Welcome to Australia, where People may vote on Human Rights
Currently 27 countries in the world allow equal marriage (plus some jurisdictions in Mexico), with Germany, Malta and Taiwan having joint the club most recently. Usually, a parliamentarian vote, a presidential decree, or a Supreme Court decision enabled couples of all coleur to start their lives as married partners.
Australia has seen debate after debate on the topic. A Fairfax Ipsos poll last year saw 70% of the population supportive of legalising same-sex marriage. An Essential poll found Australian support at 62%.
Instead of a conscious vote, as seen in Germany in June, the Turnbull government tried to pass a plebiscite through parliament; however failed to do so. Instead the issue of legalising same-sex marriage will now be submitted to debate in a voluntary postal plebiscite. Australians now have to enrol until August 24th; from September 12th onwards the forms will be sent out and have to be returned until November 7th. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, who is responsible for the process, will release the results on November 15th.
The entire postal plebiscite could be stopped, however, if the pending High Court cases will be recognised: multiple challenges seek the Court to rule the postal plebiscite unconstitutional. Hearings will be taking place “a week before the postal votes are due to be sent out.” In case the plebiscite is ruled legal and voting goes ahead, Prime Minister Malcom Turnbull has stated that a ‘yes’ turnout will lead to a conscious vote – “a free vote based on a private members’ bill in Pariament” – but a negative turnout would not. Which means, that the entire procedure, which is said to be costing between $120-160 million (other sources cite even sums as high as $525 million) could be, casually put, a waste of time.
The decision in favour of a postal plebiscite has caused heated debate, understandably. Parliamentarians, who are elected by the people to represent their political will, ask the same people to basically do, what is their job. Instead, Australians over 18 can now voluntarily contribute to something, which resembles more a survey rather than an accurate expression of political will. Politicians opposing same-sex marriage hope that the ‘postal’ factor will especially discourage the younger generation, said to be mostly in favour of marriage equality, of voting, which could lead to a higher ‘no’ turnout.
The Howard government had amended the Marriage Act 1961 through the Marriage Amendment Bill in 2004, inscribing that marriage was between a woman and a man. However, in 2013, the High Court ruled that marriage includes same-sex marriage, and any changes to law are within the responsibility of the federal Parliament.
Aside from worries regarding the costs and the value of the outcome, other concerns have focussed on the quality of the debate in the time leading to the postal plebiscite. Questionable flyers with discriminating and harmful content against same-sex marriage have already been distributed in Sydney, with more potential polarising and upsetting campaigning looming.
Research has shown the severe mental consequences a referendum or plebiscite can have on the LGBTIQ community, as public debating of their rights particularly increases anxiety. Brian Tobin, a lecturer at Ireland’s University in Galway, has probably summarised the sickening truth of voting on someone’s human rights best:
“as the Irish experience shows, putting a human rights issue to a national vote is a crude means of legalising same-sex marriage. It forces a historically oppressed minority to literally have to plead with the majority for access to marriage”.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons Author Nzwj
