Never let it be said that Australia has lost its will to be an innovator in democracy. By quite a way, the same-sex marriage postal plebiscite must count as one of the most baroque, convoluted, ad hoc responses to this social issue. To change by parliament (UK and elsewhere), court (US) and referendum (Ireland), we have added a non-binding vote using an archaic communications method, run through regulations on executive authority, and that might yet be thrown out by the High Court. Truly, we are a laboratory for democracy, but it’s the laboratory in the film The Fly. Remember the half-man, half-fly’s plaintive cry at the end of that? “Kill me … kill me … kill me …” In a small voice. We’ll all be saying that in a few weeks.
But now that it’s on, it presents the same-sex marriage movement with a challenge. They are going to have to dive in and try to win it, comprehensively and decisively. But marshalling the troops for that may prove difficult, as so much of the campaign around the plebiscite was about presenting it as illegitimate and unfair. That makes it difficult to pivot quickly to a “yes” campaign, and it may be that many among the leadership of the same-sex marriage movement will find it difficult to turn their full will and energy to an uncompromising “vote yes” campaign.
Should that prove the case, the marriage equality movement is in some trouble, for several reasons. The first is that the recently polled 60% support for marriage equality may be an outlier, a few points above earlier polling of around 52-55%. The second problem is that this figure, whatever it is, may have an unknowable degree of “softness” about it, a degree of “sure, why not?” to polling responses. With an enthusiastic and full-throttle “no” campaign underway, a section of that “yes” could yield to a full battery of argument and propaganda fair and foul, for the “no” case. The “no” case isn’t hamstrung by endless procedural arguments. They have got exactly what they wanted.
They have got something more than what they wanted, indeed. For the obvious advantage of a postal plebiscite is that it will skew old, towards people for whom physical mail remains the principal mode of communication. And age appears to be the main differentiator of yes/no support, with older voters skewing strongly to “no”, “hells no”, and “this is an abomination”. I doubt that the anti-SSM movement planned a postal vote by executive order all along — but hey, who knows? Whatever the case, they have strong home ground advantage.
For the same-sex marriage movement, there might be some temptation to boycott the process altogether. But this will be difficult, because there is no sole and clear marriage equality campaign leadership to decide on a boycott and then try to enforce it. Boycott campaigns always have some leakage, even the best-run. A disorganised boycott would split the pro-SSM campaign down the middle, and make achieving a majority all the more precarious.
The LGBT communities campaigned to reject a plebiscite, on the grounds that the social dissension and hostility it would create would tear a rip in their lives, make their children targets and other nasty effects. There seems no doubt that this will happen to some degree, and given the near-unanimity of the LGBT communities in regard to a plebiscite, it seemed impossible to gainsay. But that opposition to a plebiscite has come with a cost, demobilising many with regard to the vote that will now be held anyway.
This was a point some of us made at the time when a plebiscite was first in the offing: that it’s civil rights 101 that, to quote the old American movement song, you “keep your eyes on the prize”. Demand for equality is a full demand for recognition by right, an absolute demand for justice made by a people on the polity. The absoluteness of the demand is reinforced by a refusal to get involved in procedural matters. That throws the tendency to quibble back on the resistant party. Martin Luther King Jr and the movement didn’t suggest specific ways to enact civil rights. They made the demand and left LBJ and others to get it through Congress. Ditto for any number of organisations.
[A postal plebiscite is a bad idea — just ask Malcolm Turnbull]
Politically, the same-sex marriage movement would have done better, when the plebiscite was first suggested, by saying “bring it on. Vote, Parliament, plebiscite, we’ll win it.” Whether the plebiscite had gone through or not, it would have kept the movement unified, focused and match-fit, projected a sense of confidence and right, made the anti-SSM group the whining, petitioning “other”. As Jeff Sparrow noted at the time, a decisive “yes” vote in a plebiscite would have been a stunning blow against a certain type of reactionary cultural politics in Australia, showing the notion of a “natural conservatism” to be a lie.
That did not happen, and one can see the legitimate reasons for not wanting the plebiscite. But now that there is one, the marriage equality movement is going to have to pivot, and pivot fast, and pivot as one, to winning the damn thing. They will have to act on the presumption that Andrew Wilkie’s High Court challenge will fail, and that this thing is really going to happen. There is now no choice. To lose the postal plebiscite in a disorganised fashion, to continue with the language of emotionality, hurt and betrayal — as Michael Kirby has done this morning — is going to deliver a disaster, and play into archaic stereotypes as an anti-bonus.
Gay liberation victories in the ’70s and ’80s were won in the streets, with militancy and determination. If some of that has been missing, it’s because the mainstreaming of LGBT life has been such a success. Beyond the concerns about revived persecution and homophobia, some of the resistance to a plebiscite fight had come from the fact that so many of the community were now laced into an establishment, and they had no desire to once again define themselves as a campaigning force. Now they have to, and their leadership will have to find the one loud and single voice to do so. Conservatives are treating this struggle as their Thermopylae. If they can hold it off here, they reason, at this narrow opening in the rock, they can start to beat back the empire of progressivism. They’re right — if the postal vote is lost, Labor is in a sticky position as regards a parliamentary vote, should it win power. One can see in Tony Abbott’s long, saurian stare the conception that this is a fight God sent him to win. He won’t be the only one. Battle is joined, and for the marriage equality movement the only path is forward.
Because if there’s one thing the GSD (Gender and Sexuality Diverse) are just not getting enough of right now, it’s being told what they need, and being told what’s good for them.
You’re better than this Guy – get it together!
i didn’t say what was good for them – i pointed out some of the structural features of politics: that boycotts are tough to organise, and disastrous if not comprehensive and well-led. Im not per se arguing effective boycott vs get out the vote strategy – im arguing that an effective boycott isnt on the table.
The debate’s about strategy – what does it matter where the ideas come from? Dont be petty.
But boycott’s don’t much have to be organised, people can just decide not to vote. After all while we whinge that we have compulsory voting we don’t and never have had compulsory voting. We are required to turn up and have our names crossed off, we are not then required to put in a valid vote on anything.
This particular waste of time and money could build houses for the homeless folk camped in Martin Place or Bourke Street while we should all remember the words of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of human rights.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Marilyn, do you think an informal, disorganised boycott would have been effective against South Africa’s apartheid regime? Do you think a casual, do what you feel boycott will assist Palestinians caged in the West Bank?
If we boycott this bloody plebiscite, it will be spun as apathy and indifference at best and a clear and resounding no vote from the only section of the electorate that cared enough about the issue to put a stamp on a letter at worst.
And when the Labor party become the government, the right wing of the party will point to the poor turn out for the postal plebiscite, announce the Australian people aren’t really invested in the issue at all except for those who are passionately against same sex marriage, suggest the best course of action at this juncture in time is inaction and maintaining the status quo, but perhaps the issue can be revisited in the fullness of time if the Australian people ever show any interest in it in future AND THEY WILL GET AWAY WITH IT.
The ugly clause that introduced marriage inequality into the Marriage Act of 1961 was passed with bipartisan support in 2004 – only 13 years ago. Do you really thing Labor wouldn’t drop their current same sex marriage policy in a heart beat to ensure the grey vote? Do you really think they wouldn’t break an election promise? When they’ve been handed ammunition? Seriously? How many rusted on Labor supporters do you think are young folk?
And how far down the road to participatory democracy do you think we’ll get if we refuse to engage with this little experiment? We have a shocking record on surly responses to referenda already. They offer us this and we boycott it. If I was a politician I’d be rubbing my hands together with glee because we the electorate just keeps demonstrating our dislike of being asked and/ or expected to participate in democracy in any way, shape or form outside of election cycles time and again. You little beauty! No need to ask us our opinion on anything ever again outside of election day.
Please, people. Don’t boycott this filthy plebiscite. It won’t work. Don’t sing yourself to sleep with the utopian liberal song that human rights are basic and innate laws of bloody nature. We have had to fight for every human right we’ve ever won. We had to fight two World Wars before Doc Evatt and colleagues penned the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, and we still don’t have all of them. Not even in Australia! Where’s the secure, dignified jobs for any and all who want one? Where’s the housing? The state grants human rights. It gifts them. It always has. If they were basic, innate laws of nature, people all over the world wouldn’t be being crushed by bombs, drones, sanctions, starvation, preventable disease, climate change, state oppression and grinding poverty as we speak.
Fight for this, because if you don’t fight, you lose. Vote yes and post the bloody letter. And incidentally, marriage isn’t a right, it’s a privilege, reliant on finding love and happiness with the one person you want to grow old with.
What would you preferred Charlie:
1 Public disinterest, disengagement from issue?
2 An uncontested debate dominated by a rabid, but organised NO vote?
3 An open, contested review of options as ignited by Guy’s call to arms?
Just Y/N was never going to fire up public opinion/passion (such as yours) without a viable alternative i.e. boycott. Kirby, Wong and canny Shorten have stepped up, provided a public face. Let’s hope we now have an awareness, as I’m sure Guy intended, and we end up with a dinkum contest. By the way I’m with Rosemary. We older buggers are far more aware than younger generations give credit.
Depressingly accurate Charlie Chaplin, especially “Do you really thing Labor wouldn’t drop their current same sex marriage policy in a heart beat to ensure the grey vote? Do you really think they wouldn’t break”
One thing about being old is the ability to remember past atrocities by the LNP. Anyone remember what happened on the rejection of the monarchy
fiasco? Same crowd, same terror of fronting up to the 21st century.
CC – as an adamant boycotter I find your argument compelling, cogent & convincing.
If only those Bigot Brigade bastards in Parliament could be compelled to respect the result and legislate according to the result – which I don’t think is a foregone ‘yes’ – then I would, holding my nose and weeping, participate.
But they are not compelled or trustworthy and therefore I cannot.
I hate the idea of a plebiscite, postal or otherwise, but I agree – we can’t control whether it goes ahead or not at this point, and if it does, we’d sure as hell better win it. That means putting aside squeamishness about the ugly and inappropriate process, countering the reactionary fearmongers at every opportunity, and doing everything we can to get yes votes in the mail. I can understand some people feeling they’d rather boycott, wait for Labor to do the thing properly and not let the Libs take credit when it finally goes through – but there’s no guarantee that would be how things would play out. Let’s just hold our noses and get it done.
‘Let’s just hold our noses and get it done.’
Get precisely what done? It’s an opinion poll, it carries no legal weight, it can lead to another dead-end particularly if the vote is close. A federal election which is close (a one seat advantage) points clearly to which party is in government but a narrow margin in an opinion poll would cause more discussion, angst & teeth-grinding within a Turnbull government.
If the LGBT sector can summon up the patience to wait another two years (or sooner) then Shorten will amend the Act with minimal fuss. By then the general public will be so disenchanted with the LNP that the vote will be a shoo-in.
Bernard Keane said something pretty similar; I think he also mentioned the several shades of hell your kids won’t be put through in the hatestorm that the government has just signed up for (and will almost instantly lose control of).
And that’s if we ignore the vows of several Coalition members that they’ll reject a “yes” vote no matter how wide the margin.
Unless Melting Truffle (in his final days) can’t be humiliated into going down in a blaze of glory by holding HIS nose and just ramming it through
ZUT ALORS: For the first time in years you have let me down. It’s not a question of being patient for two years. In two years time we might have someone like Pauline Pantsdown in power-or any of the minor Parties. The quality which needs to be exercised is “precedent” and precedence is all in this sort of schmozzle.
A special commendation for ‘The Fly’ reference, Guy.
I was gonna take Guy to task on that Zut, as I recall (and I must admit my memory tends to fail me these days) the scene it was… fly with man’s head is caught in cobweb about to be eaten by spider…cries out “help me, help me, help me !” rather than kill me,kill me, kill me.
The tactic s all wrong. The proposal is such rubbish it fails a legitamcy test for anyone with a brain, and I believe it’s getting more on the nose with the wider electorate anway.
Second, let’s apply some old 80s gay lib tactics from the days I was chairperson of GRL in Sydney and we had a four year plus slow burn campaign to get basic laaw reform up. We made one major mistake which was leaving out lobbying of the LNP and the conservatives generally thinking they were beyond reaching. They weren’t and we needed them as ity later turned out. But something we did take from the purist left was absolutely no compromise on the terms of decmrinalizing legislation, down to the most difficult, age of consent. The NSW Government itself (Wran Labor at that stage) kept putting up bills which were so self defeating as to be unworkable anyway (like Unsworth’s) all of them largely the two consenting adults in private over 18 thing. Eventually the Premier’s departemet drafted something so bad that the movement itself privately and behind closed Surry Hills doors (the the ghetto), drafted something that targeted eveyr single mention in the shambolic Crime sAct of the “perverted abominationact ” references and the rest of it and cleaned up the Crimes act itself more or less compeltely. The one compromise was age of consent at 18 (not 16) for universal age but the law would be in a state after repeal thatthis amendment could happen down the line. As it did. The point about SSM is frankly it is the least necessary thing the government needs to do for justice to human rights in OZ at this time. Starting with refugess would be far more mesningful. This pile of dog shit is a perfect opportunity for the broad LGBT now so thoroughly embourgeoisened it actually “wants” marriage in the regular form, rather than already funcitoning de facto created Rudd in 2008. So my advice to these boys and girls and their supporters is get out here and work like mad to kill the thing off reducing the vote to a pitiable return, which will almost certainly by no but so numerically unrepresentative and therefore worthless. Then sit back and wait for A Labor some time in the fturue , and only then when Labor has cleaned up its own act in the Senate with that scum from the Shoppies.
once again – a partial boycott isnt a boycott at all – it’s simply a lowered vote. if there’s the possibility of an organised boycott, its a possibility. but it doesn’t seem to me that the SSM movement has sufficient unitary leadership to create an effective one in the time available.
On that point you are totally right. In latest news I see Shorten is calling on Labor to push for a yes vote reveirsing his earlier position.
“The point about SSM is frankly it is the least necessary thing the government needs to do for justice to human rights in OZ at this time.” And therein lies the problem – “This problem/s is/are more important now, not that one”. There is no poll, plebiscite, or referendum being conducted about those issues right now. Rundle is right – for progressive forces in Australia the poll represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Abbotts/Abetzes/Andrews of this world. Those who rely on the various excuses going around to boycott the poll are doing exactly what the soft centre republican supporters did in 1999 – if I don’t get precisely what I want, then I won’t support it, phwwwwt.
Well, I just don’t know now. Writers and thinkers I respect and admire here are split and I can agree with both positions, decent people of good faith everywhere differ wildly, and the handful of gay happy couples I know disagree not only on the plebiscite but even on ‘marriage’ itself.
None of this stuff should be any of my business. I don’t want to exclude from full civic life anyone, or even offend anyone, on the basic of what they do in their consenting private lives, and I didn’t ask to be told by anyone to tell anyone else, least of all our law-makers, how to go about achieving that.
My overwhelming sentiment is best implied in Lykurgus’s comment (a bit unfairly snide to the writer though I think it is). I feel deep distaste about being shanghaied into other people’s private lives in an ‘arbiter’ role like this, which no matter GR’s sound realpolitik reasoning is what this plebiscite is asking of us all. I am institutionally/socially fairly conservative and take voting obligations – and other civics 101 stuff like the census – pretty seriously. But this just feels like a loaded, dirty trick. They ‘win’ the game by forcing you to play by their bullshit rules at all. This, from alleged ‘social conservatives’.
I’m just really sorry about it all. And I really don’t know whether to boycott this absurd plebiscite or not. To do anything now is to take a position on someone else’s private business, when not taking one at all is the only one I’d be able to honestly defend.
Thanks, John Howard. Of course, he knew exactly what he was doing.
Well, I just DO know, Jack. Just do it! Vote! Don’t share in the failure of stultifying peacocks like Turnbull. IHMO, this isn’t just about the respect for living; it also about those youths from our past who checked out way too early and at the time no one quite understood why. The contemptuousness of these pollies for our friends, colleagues and relations is staggering. They mustn’t get out and about very much. Please don’t let them put one over you.
Jack your logic is all wrong. You are not being “shanghaied into other people’s private lives in an ‘arbiter’ role”. You are being asked about marriage. A PUBLIC institution entered into in PUBLIC and controlled, from registration to dissolution and beyond, by the state.
This ridiculous opinion poll stinks but, barring successful High Court challenges, it will go ahead. A no vote or a boycott ensures no change to the Marriage Act and a long term victory for reactionary forces. (Where is the republic?) A yes vote means at least a chance of change.
The RWNJs don’t care about your finer feelings. They just want you to boycott or to vote no. Either will do.
I will be holding my nose and voting yes.