This morning’s Sydney Morning Herald editorial (“Tanya Plibersek’s Misstep Threatens Progress on Samesex Marriage”), which attacks Deputy Opposition Leader Tanya Plibersek for calling for an ALP binding vote for marriage equality, is misguided and mistaken – about as misguided and mistaken as its pre-2013 Federal Election editorial (you know, the one where they advocated for the Australian people to vote to make Tony Abbott Prime Minister).
The editorial itself appears to be making two main arguments, both of which are wrong:
- That Ms Plibersek’s call for an ALP binding vote will prevent the Liberals from adopting a conscience vote. This is a complete misdirection of blame.
The editorial implies that what Labor does on this issue (ie whether it binds, or retains a conscience vote) will determine what the Liberals do. Except that we have already had three and a half years of an ALP conscience vote on marriage equality (during which legislation to introduce it was heavily defeated), and the Liberals have yet to even properly debate it.
The only people who are able to decide whether there is a Liberal Party conscience vote on this issue are Tony Abbott and the members of the Liberal party room; the last time I checked Ms Plibersek didn’t have a vote there. And, even if the ALP votes as a bloc, the last three and a half years clearly demonstrates there is nothing to prevent the Liberals from simultaneously granting their MPs a free vote.
If the Herald is so concerned about the lack of progress on a Liberal Party conscience vote on marriage equality, perhaps they should apportion responsibility for this where it belongs – to Tony Abbott and his Liberal Party colleagues, and no-one else.
- That Ms Plibersek’s call for an ALP binding vote is an imposition on the freedom of conscience of her Labor Party colleagues. Once again this completely misunderstands the issue.
What the Herald is really trying to say is that forcing ALP MPs and Senators to vote for marriage equality even where their personal religious beliefs do not support it is an unacceptable imposition on their freedom of religion.
Except that it is not. Nothing in any marriage equality legislation proposed to date would compel any religion to conduct same-sex weddings, or to recognise those marriages within their religion.
If those churches – and the parliamentarians, including some inside the Australian Labor Party, who are members of them – do not want to support marriage equality within their religion, they will be absolutely free to continue to do so.
All that marriage equality legislation would do is amend the secular law of this country to ensure that it does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. It will allow those Australians for whom marriage is not a religious institution (and, with 72.5% of marriages conducted by a civil celebrant in 2013, that is an overwhelming majority of the country), including LGBTI Australians, to be able to choose whether to marry, or not, for themselves.
And, just as importantly, it would recognise the freedom of religion of those faiths and churches who wish to be able to marry LGBTI-inclusive couples, to do so too.
The alternative, to suggest that the personal religious beliefs of individual ALP MPs and Senators is a justification for them to withhold the right to marry from an entire class of people, from their fellow citizens, simply because of who they love, is not freedom of religion – it is the imposition of a particular religious view on the rest of country.
And that is what is unacceptable in this debate.
So, no, Sydney Morning Herald editor(s), Tanya Plibersek has not made a ‘misstep’ in calling for a binding vote for marriage equality, and she has definitely not derailed progress.
What Ms Plibersek has done is stand up for the principle that the secular law of this country should finally recognise the equality of our relationships, irrespective of who we are.
What Ms Plibersek has done is call for the Labor Party to support the human rights of all Australians, and to do so through collective action, because fundamental equality should not be optional, and because there is absolutely no reason why the ALP, which binds its parliamentarians on nearly all issues, should not bind on marriage equality too.
What Ms Plibersek has done is stand up for the values of me, and thousands of other lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI), as well as progressive, members of the Labor Party, and the labour movement more broadly, who are pushing for this change to happen at National Conference in Melbourne in July.
And, contrary to the assertions in the editorial, that is not a failure to demonstrate leadership – instead, this is exactly what leadership looks like. It is a profound shame that the Sydney Morning Herald cannot recognise it.
(To read the full Sydney Morning Herald editorial, click here: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-editorial/tanya-pliberseks-misstep-threatens-progress-on-samesex-marriage-20150428-1mut6z.html )