As with any significant social reform, there are many arguments against SA pushing to become the first state to allow marriage equality .

I believe they’re all overshadowed by the one simple argument for reform, and that’s to end discrimination.

But it’s an interesting exercise to check out the points of opposition, to see how they stack up.

1. The new Private Member’s Bill put up by first-term Labor MP Susan Close is unconstitutional and would be overruled by the High Court.

This is the most compelling argument against the Bill, but it’s not correct to state categorically that the High Court would quash state legislation.

Constitutional experts have varying opinions on whether the federal Marriage Act prevents the states, as well as the Commonwealth, from allowing same-sex marriage.

Common sense suggests, then, that High Court judges who must ultimately determine any inconsistency will also hold varying views.

Put simply, if a state like SA never tests the legislation, we’ll never know if same-sex couples can be legally married under state law.

2. Because the Bill won’t hold up in the High Court, it’s a cruel and misleading trick on those seeking marriage equality.

This line, put forward by Opposition justice spokesman Stephen Wade, is, in fairness, quite similar to the stance adopted by former Premier Mike Rann.

It’s politically understandable, too, given support for social reforms like this are more likely to alienate conservative voters than Labor supporters (a fact I’m sure is not lost on Premier Weatherill).

But have the Liberals actually asked same-sex couples if state legislation is a “cruel hoax”?

Harley Schumann, convenor of South Australians for Marriage Equality, thinks not.

“Most same-sex couples would tell the Liberals `thanks very much for your concern, but a crueller hoax is not allowing me the possibility to get married at all’,” Mr Schumann says.

He says he’s been inundated this week by people overjoyed at the SA Upper House backing a motion to commend the New Zealand government for legalising same-sex marriage.

It’s just a commendation, yet according to Mr Schumann, people are calling it a “watershed moment”.

Imagine, then, how empowering our own same-sex marriage legislation would be.

For what it’s worth, I think it’s disingenuous of the Liberals to reject a conscience vote on this Bill because it might be unconstitutional. Laws that are constitutionally questionable are passed all the time – think bikie legislation for one. I hope Liberal leader Stephen Marshall, who’s on record as supporting gay marriage, changes his mind before MPs are asked to vote.

3. This is a minority issue.

Most recent Galaxy polling from 2012 showed 67 per cent support among South Aussies for same-sex marriage. I’d call that a clear majority.

For a real straw poll to test community engagement, let’s compare two front-page issues from The Advertiser this week: Holden’s proposal to cut wages generated 85 comments on adelaidenow; South Australia’s push for same-sex marriage laws attracted 201 comments.

4. It’s a diversion: We should focus on the economy.

True, a deep shade of red is the new black when it comes to SA’s budget bottom line. Small business and industry are crying out for taxation reform and families are struggling under cost of living pressures.

There are few among us who don’t believe the economy and jobs are top priorities, and come March those two words will be top of mind as we walk into polling booths across the state.

But governments simultaneously handle myriad issues every day, and surely voters are capable of dissecting information on multitude topics too.

Besides, marriage equality would never be on the agenda if we saved social reform for periods of political and economic calm.

There’s no wrong time to do what’s right, so let’s go for it now.

Author: Lainie Anderson
Publication: adelaidenow
Publication Date: 22 June 2013