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. 

same sex marriage, almost.

Good evening Julia. I would like to quickly preface this by saying I appreciate you have no time to sift through enquiries of this nature right now. I merely hope that this someday gets to your attention and that on a human level you are able to read with an open mind. It would affirm my original respect for you as a person and a prime minister, while also galvanizing my support for politics in general.

I support you, almost. Your speech carried me today, almost. You say you want to move australia forward... but it's 'almost' at best. Why? Because people in same-sex relationships in this country ...have similar rights to their heterosexual counterparts... almost. I am articulating this point as myself: a twenty two year old male who is a free thinking conservative that cares about personal human rights struggles. Please listen because this is not just a same-sex seeking struggle, I believe it is a fundamental human rights issue that needs to be resolved sooner rather than later.

I must impart in the most passionate way I can over text, that I feel each and every single day we discriminate there is irrevocable damage being done. Damage that is direct.


1) Damage to children who have same-sex parents, they grow up in a household that is fundamentally disabled from accessing basic human rights protections as their friends, and neighbors.

2) Damage to teenagers and younger adults who are gay or lesbian and are struggling to deal with the sheer fact that who they are puts them at odds with societies most fundamental ideals and expectations for normalcy, responsibility and family. I have had two friends commit suicide for this very reason and hence my incredibly staunch opinions on this highly sensitive topic.

3) Damage to the safety of any citizen who is perceived as a homosexual by a bigoted other. Hate crimes due to sexuality are common and only fueled by the very basic illegality of the relationships. Banning same-sex marriage on a legal level while the church brands gay people as intrinsically evil and the most dangerous and insidious threat to society does nothing to make more heterosexual couples live stably and have more children. It only serves to harm and disable an entire section of society for the vague end goal of "preserving tradition," much like when Mildred Loving fought against reasons for banning inter-racial marriage in Loving V Virginia 1967 (united states supreme court ruling banning inter-racial marriage bans countrywide).

As of 17th July 2010, Argentina became the tenth country in the world since 2001 to legalize same-sex marriage. So far, that means one country has been allowing for their GLBT citizens the same liberties and freedoms each eleven months. Five years ago, only two countries had allowed same-sex marriage which only points to one thing: an avalanche of countries affirming liberty across the entire sexual orientation paradigm, which leads me to my next point. The negative consequences of banning full marriage rights to all people.

1) Australia will be seen as a country going backwards, living in the past, and stuck in a rut of permanence to elderly ideals (which used to force gender and race into submission until world perceptions against persecution for these were smashed to pieces) in recent history.

2) Your entire speech about moving 'forward' as a nation 'together' will become yet another mouthpiece with no intended real meaning for so many people who are GLBT, who know people who are GLBT or who like me, know people who are GLBT and have strong opinions about currently global human rights endeavors.

3) The economy will suffer. Analysts have long predicted that once allowing same-sex marriage, some tens of thousands of gay and lesbian people will boost the economy through weddings, parties, cakes, clothes, you name it. There are some gay couples who have been together up to seventy years, hoping that one day they would be exacted the privilege of being allowed to spend their money and love on each other in a way that affirms the dignity, permanence, honor, community and responsibility of their commitment to eachother as two human people. 

Finally, i'd just like to retrospectively argue some of the reasons you may or may not be opposed to same sex marriage.

Q the tradition family unit is precious and should not be altered drastically, yet (or ever)

A denying two people who inherently and passionately love the same sex will not inspire two people who are inherently and passionately in love with the opposite sex, to live more stable and happy lives.

Q civil unions and domestic partnerships are the right way forward for everybody

A having separate schools and water fountains for black and white people were seen as a 'right way forward' in the fifties when lawyers argued that separate-but-equal clauses were okay. If a gay man enters a marriage registry with some random female off the street and also his male partner of twenty five years, he is only allowed the option of marrying one of those two people based on gender. This is not only sexual orientation abuse but also sex discrimination in its purest form. In 1967 lawyers against the loving v virginia case argued that because black people could marry black people and white people could marry white people that there was simply no real harm done because looking at it plainly neither group were disadvantaged by virtue of their color. It was by virtue of the color of the other person and it's that stance which was defeated with a resounding roar by the supreme court, over fifty years ago now. If i were to want to marry another man, but only had the choice to pick any woman of my liking, that would infringe on a persons right to select the sex they were born to love.

Q churches and religions will be weakened

A there are deliberate and specific ways of being able to legislate for same sex rights while also protecting the church from being forced to change their views and beliefs, practices and traditions within their own walls. Australia is not a one-religion-fits-all country and the reasonable man/woman would agree legislation should not be only based on the transitory moral disapproval of one particular faithful set of the entire population. To do so would be to enforce morals on people who have opted out of living within those confines, and is also a breach on the fundamental human right of religion (as in, being able to choose not to live under it too).

Q it could confuse or upset children

A many children are being and have been raised in homosexual relationships. It's been happening and cannot be ignored. Unless a worldwide mandate to remove all kids from same-sex households passes, then we are actually confusing and upsetting those very children who deserve the basic liberty of being able to know and understand that their parents are in the same relationships as their neighbors and friends. But if that was not enough: it is also imperative those kids parents have the same legal protections for when if worst comes to worst, or emergencies form. To limit marriage rights to the "special" children who have heterosexuals as parents is to unreasonably harm those children who lives in households that the government has decided to keep "less than" only because there is a word called tradition and, tradition is seen as "good".

Of course there are so many more arguments for or against but I will for now end this letter and say I am quite outspoken yes, but I have been thinking hard about the invidious discrimination which permeates our world. It makes me sad. It makes me mad. It makes me wonder how much human people really can empathize and sympathize with each other when a politician like you promises change on one hand, but the 'more of the same thing' on the other.

I would really implore you to reconsider why your government is so adamant that civil unions and partnerships are the only way to move forward. I really would like to see something soon. It would inspire so much hope in so many lives, and touch those who until not long ago society shunned as mental, and worthy of lynching and death purely because they were born in a fashion which led to them becoming homosexual.

Thank you for listening. You are welcome to respond to me at any moment in time. I can be contacted on 0415 xxxxxx. I am also on twitter, http://twitter.com/morganjterrill(i follow you there), and of course my address details have been attached.

Good luck in the election.

Yours faithfully,
Morgan Terrill