Supporters of same-sex marriage would be misguided to encourage the idea of a referendum this September at the time of the federal election.

The idea has been put on the agenda by a most unlikely combination of public figures. But they have done so for contradictory reasons.

Some supporters have been taken along for the ride.

The Fairfax readers panel narrowly favoured the idea (52 per cent to 42 per cent), New England independent Tony Windsor has suggested he would vote for a referendum if the community wanted it, though he would not support same-sex marriage in Parliament because his electorate did not want it; and Greens leader Christine Milne briefly flirted with the idea before strongly condemning it as a distraction and calling for legislation instead.

In NSW, Reverend Fred Nile of the Christian Democratic Party wants one, and Keysar Trad of the Islamic Council has suggested only religious believers should be able to vote.

These provocations should be rejected, even if they are accompanied by taunts that the policy’s supporters are political cowards.

That’s politics. Supporters should not be seduced by apparent action or tricked by the tactic.

As France and New Zealand have voted to introduce same-sex marriage recently, there has, perhaps, been some frustration, mentioned by Mr Windsor and Senator Milne, at apparent parliamentary inaction in Australia. Discussion has turned to the question of a conscience vote in the parliamentary Liberal Party.

The Opposition Leader opened the door a little by seeming to suggest the matter would be decided by the party room after the election.

This was welcomed by couple of Liberal MPs.

But then Tony Abbott recanted somewhat, by not only repeating his strong personal opposition but suggesting a strong majority in the Coalition party room would remain opposed to any change.

Former Liberal senate leader Nick Minchin denied any change was necessary on the dubious grounds that Liberal MPs, contrary to Labor MPs, always had a conscience vote on every issue. That position is just a furphy.

Public policy decisions can be decided in the courts (several same-sex marriage cases are in the US Supreme Court at the moment), in Parliament or by referendums.

Parliament should always be the first port of call.

The course of events can be manipulated by politics in the short term but eventually, one hopes, a decision reflecting the wishes of the community is reached.

Referendums should not be undertaken as an act of bravado.

They are just too difficult to win because of the climate of exaggeration in which they are often held. The Australian record shows this.

Where they must be held on constitutional issues they should, of course, be faced up to energetically.

But it is not yet clear that this needs to be the case with same-sex marriage.

Crispin Hull in The Canberra Times advocates removing any constitutional doubt before Parliament returns to the issue.

Let local government in September and indigenous constitutional recognition in the next term take their referendum turn.

The question will not go away.

Supporters can afford to be a little patient.

International developments, combined with domestic advocacy, will ensure that.

This makes same-sex marriage quite a different sort of issue to local government, the republic and even indigenous recognition, which does have some internationally-generated momentum.

The conditions for a same-sex marriage referendum are just not right in Australia.

To say so recognises public support is neither strong enough nor solid enough, despite the fact a majority do support same-sex marriage.

The referendum record suggests that in an intense campaign, some support is likely to fade away out of uncertainty.

Referendums also need preparations and adequate public education.

It may be technically feasible to hold a referendum at such short notice but it is far from ideal.

By contrast, lengthy consultation and coalition-building has been engaged in on the two issues that have long been flagged: local government, which is going ahead in September, and indigenous recognition, which is not.

Most importantly neither of the party leaders supports same-sex marriage.

To conduct a referendum in such circumstances would be unprecedented and would guarantee its defeat.

In 1999, prime minister John Howard did put a referendum on the republic, which he himself opposed, on the grounds that the 1998 Constitutional Convention had supported it.

That was peculiar enough.

But at least in 1999, the Opposition Leader Kim Beazley did support the referendum and campaigned for its passage.

In this instance, Mr Abbott would campaign strongly against the referendum proposal during a campaign in which he will probably be riding high, perhaps even effectively doing a victory lap.

In that context, his opinion would almost certainly carry any accompanying referendum.

Julia Gillard may be more restrained in her opposition but she would have to stand by her often repeated personal opposition.
Labor MPs would be split.

It is hard to imagine a worse situation for a successful referendum.

Some Liberals and a few Nationals may support the referendum but they would be under peer pressure not to do so. Even strong supporters would be told to think again in the interests of party unity.

Regardless of their personal positions, it is hard to see many state premiers campaigning vigorously in support.

The whole question of a same-sex marriage referendum is just a case of setting a hare running for a mixture of good and bad reasons.

Good sense suggests that it stops running immediately because it is a misguided suggestion. Let the Federal Parliament do its job.

John Warhurst is an emeritus professor of political science at the Australian National University.
John.Warhurst@anu.edu.au

Photograph: Wolter Peeters
Author: John Warhurst
Publication: Sydney Morning Herald
Publication date: May 9 2013