Fashion in the marriage debate

Or let's take Wayne Swan, who also voted against the marriage amendment bill in September 2012. Swan says that he once had a principled objection against the gay marriage, but has thought "long and hard" about it, and "realised he had it wrong".

Stop the press! Politician admits he was wrong!

Unfortunately, Swan's backflip is not a confession of humility, but rather a characteristically pragmatic decision to ingratiate himself with supporters and strengthen his political standing. Imagine if Julia Gillard were still in power, and still standing in opposition to gay marriage. How would Swan act? Swan is a savvy politician, but the motives for his deep commitment to "social equality" are dubious.

At least Tanya Pibersek has been consistent on gay marriage. She took a stance on gay rights during her student days at Sydney's most progressive university, UTS. She's kept to this position throughout her political career. Plibersek has campaigned tirelessly for gay rights since entering parliament in 1998. She raised the issue in parliament as early as 1999. Granted, she did say to the SMH in 2007 that "Labor does not support changing the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage". But politicians need to bide their time.

Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young recently chided Abbott for his "1950s views of marriage". The line seems to be that the 1950s world-view was steeped in prejudice, and its high time Australia sloughed off the remnants of this antiquated way of thinking. And sure, there's something to this. But the rhetoric of "time" is all too quickly used as a convenient excuse to trade in key moral beliefs for political brownie points.

Here's a thought on time: marriage is an age-old institution, much older than the 1950s. I'd say somewhere between 5000 years and 500,000 years, depending on how you interpret it. Should we really be so hasty to change it?

Some of you may say "yes". Fine. Everyone is entitled to his or her considered opinion. But even if you disagree with me on marriage, we can hopefully agree on this much: the rhetoric of 'time' is no excuse for jettisoning political integrity.