off message and off the reservation – alienating a constituency that even his non-religious predecessor Julia Gillard thought was important enough to engage with constructively.

Despite the incredibly high profile during the campaign of same-sex marriage, it is now clear that it was not a vote winner for Labor or even the party of same-sex marriage, the Greens.

Labor achieved its worst primary vote in 100 years and the Greens went backward by 3pc.

Sure the Greens will increase their Senate numbers but this is because of bizarre micro party preference deals, not because more Australians voted for them.

As well as Labor and the Greens campaigning for it, virtually all of the mainstream media support it and reported it extensively and favourably during the campaign.

Obviously there were many factors in Labor's defeat, unity being right up there. However, it is reasonable to conclude that same-sex marriage was not front and centre of voters' minds as they entered the polling booth.

So what does this mean post-election?

The same-sex marriage lobby are already planning to keep pushing the new Parliament for yet another vote. That is their right in a democracy.

But to brush aside Saturday's result and suggest it provided no indication at all on the public's feeling on one of the most high-profile issues of the campaign would be unfair.

Australiahas an opportunity now to move on from this debate but if same-sex marriage activists persist in the new Parliament, it should go back to the people again for the ultimate conscience vote in a referendum.

Australians have already demonstrated their tolerance and acceptance of same-sex attracted people and their relationships.

Reforms passed with bi-partisan support and backed by ACL in 2008 mean there is no discrimination against same-sex couples under Australian law. This is not widely known and is never mentioned by the gay lobby.

It is unnecessary to turn Australians against each other in the way Mr Rudd did last Monday night.

Q&A's colosseum-like atmosphere was reminiscent of the Labor national conference in 2011 when the party changed its policy to support same-sex marriage.

Like Matt Prater, good Labor people like Joe de Bruyn, Senator Helen Polley, Deb O'Neill and others were jeered as they valiantly tried to hold their party in the sensible centre on social policy.

There is plenty of ground for Labor to recover with Christian and other mainstream voters.

The Coalition's shock election-eve dumping of bi-partisanship on overseas aid has angered many in the Christian constituency. The Coalition underestimates the depth of feeling on this.

A good start to extricating itself from its political death roll with the Greens would be for Labor to put some distance between itself and same-sex marriage.