Child marriages and polygamy could be allowed under the Marriage Act unless marriage equality is defined in the constitution, according to One Nation senator-elect Pauline Hanson.
The re-election of the Coalition government means that Australians might go back to the polls before the end of the year to vote on whether to legalise same-sex marriage in a plebiscite estimated to cost at least $160 million (that’s just for the AEC to run the poll, not including potential costs for the yes and no cases).
[How Coalition homophobes could set marriage plebiscite up to fail]
Before that happens, Parliament will need to pass legislation to enable the plebiscite to happen. Labor and the Greens have not ruled out passing the legislation, but it remains a very real possibility that the Coalition could need crossbench support for the plebiscite in the Senate.
In such an event, Hanson and any other One Nation senators would be crucial. But the party is not in favour of a plebiscite; One Nation policy favours a referendum, despite the High Court finding that no change to the constitution is needed to change the Marriage Act.
A spokesperson for Hanson told Crikey that a referendum would “provide a fresh and clear definition of marriage” that could not be altered by future governments without another referendum.
“A plebiscite simply gives the green light for legislative change to include same-sex marriage. However, that legislation could run the risk of being revoked or further altered to pave the way for reducing the marriageable age or the introduction of polygamy,” the spokesperson said.
The statement suggests one particular argument that could be advanced during the plebiscite debate could be that of “creeping sharia law”. That is, if gay people are allowed to get married, then Muslims will push to be allowed child brides. One Nation candidates are already on the record as warning of the “Islamic culture” of child marriages coming to Australia.
A referendum would be a much larger hurdle for marriage equality because it would require a majority of the population and a majority in the states to approve the change in order to pass.
[Why is Abbott pushing for a referendum or plebiscite? And what’s the difference?]
While Turnbull said before the election that the plebiscite could be held before the end of this year, there is already a push from the hard right of politics to delay the plebiscite. There is speculation the Nationals may seek to delay the plebiscite in the party’s new — secret — Coalition agreement with the Liberal Party. Senator Cory Bernardi has also suggested the issue could be put on the backburner while the Coalition heals after its poor election performance.
The Australian Christian Lobby, in a statement that shocks no one, has also suggested a plebiscite before the end of the year is looking “shaky” and said it should be delayed because the group, which is quoted in most TV and radio interviews on the subject, feels its side of the debate hadn’t gotten enough of a hearing yet.
Australian Marriage Equality has estimated that, while the make-up of the new Parliament has yet to be finalised, the numbers are now there to pass marriage equality into law if a free vote on the matter were held.
As much as one tries to follow the contortions of Hanson’s thought process it’s impossible to make sense of this.
There are several paragraphs of explanation (logic?)missing between the bit about same sex partners marrying then taking the gargantuan leap to child spouses & polygamy becoming legal.
They can’t stand gays or Muslims but don’t mind their votes or their money.
Some even shut up – momentarily – when being recussitated by whichever permutation of GayMuslimShariaHalalLesbianism has taken their mind off marrying a four year old – or the pet cat – to save their lives in the nation’s emergency departments.
Hanson and ‘slippery slope’ arguments … Oh, what delightful material for a racist and sexist joke.
For what we are about to receive, thanks be to Malcolm and his double disillusion…..
If parliament passes the “marriage equality” law (legalising same sex marriage), what arguments will you mount when some people start calling for legalisation of polygamy ? Isn’t that just another form of marriage equality ?
Well let the pollies vote on it then.
You mean traditional marriage? That has been banned for ages. The polygamy part of traditional marriage was banned first. I think being able to beat and rape a wife was next. Being able to marry a child was made illegal too. Traditional marriage rites have been illegal for decades. We have been broadening secular marriage for a while now, with a few hiccoughs. Women are no longer considered property and are now treated as legal equals. We are now looking at allowing adults to be adults without the interference of anti democratic groups like radical evangelicals and reactionary “Conservatives.”
Well the most reason is that polygamy actually would be a fundamental change in the definition of marriage – from two people to more than two people.
So while polygamy would require extensive new legislation to facilitate (and/or have significant run-on legal consequences), same sex marriage only requires changing a few words in the marriage act and is otherwise legally inconsequential.