While the ALP girds its loins for real debate and conference floor contention over the coming days, the prime minister’s handling of gay marriage is increasingly inexplicable.
The party’s national conference meets in the shadows of a European economic crisis and a possible global recession, but the likely political outcome of the conference will focus on the implications for Julia Gillard’s authority over the vote on same-sex marriage.
This is of her own doing. She has elevated this issue by publicly taking a hard line against gay marriage in favour of the do-nothing position of a conscience vote and no platform change, and by personally lobbying Right delegates to support her position. She is in effect challenging the conference to trash her authority, putting pressure on senior party figures to back her no matter what.
Rarely was prime ministerial authority deployed on a less significant electoral or national interest issue. Polls consistently show strong voter support for the right of same-sex couples to marry. But it’s not an issue that drives voting behaviour like health or education or the economy.
Perhaps Gillard miscalculated the determination of the Left not to settle for the position of a conscience vote and no platform change. But to deploy her shaky authority on the issue suggests misjudgment rather than miscalculation.
A more leader-like stance would have been to remain above the fray and not commit troops to a battle that, while of totemic significance to many in the party, holds none of the substance or electoral clout of issues like uranium or the economy. Now, she has much riding on the outcome of the conference vote and the willingness of factional leaders to hammer out a deal tonight or tomorrow that will spare prime ministerial blushes.
And in doing so, Gillard has firmly aligned herself with conservative forces within the party. The “compromise” of a conscience vote is no compromise at all, unless it is coupled with a platform change, since it guarantees no real-world consequences such as legislative change. This won’t endear her to the ever-diminishing party membership, and appear to confirm that Labor is no longer the vehicle of progressive social change.
According to Labor MPs, the issue of Gillard’s own relationship status is repeatedly raised by voters — if she has a strong personal belief in the status quo, why is she in a long-term relationship but not married herself? The prime minister’s personal circumstances are not an appropriate part of the debate, but it adds to the sense of confusion on the part of party members who’ve seen the government shift to the right on asylum seekers and, now, uranium.
A smart leader knows that some battles are won and some are lost, and it’s wise to keep your authority in reserve for the battles you need to win. Gillard didn’t need to win on same-s-x marriage, but now she does. If she loses, it’ll be yet another example of this government’s remarkable record of following up any success with a stuff-up of its own making.
If she wins, she’ll look like yet another obstacle to social reform to many within the party and in the electorate who don’t understand why gay couples continue to be treated as second-class citizens.
The next step after this passes is a push to entrench this win for equality and respect by legalizing polygamy and extending the same respect to Muslim and Mormon citizens as we do to homosexuals.
@Mcfly Marty
I’m fine with polygamy as long as polyandry is also allowed. Women should have the same right to marry multiple males as men would have the right to marry multiple women.
Zeke: Of course, I agree. But every day that passes while straights and gays can marry and yet Polyamorous people are denied this fundamental right to have their love recognized is a dark blot on the principles of the ALP.
I expect that gays, who know what the sting is like, to be at the forefront of any movement to allow this other persecuted minority (many of them muslims) to celebrate their love as well.
You can excuse the general population for holding THIS particular Labour Govt in contempt. Receiving votes for policies later reversed, (merely to maintain power and not for the issue itself), giving free kicks to the opposition on border protection and refugees whilst approving their own pay rises in the face of additional taxation on the community in general. They could save face by dissolving the baby bonus altogether, and addressing our own homeless and indigenous poverty issues with the savings. What little integrity Gillard ever had has now totally vanished. In fact, she is beginning make Bob Brown seem competent. Now there’s a feat !!
Same sex marriage does drive some voters.
I have met some people who wont vote Green because the Greens support same sex marriage. Even though they like so many other platforms of the Greens Party. They continue, instead, to support the conservative parties.
Ironically, this means that supporting same sex marriage drives away the old school conservatives, but supporting it does not win you many votes from the 63% of Australians who supposedly want it!
The Greens with their 13% (?) of support, seem to have the support already of some of that 63%. The rest seem to not care enough to make it an electoral issue. And yet the other 37%? Some of them, (how many? who knows?) seem to make it a high priority to resist it by their vote.
They will put up with:
– obsessive free market capitalism and the insane wages of CEO’s
– multinational mining companies making billions from our resources and Mr Abbott promising not to touch any of their superprofits any more than the current tax regime
– uranium mining and selling of the poison to other nations
– destruction of the enviroment
– no real action on climate change
– cruel treatment (and stereotyping) of asylum seekers and refugees
– continued participation in wars of aggression
– maintaining all sorts of inequalities in the community (like middle class welfare in the form of baby bonuses and family tax benefits that are not means tested realisticly)
– inadequate public transport systems
– appauling treatment of our indigenous people
– etc etc etc
all for the sake of “not letting gays marry!”
I meet people who say “yes it would be good to work on that list… but I just cant support gay marriage” – as if that should be the trade off!
So there is an irony here: it is an election issue for the deeply conservative who are homophobic, but it is not enough of an eleciton issue for the majority who want to see that equality happen.