Right: bitter debate between Senators George Brandis and Penny Wong has been a feature of the current controversy around gay marriage.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments in favour of holding a gay marriage plebiscite
1. The last federal election gave the government a mandate for a plebiscite
One of the bases on which democracies operate is that parties put policies and proposed actions before the electorate at an election seeking popular support for them.
The party which achieves a majority then considers it has the sanction of voters to implement these policies and perform these actions. Having voter support for a policy is referred to as having a mandate. Some claim that this mandate should not only guide the actions of the elected government; it should also shape the behaviour of the opposition. Therefore, some political theorists and politicians claim that an opposition should not block policies which an elected government has presented to the people.
Supporters of the same-sex marriage plebiscite claim that Labor, the Greens and the independent members of Parliament have no right to block the same-sex marriage plebiscite Bill because a majority of the electorate appear to have voted for it.
This position has been put by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. Mr Turnbull has stated, 'I think it would be very rash of any political party to deny the Australian people a say on this issue when it is clear a majority do want a say, and particularly when a government is returned on the very clear mandate to do it.'
Mr Turnbull reiterated this point when introducing the same-sex marriage plebiscite Bill to Parliament. Mr Turnbull explained, 'So what we have to recognise is that...[implementing a plebiscite on same-sex marriage) is a commitment we took to the election. It is a commitment we will honour and we are honouring now. It is a commitment that respects the will of the Australian people. It respects their intelligence, their civility, their capacity to make a decision and, above all, it respects the fact that each and every one of them can have a say.'
Mr Turnbull ended his remarks by making this point again. 'Australians expect this issue to be resolved in the manner they endorsed at the election. We took this to the election and we won the election. There was no doubt about our policy. There was no doubt about our platform. This was prominently debated every day of the election campaign. Every Australian who took any interest in the election knew that that was our policy. We have a mandate for it, and the opposition should respect it.'
The same point has been made by the federal Attorney General, Senator George Brandis. Senator Brandis has stated, 'The government took a position to an election and we said to the people in July ''In the next parliament we plan to proceed with this issue and the way we propose to proceed with it is by a plebiscite.'' The public endorsed that position. What we are doing is seeking to deal with the issue in the way that the public gave us a mandate to do at the election.''
This view has been supported by a number of those outside the federal Parliament. Paul Monagle, the National President of the Australian Family Association, has stated, 'The Turnbull government has a mandate for a plebiscite on marriage. Those opposing the plebiscite are engaging in hypocrisy.'
Even some who oppose the plebiscite in itself believe it should proceed because the Government has a mandate to implement it. Former Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, has stated, 'The reality is that there was a mandate and the mandate comes from the lower house. The government got re-elected, it may have only been narrowly but they have a mandate for a plebiscite. I think it's a pretty stupid idea, it's a waste of money but that is the way the system operates.'
2. The cost of the plebiscite is not excessive
Supporters of the plebiscite argue that gauging the popular will on an important question is worth a significant expenditure.
Coalition Senator Eric Abetz has stated, 'Look you can ask the question what price of democracy and changing the fundamental institution which has socialised children for the past millennia...[It] can't be reduced to bean counting.'
Supporters have also suggested that some of the larger claims made about the probable cost of a plebiscite are exaggerated.
Michael Cook, in an opinion piece published in Catholic Weekly on August 31, 2016, stated, 'It wasn't long ago that the LGBT lobby was quoting a study by the leading accounting firm PwC Australia [Price Waterhouse Coopers], which claimed that ''a standalone plebiscite'' would cost $525 million. Even for supporters this must have seemed ridiculous, so they have trimmed it back to the $160 million estimated by the Australian Electoral Commission.'
Senator Abetz has also challenged the $525 million estimate, describing the figure as 'quite bizarre'.
In an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph on March 16, 2016, Miranda Divine similarly argued that the Price Waterhouse Coopers' estimate of the cost of the plebiscite was highly exaggerated. Ms Divine stated, 'The PwC report on the economic cost of the government's promised same-sex marriage plebiscite is a transparently dishonest attempt to subvert the democratic process.
The creative accounting involved in its claim that the plebiscite would cost half a billion dollars included every conceivable impost, no matter how absurd, in order to cast the most negative light on the plebiscite.'
Michael Cook has also stressed the value of what will be gained through the plebiscite. Mr Cook has stated, 'Two years ago, it was estimated that divorce and family breakdown cost Australian taxpayers $14 billion a year in welfare payments and court costs. The cost of the plebiscite is about 1 percent of this. If the plebiscite helps to stop the erosion of traditional marriage, it will be money well spent.'
Other supporters of the plebiscite have argued that the money will be well spent if the plebiscite succeeds in resolving a controversial issue. Liberal member for the Queensland seat of Brisbane, Trevor Evans, who is a supporter of same-sex marriage, has stated, 'A plebiscite on same-sex marriage will be totally worth it if it manages to put the issue to bed once and for all.'
3. The debate around gay marriage will be civilised and respectful, not divisive
Many who support a plebiscite on same-sex marriage believe that the debate preceding the plebiscite will be civilly conducted and will not give offence to Australia's homosexual and lesbian community.
The Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has rejected claims that it is not possible to have a debate around same-sex marriage without those who oppose the proposal being offensive. When introducing the same-sex marriage plebiscite Bill into Parliament, Mr Turnbull stated, 'the argument against the plebiscite that we hear today is that Australians cannot be trusted to have a civil conversation, that the Australian public are so immature, so unbridled, so reckless that they cannot be trusted to have a debate and make a decision on this issue. That insults the Australian people. It disrespects the Australian people.'
David Littleproud, a Coalition MP for the Queensland seat of Maranoa, has stated, 'I've lived in Australia all my life, and I'm very confident in the Australian people, confident that we're able to have a mature conversation and debate in an open and transparent way.'
Federal treasurer, Scott Morrison, has similarly stated, 'I have a bigger view of the Australian people ... we can deal with this issue as a country once and for all and move on.'
Michael Cook, in an opinion piece published in Catholic Weekly on August 31, 2016, stated, 'Most Australians support a robust but respectful debate. Immigration is a far, far more inflammatory issue than same-sex marriage, yet discussion in this country has been peaceful. It's a vicious smear on ordinary Australians to assert that they are incapable of having a rational debate.'
United States Ambassador to Australia, John Berry, has also claimed that he believes Australian society is fair and rational enough to conduct a civilised debate prior to a plebiscite on gay marriage.
Ambassador Berry has stated, 'I think Australia is one of the most rational countries in the world, you handle debate and discussion better than anybody quite frankly.
In America, we tend to throw emotion in a lot, and that tends to sort of turn the temperature up on things.
You all, I think, when you start to get into that emotional level, are pretty quick to throw a wet blanket on that and get back to the facts...
Clearly it's a tough issue, and one that Australians have to decide for themselves. I certainly believe, however, Australia decides to move forward on this issue, it will be done with great respect.'
Ambassador Berry, who is openly gay, and who has been accompanied by his husband, Curtis Yee, during his posting in Canberra, has been impressed by the courtesy and respect with which he and his partner have been unfailingly treated.
Ambassador Berry stated, 'We have certainly been given our fair go by everyone we've met in Australia.'
Even some of those who believe that the debate will not always be fair and rational, argue that it should be embraced as an opportunity to expose prejudice against gays and lesbians. Tim Wilson, a former Australian Human Rights Commissioner and now the federal Liberal Member for Goldstein, has stated, 'A plebiscite is a time for parents, friends, colleagues and allies to stand up and be counted. The experience in Ireland shows they do.
It won't amplify loneliness and isolation, it will respond to it.
Those who self-identify with division will invite public ridicule. Offensive arguments will be seen for what they are.'
4. The electorate is entitled to give its view on major cultural issues
Supporters of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage argue that marriage is such a significant social and cultural institution that Parliamentarians should directly seek the views of the people before altering it in any way.
This position was put by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, when he introduced the same-sex marriage plebiscite Bill into Parliament. Mr Turnbull stated, 'We put our faith in the Australian people and we know that their answer, whether it is ''yes'' or ''no'', will be the right answer, because it is theirs. This is an institution, thousands of years old, that we are talking now about making a fundamental change to.'
In an opinion piece published in Overland on September 19, 2016, same-sex marriage advocate, Tad Tietze, argued in support of a plebiscite, in part because marriage is an institution with such wide-ranging social implications. Mr Tietze stated, 'The removal of the historic nexus between marriage as a male-female union is a...momentous change, which automatically affects how non-same-sex marriages are defined.'
Those who oppose same-sex marriage also seem to believe that the question is too culturally significant not to be referred directly to the people. Michael Cook, in an opinion piece published in Catholic Weekly on August 31, 2016, stated, 'This is too important an issue to be decided by conventional political channels... Marriage is a pre-political institution; it existed before the state and the state has no more power to redefine it than it does to redefine photosynthesis. Holding a plebiscite at least recognizes the solemnity of a decision taken by the nation to reconfigure foundational social bonds. If disastrous consequences ensue, at least we will know who was responsible.'
A similar position has been put by Guy Rundle, writing for Crikey in August, 2015. Guy Rundle stated, 'The issue of marriage is an ''incommensurable'' one - it doesn't map onto any simple left-right, or even liberal-conservative division. Cute phrases like ''marriage equality'' don't disguise the fact that redefining the essence of marriage is a major cultural event. Marriage predates the state and just about everything else in cultures.'
5. If there is no plebiscite, the move to legalise gay marriage is likely to stall
Supporters of the plebiscite argue that it is the most immediate means of legalising same-sex marriage. They claim that if the plebiscite is held and passed on February 11, 2017, a Bill for same-sex marriage will then be put before Parliament with the strong likelihood that it will pass both houses.
Supporters of the plebiscite further argue that without it there is no likelihood that a same-sex marriage Bill will go before Parliament in the term of the current government and thus legislation will probably be delayed until 2020.
Prior to the most recent federal election, which the Coalition won by a one seat in the lower house, former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, warned that if, in the event of a Coalition election victory, the new Senate blocked moves to set up a plebiscite, it was then Coalition policy not to hold a parliamentary vote on same-sex marriage as an alternative.
Mr Abbott stated, 'If the Senate wants to play games with that, well, be it on their head, there won't be a same sex-marriage vote.'
Making the same point from a positive perspective, Malcolm Turnbull argued that if the Coalition won and a plebiscite on same sex-marriage were held he was confident it would be passed and that a same-sex marriage Bill would then be passed by Parliament.
Mr Turnbull stated, 'There are few things in politics that are certain, but one thing that I would say is an absolute certainty is that if the plebiscite is carried by the Australian people, same-sex marriage will be legislated for by the Australian Parliament.'
The consequences of not allowing a plebiscite have been stressed by the current Attorney-General, George Brandis, who has stated, 'If, like me, you favour reform to the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry then this is now the only feasible path to that outcome for many years to come.'
A similar warning has been given by Australians for Equality director, Tiernan Brady, who has suggested that blocking the plebiscite could see the legalisation of same-sex marriage delayed 'indefinitely'. Mr Brady has called on the major parties to arrive at an agreement so that the plebiscite can go ahead.
Mr Brady has warned that without a plebiscite 'there will be no clear pathway to marriage equality, even though the leaders of the three major parties are in favour of it, a majority of parliamentarians are in favour and the majority of Australians are in favour.'
Prominent Catholic academic, Father Frank Brennan, has urged the Labor Opposition not to block the plebiscite Bill's passage through Parliament. Father Brennan argues that a plebiscite it the surest way of securing the swift passage of same-sex marriage legislation.
Father Brennan has stated, 'The risk for the Labor Party in opposing a plebiscite will be that instead of the matter being resolved by February, it will drag on in the public mind for the next year or two and then we won't know until after the next election whether there is indeed to be a plebiscite.'
Father Brennan explained further, 'So the real question is: is it better to get this over and done with now, with certainty, by February; or is it better to put it on the long finger, in the hope of the Labor Party causing maximum embarrassment and political agitation for Malcolm Turnbull?'
Father Brennan, who supports same-sex, secular marriage believes the plebiscite to be the most immediate way of achieving this end.