Why Tony Abbott Will Allow a Conscience Vote on Gay Marriage

The struggle to legalise  same sex marriage rights is the civil rights campaign of our generation. Homosexuals are widely considered one of the final minorities to be oppressed by codified and systematic government legislation. Whether people agree with marriage equality or disagree, eighty percent polled admit that they see it as an inevitability that the denial of marriage rights will disappear sooner rather than later, sixty percent want gay marriage legalised and eighty percent of people aged 18-24 are in favor of marriage reforms. If you can't see where the waves are headed you are living in another dimension far away from any reasonable logic.

Most Australian's also gree that when changes to the Marriage Act are proposed in February next year, that every member of parliament should be a allowed a conscience vote on the issue. Tony Abbott and the liberal party have taken a view toward continued discrimination as a platform. Julia Gillard and the labor party have changed their party view to endorse same sex marriage but with the caveat that their members can choose to vote against it if their conscience demands. Without the support of the Liberal's, any marriage legislation will go nowhere because some Labor MP's will inevitably vote against the measure. There is a lot of time before February and I think that Tony Abbott will change his mind at the eleventh hour before the vote is held and I'll tell you why I know this. 

It's been over a year since I last wrote to Julia Gillard about her stance against same sex marriage and argued that Australia will quickly be seen as a country going backwards, living in the past stuck in a rut of permanence to elderly ideals. There has been a commendable shift in Australia since then. The first thing and most important is the recent Labor party conference forcing her to open her eyes and change the official party policy. They've gone from accepting discrimination to opposing it. Since July 2010, New South Wales voted in favor of same-sex adoption rights and Queensland introduced and passed a Civil Unions bill that allows for legal ceremonies as well as the legal protections that come with marriage. Things have changed across oceans with New York and Mexico propelling forward and ending marriage inequality in their shores. 

While the labor party have endorsed equal rights, the prime minister still says she believes that Marriage is between one Man and one Woman. I don't believe Julia Gillard as a person is against same-sex marriage. It would be a fundamental black spot in her personality for that to be true considering she knows first hand what discrimination feels like for many reasons including her gender, hair color and current "marital" status with her boyfriend. The political version of Julia Gillard opposes equal rights only because she and her lobbyists agree that they will lose more marginal votes if she changes her views now.

Why doesn't it matter that public opinion has changed in a year and a half? Because as a prime minister she has already been accused of changing her mind on carbon tax and a range of other issues. With the amount of times she said "I believe that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman and that the Marriage act should stand" on national television and radio interviews, I can see it being hard for her to back track on that platform without some political backlash. 

Instead Julia Gillard went into the labor party's annual conference last month and used her own party's views as a shield against changing her own. Rather than support gay marriage outright, she "allowed" the party to vote in a majority for changes to the labor platform in favor of equality but with the one exemption that not all labor MP's are required to vote in favor of it. When I say allowed I mean that if she didn't permit the measure she would have been outvoted by her own party. That had the chance of forcing a stronger stance that would not have included the option for a conscience vote but a full blown mandatory party position. Instead she backed down and chose the option that guarantees any changes to the Marriage Act this year will fail without support from the opposing party, but at the same time oversaw a shift in official party platform, a shift that sends a strong message to people everywhere. 

The media had a field day with it, and while editors at The Australian and Ben-Peter Terpstra probably threw a tantrum, news was mostly seen as positive in all other sources including SMH and news.com.au. International sites have recognised that Australia's ruling party just endorsed same-sex marriage. That is the sort of news headline which forces people to change their hearts and minds and gives gay people everywhere affirmation and hope for better things to come. It can't be understated enough, so thanks labor party for your half attempt at doing the right thing. It sure beats doing the wrong thing. Like the Liberal party are now. Tony Abbott and the Liberal party are going to learn that they are being unreasonably staunch, eventually, and hopefully have the balls to allow a free party vote on any future law changes. I don't know that much about Australian politics but I believe that this is the first time a liberal party leader has instructed all of its members to vote according to one platform, apparently it's seen as a party that respects "liberty" and "choice". So why is Abbott being such a stick in the mud on this one occasion? 

It comes down to politics, there is no question about it. This is one of the last few issues he can use against Julia Gillard as a weapon for vote grabbing. He thinks that if he points out that the labor party has lied about supporting "traditional marriage" like they lied about carbon tax, that he can paint Gillard as the ultimate flip-flopper. He maintains that the Liberal's have to vote against Marriage Act changes because that was their stance when people voted for them.

If Tony Abbott believes that politicians aren't allowed to change their minds and admit that the world has evolved around them, then he is an idiot. As much as i dislike the current New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, I must agree with his position that the political landscape is fluid. John Key explained that politicians should be able to alter their former stances to adapt with a transforming world and economy. Tony Abbott needs to take notes from his New Zealand counterpart. I mean even some of his closest colleagues also agree that a conscience vote is the right thing to do and I would consider it kind of embarrassing that your deputy prime minister is publicly come out in support of a conscience vote in the media while you stonewall against it. It definitely isn't an easy place for Mr. Abbott. He is being heavily lobbied on both sides of the political paradigm and for now he has chosen the safe option. But will he keep it?

I don't believe so. I think that the tide has turned too far now for him to realistically deny a conscience vote and make the liberal party go down in history as the party that prevented civil rights from progressing. In my opinion it would be a big stain on everything they say they stand for. What I believe he is doing is saying no for now, just like Julia Gillard did previously, so that the right wing base of his party don't get up in arms about it for months and months. The actual vote is still at least sixty days away. He'll be firm on his position just like she was. Think of it as a form of political trickery. Tick tock the equality clock will go and at the last minute a conscience vote will be permitted... and that my friends is when the real fun will start.