IF all goes well, both houses of parliament will pass my Private Senators Bill some time later this year and make marriage equality a reality for Australia.
As a Liberal Democrat, the first person voted into an Australian Parliament on a libertarian or classical 鈥渟mall l鈥� liberal platform, I have found allies on both sides of parliament on issues regarding personal freedom. This might prove to be the circuit-breaker that the marriage equality issue needs to lift it out of the usual left versus right rivalries.
My central argument is that those who do not approve of same sex marriage should learn to tolerate it, and that governments have no place in choosing the gender of our partners. As I explained at my media announcement in Parliament House: 鈥淚f your private life is nobody else鈥檚 business, I ask you to understand that the private life of others is none of your business, and it is simply not your role to impose your views on others.鈥�
We have no way of knowing yet if the Coalition will support a conscience vote, but I have been buoyed by the honest engagement with politicians from both sides since my announcement. While the Greens and people like Tanya Plibersek are highly supportive of marriage equality and a conscience vote for Labor MPs is assured, we cannot take for granted the support of a majority of Labor members.
Similarly, there are a number of Coalition members with libertarian instincts who may ultimately get the bill over the line. Others are inclined not to agree with marriage equality and have approached me with their concerns. If we can deal with these logically, one by one, we may be able to capture some crucial extra votes.
One of these concerns is that marriage equality will open the door to polygamy. We can assure them that our proposed legislation will take a minimalist approach, just removing references to men and women and not in any way making polygamy a possibility. There are hundreds of different state and federal laws governing family and relationships. Recognising polygamous relationships would require amending all these different laws, not just the Marriage Act. This is simply not going to happen.
Another concern is that celebrants or others who do not want to be involved in same-sex marriages could be penalised for their refusal to take part. We wish to make it clear that as libertarians, we want people to be free to make this choice without any official sanction.
The LGBTI community has had a long and proud tradition of fighting for personal freedoms, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and simply the freedom to be. I see my bill allowing freedom to marry as part of this tradition.
We hope that just as a substantial majority of the broader public has come to tolerate same-sex marriage, the LGBTI community will tolerate those who choose to opt out of any involvement. Once again, we are not asking for approval on either side of the debate, but tolerance from both.
To make this work, I ask that the LGBTI community understand our approach. In the past, decision makers have been made to feel they were being harangued for their moral failings by political opponents. This has been counter-productive. This time, we will be appealing to their reason and respect for personal freedom.
To this end, the Liberal Democrats are grateful to the people at Australian Marriage Equality who we are consulting closely both on the legislation and lobbying efforts. I understand a conscience vote could go either way, so the chances of success will depend on a coordinated and strategic approach to lobbying.
At the media conference to announce our intentions I made the point that this is more than a matter of principle, it鈥檚 a matter of doing the right thing for people we know:听 鈥淭oday, I challenge Labor Party members to look Senator Wong in the eye and tell her she does not deserve equal marriage rights. Today, I challenge Prime Minister Abbott and Liberal Party members to do the same with Mr Abbott鈥檚 sister, Christine.鈥�
Most politicians understand that their job is to help constituents. If marriage equality is important to you or someone you know, you should feel free to see your local member or senator and politely ask them to explain their position. If they have specific concerns, then deal with them logically, or invite them to talk to myself or Australian Marriage Equality about these concerns so we can deal with them.
Marriage equality is an emotional issue for many people, but a coordinated response using politeness and reason is most likely to win us the day.
David Leyonhjelm is the Liberal Democrat Senator for NSW.
**This article first appeared in the of the Star Observer. The October听issue will hit the streets this Thursday (September 18) in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Canberra. to find out where you can grab your free copy.
Bill Shorten and Tony Abbott do not question those who seek to cut our heads off in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, there Sharia law is defended by our troops, but Australian couples trying to marry, well Bill offers no binding vote, and Tony Abbott would not allow a single member to stand up for their Civil Rights.
Our political leaders are all kinds of crazy defending Sharia Law over us good folk.
Why do things have to be so complicated, why can we just not have the marriage act amended to state that Australia recognizes the legal state of marriage between 2 consenting ADULTS???? That’s it full stop, no fancy exemptions, male/female/transgender references, just the words “Two consenting adults”.
So we are to beg from men who support countries that behead GLBTI people, such as Saudi Arabia, yet Bill Shorten is united with Tony Abbott calling them friends? Both leaders support sending troops to the Alien Versus Predator conflict, to be based in a country that hacks off our heads. No conscience vote on spending a hundred million on an open ended war protecting countries that still have the death penalty for homosexuality. Even if we are successful against the Islamic State, I would challenge Bill Shorten to walk up a Bagdad St with Tony Abbott in a loving embrace, I bet they would do some soul searching given the penalty.
I am sorry but the response to marriage seems very hysterical by both Cathic leaders, when they seem to have no problem war mongering without a conscience vote.
I don’t trust this Leyonhjelm. A true libertarian wouldn’t be supporting any form of state sanctioned marriage.
We all need to see the bill before I can comment on it!
These should be the 8 factors that must be included into the bill too-
1. It must include both transgender and intersex people as well as same sex couples in both the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act 1975;
2. Repeal all references of “between a man and a woman” and replace with “between any two adult persons” in both the Marriage Act 1961 and the Family Law Act 1975
3. There should be a spousal veto;
4. There should be a clause to allow a religious minister the right to refuse a marriage that goes against there conscience teachings and/or beliefs;
5. There must be a 24 hour re-think waiting period, unless it is a medical or health reason;
6. Repeal section 88EA and Fully end the formal international recognition of islamic/muslim polygamy in both the Social Security Act 1991 and the Family Law Act 1975;
7. There must be a clause in the bill that all Australian Commonwealth legislation (1084 pieces of legislation to be exact) must include the marriage equality definition of spouse in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901; and finally
8. There must be an equal set of rules, fees and regulations on Australian marriages that go into full effect 30 days from the day of Assent.