Charisma, vision, pluck. These, increasingly, are the qualities voters demand of an individual Western leader as our faith in traditional forms of political organisation falls apart. These are not qualities that have ever been evident in any speech, policy or gesture by the Leader of the Opposition. So, Bill Shorten should be very glad of the government’s failure to permit a conscience vote on same-sex marriage last night. The Coalition’s incapacity to act on the matter now makes the guy look almost strong-willed. I mean, how could you not when your opponent squirms out of action and instead offers the electorate the anticlimactic bother of a non-compulsory, non-binding survey conducted by post?
The votes, in any case, are in. For several years and by several survey methods, Australians have responded with overwhelming support for same-sex marriage. This is not, in my view, largely a response to the greeting card work of GetUp and Marriage Equality, whose wholesome depictions of loving same-sex couples with good dental work appeal only to this cranky nation’s small proportion of romantics. Rather, it is down to a number of factors, including nationalism. We have the world’s fifth-most-traded currency, yet cannot claim to equal the cultural values of Slovakia and Greenland!
Even in media aimed at Millennials, a demographic reportedly more invested in questions of personal than national identity, this tendency is clear. The youthful panel of The Project cheered as a visiting US relic declared that the national inaction on same-sex marriage was “below” us and that it “makes you look bad”. The publication Junkee was one of several local outlets to pronounce Australia “More Backwards Than Alabama“. For an age range apparently devout in its disposal of intolerance, such sneering comparison with a region well-known for its poverty and illiteracy rates seemed odd.
[Helen Razer makes the queer case against gay marriage]
But same-sex marriage has become an odd sort of issue for many Australians. There are those affianced same-sex couples to whom, of course, it remains straightforward. Then, there are those simple zealots who feel it is their business to defend a rather partial reading of testaments, old and new. For the majority who support the change, whether same- or opposite-sex attracted, things are, however, more complicated. The passage of this legislation means more to people than tolerance, and even more than the competitive nationalistic tolerance as was plain in the Junkee headline.
Beyond the need to see ourselves as truly liberal global players, support for same-sex marriage is derived here, as it has been in many parts of the world, from a nostalgic longing for the power of marriage itself. That power has, to state the obvious, been in steady decline.
It was in 1975 in Australia that no-fault divorce was established as legal principle. It was in 2008 that unmarried opposite and same-sex couples were afforded rights identical in law to those of married couples. States and territories are responsible for adoption legislation, and this is now available to same-sex parents in all jurisdictions, save for the NT. The dissolution of marriage is now commonplace and vows that reference “forever” are as welcome at weddings as old-fashioned pots and pans instead of gifts of disposable cash. We don’t expect these things to last. All of which is to say, culturally and legally, marriage now confers no special benefit. A special magic can be briefly returned to it, however, if it is desired by a new class of persons. Most especially a class known, however erroneously, for its fashion-forward tendency.
[News Corp and ‘acceptable homosexuals’ throw radical queers under the pride bus]
There is widespread hope that this gesture of inclusion will restore life to a dying institution — a bit like the naive belief that equal representation by women will transform Parliament. There is the sheer embarrassment of being a G20 nation behind the liberal times. Then, I think, there is just an overwhelming impatience. Which I share. For the sake of quality flatware, can we please make this minor legislative tweak so that (a) people will shut up about it, and (b) more genuine problems have half a chance of address.
Bill Shorten, however, can afford to be very patient. His support for same-sex marriage, and all the cultural and competitive hopes it represents, is one of the very few things that marks his difference from Turnbull. For all his referencing of “inequality”, the leader is proposing little to topple the overwhelming private debt that has largely created it. Despite his status as Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, his contributions to talk on genuine treaty have been scant. His party’s bullshit on “people smuggling” is as disingenuous as the government’s. The famous “inch” once said to divide one centrist party from another has narrowed and we are now doomed to survive within less than a millimetre of policy difference.
The eventual passage into law of same-sex marriage will, of course, bring a little happiness to a few. It will bring none to the ALP. When the matter is done, dusted and as supremely ordinary as opposite-sex marriage, Shorten’s Labor will be without its touchstone.
If the senate had any sense they’d vote for the plebiscite. They can say they’re routing around the major parties to get things done, when it returns a yes and the bill to do the actual deed passes lower house they can boast that it was they that finally resolved a long standing issue, with a little help from their intelligent voters.
Mostly, I just want it over with so people can shut up about it, too.
Draco – a Big assumption of ‘yes’.
There would have to be a set period of “discussion”, with copious government funding for both ‘sides’ which would be a hate fest with official imprimatur.
On the off chance that the result was ‘yes’ it would still have to be legislated by both Chambers and many of the Trog & Bigot Zealotry Party have already loudly & repeatedly proclaimed that they would still vote against any change.
I’m wondering what odds I can get on a junkmail return rate of under 20% – could be a good investment.
Most people just want it over with so we can move on, too, but a plebiscite result isn’t legally binding, Draco. We could all vote “yes” in the same numbers we have in polls for years and the LNP has no legal obligation to respect and comply with our wishes.
And AR is right: you’re assuming a “yes”. I’d expect it, too, but I also expect an obscenely ugly fear and smear campaign from the “no’s” the likes of which we haven’t seen in this country for decades, if ever, and I don’t want that kind of psychological damage inflicted on LGBTI people- especially the young ones, already battling the reality of being different at a time of life when fitting in is the name of the game.
We have a representative democracy, so there is simply no reason for a plebiscite of any kind. Howard didn’t require one to insert inequality in the Marriage Act in 2004. We don’t require one to take it out again in 2017.
Oh you are an old marxist cynic Helen, and for once I think you have missed an important point.
I dont care one shite about marraige, its origins are as evil as the sadistic power hungry church that developed it as a way to enslave and impoverish women. But marraige equality is a small part of equality before the law, denying it to same sex couples is discrimination.
But the issue represents more than that, the way this arsewipe government has played it represents the cancer that is at the heart of our democracy, the cancer that is the Liberal National Coalition which in government has steadfastly refused to legislate the will of the people.
Bill is not a visionary heroic leader but Labor will move the country in the right direction and when they get into government Bill will break out in alot of directions and when they start shreiking he will beat the loathsome business and mining and christian lobbies because hes cunning and hes playing the long game, and thats 1 million percent better than what weve got now !
+1 on your points re: the Coalition and discrimination, but that’s a pretty uni-dimensional view of marriage. No thought for the benefits of raising children in a stable family unit? No mention of the idea that marriage involves a couple coming together in the presence of a higher power/good to in order to intertwine their lives and strive towards a higher purpose?
Not all millennia-old institutions are only about oppression. That’s the key tenet of Marxism, though, right? Proletariat/bourgeoisie; oppressed/oppressor. And Helen’s the Marxist?
Thanks Helen for reminding people who clearly don’t know or care that Labor’s much loathed Rudd and then A-G Bob McLelland cleaned up the last of the mess of discriminatroy Commonewelath legislation regarding partnerships, both ex jure/de facto and “married” for same and opposite sex couples. But my fellow uinradical queers want complete immersion on 50s bourgeois nostalgia so who am I to oppose the rice throwers.
Draco I am so completely over any skerrick of interest in the issue beyond the political damage it’s doing to the LNP I am now for the first time inclined to agree with you about letting the plebiscite go through the senate. It’s a monumental waste of money but that’s never stopped them before. But the only issue stil reamins that it would not have any legally binding consequence. At best it will simply embarrass them for being neanderthal which is exactly what’s happening now so why waste the dough?
David. The Same Sex Same Entitlements suite of changes (for which we must commend the GLRL) is of no real interest to anyone much in media, despite the very real impact it had in the lives of same (and opposite) sex couples. From what I recall (and I was reporting on it and living it at the time) activists working in conjunction with what was then HREOC and, pre Rudd-McClelland, the (reportedly) resistant Ruddock were very keen to avoid talk of marriage. This, they reasoned sensibly, would be a barrier to making change to more than one hundred areas of law including real estate, taxation, industrial, family etc etc
It frustrates me that when we talk here about being “behind Alabama” etc that we actually have a range of laws that benefit all unmarried couples. Unmarried US citizens have no such protection or equality under law. And it surprises me that this change was not seen as a great milestone. Moreover, as a proof of what practical and committed LGBTIQA activists have done. ‘I mean, of course, we should have same-sex marriage because some people seem to want it. Like you, I don’t want to stand in the way of the Russell Hobbs toasters. But that this is seen as the first or the last struggle disappoints me. The gays are always talking about “erasure” or “invisibility” but seem so keen to forget the achievements of the very recent past.
The only surprising thing about the Liberal decision to proceed with an expensive waste of time is that anyone should be surprised. When one looks at a whole range of social issues, Australia has consistently lagged behind the more progressive parts of the planet.
But now the Liberal Party has declared that major social issues must be decided by the people having a say separate from the triennial ballot box exercise, why not extend that argument to other social issues. We are currently engaged in at least three illegal wars not essential to Australia’s national security. Why can’t we have a vote on continuing that particular exercise? Similarly, I don’t recall being consulted through plebiscite or otherwise on the decision to commit $105 billion (lifetime cost) to purchasing the F35 flying junk heap.
It is hardly a radical idea to be required to have citizen approval on all major issues. The Swiss for example do it, and that is a very well run country. The politicians can’t say they promised something at the election and must stick to it, no matter how ridiculous. We only have to look at the string of broken promises from the 2014 election to see what a cynical lot of BS that is.
While we are at it we can stop pretending that ours is a “representative democracy”. That bunch of reactionary neanderthals inhabiting the Liberal benches do not even represent a majority of their electorate opinion.
Happy to have all major issues affecting the whole community put to a binding plebiscite. But marriage equality is not such an issue. I resent being required to cast a busybody vote on whom other people are allowed to marry. As for junking marriage altogether as Ms Razer suggests, try getting information from a hospital about how a patient you care about is if the patient is neither your blood relative nor your spouse.
I have tried and succeeded. I had no need for use of the terms “unlawful” or ” discriminatory”. Public hospital staff seem to be apprised of the rughts of domestic partners.
Despite being the only living blood relative I was not able to get information about a parent from a hospital. My parent had fallen, been taken to hospital by ambulance & given a hip replacement. As I live in another state & as no copy of my power of attorney had accompanied them to hospital (in an emergency situation) I was denied any information.
While agreeing on much you say, we led the world on voting, enfranchisement for women, plain packaging for cigarettes, AIDS policy and practice, just off the top of my head.
So we haven’t really lagged, and have regularly punched way above our weight. We should have been on climate change, could have been on same sex marriage (If Howard hadn’t changed the Act, would it be legal now?)
The entire suffrage for Swiss women thing not such a great advert, through.
The only reason this clutch of clowns (aka the Australian government) is in a position to stop SSM being lawful is due to Julia Gillard’s missed opportunity back in 2012.
Gillard, along with that model of 1950s morals, Abbott, guaranteed defeat for the bill put forward b y the ALP’s Stephen Jones, when she permitted a conscience vote for her party while Abbott took the hardline negative.
I can’t blame Gillard for that Zut, although you may be right. It was Labor Party policy at the time, if I recall correctly. Only changed over at a recent conference, and she wasn’t free to change policy for something that was discussed and decided at conference level.