Gay pride participants in Sydney. Photograph: Lisa Maree Williams/Getty
History tells us referendums are incredibly difficult to pass and often require bipartisan support. To hold one on gay marriage would be political cowardice
In his first press conference since being reinstated as prime minister, Kevin Rudd proudly declared that he was the first Australian head of government in history to support marriage equality. Same-sex marriage, he said, was a hugely important issue for young Australians and he wanted to see it done.
He even went so far as to challenge opposition leader Tony Abbott to grant his MPs a conscience vote on the issue.
Watching along at home, I can’t put into words how wonderful it was to see the prime minister of this country stand up for human rights and for equality.
It’s hard to escape the feeling of huge pride that comes with knowing that our prime minister, deputy prime minister Anthony Albanese and leader of the government in the Senate Penny Wong – who also happens to be a proud lesbian – all support same sex marriage.
Maybe, I thought, equality not so far away after all.
In his next breath, however, Rudd raised the prospect of something I consider to be an extraordinarily bad idea.
If Abbott did not allow a conscience vote, he said, then he would look at other options, including a referendum.
Let’s just think about that for a second.
Rudd wants to have a referendum to clarify the meaning of “marriage” in the constitution, an exercise that would spark a national hate campaign by anti-equality groups, would divide the country in the process, and would give the biggest platform possible to bigots and homophobes arguing for “family values”.
The harm this could do to the many thousands of LGBTI people across Australia is immense.
And what would it all be for? History tells us referendums are incredibly difficult to pass and often require bipartisan support. That’s unlikely to come from Abbott’s Coalition.
The question then needs to secure the support of a majority of voters in a majority of states, something that only eight out of the 44 referenda put to the Australian people have managed to achieve.
As Rodney Croome wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald on this issue in April, “if you think a referendum is a quick, easy and painless way to achieve marriage equality then you’re dreaming.”
Perhaps the worst thing about the idea of a referendum is that it would be the ultimate act of political cowardice from this nation’s prime minister.
Instead of standing up and fighting for what he believes in on the floor of parliament and in the Caucus room, Rudd would rather wash his hands of it and leave it to the people.
Our leaders are elected to lead. They are elected to forge a consensus and to get things done. If you’re not up to that, Rudd, then perhaps you shouldn’t be in the Lodge.
Author: Tim Christodoulou
Publication: guardian.co.uk
Date: 28 June 2013