Should there be a conscience vote on gay marriage?

Tony Abbott has promised to take the question of same sex marriage to the country at the next election. It was “the democratic and fair thing to do,” he said. But within hours, on ABC’s Lateline, his progressive sister Christine rejected the PM’s position as unacceptable. She wants a plebiscite before the next election, not afterwards.

Negotiating with the political ‘progressives’ is seldom constructive. Just ask Julia Gillard, who regularly faced the ratcheting-up of Greens’ demands even when she thought she’d firmly shaken hands on an agreement with Bob Brown. The progressives are never satisfied, never give up, and always know best.

Progressives like Tanya Plibersek and Bill Shorten say the issue of same-sex marriage was settled long ago. But the public doesn’t share the progressives’ urgency. Polls show voters rank same sex marriage 13th in order of policy importance, well behind health, education, and economic growth.

Abbott is right to give voters the say. He may be struggling to stabilise his leadership, but knows full well he needs to retain the support of the electorate. “The last thing you do is dud the people who voted for you,” he said.

Changing the meaning of marriage is very different from changing the rate of the GST. Governments regularly adjust taxes without consulting the people. But whether a government agrees or disagrees, a change to a foundational institution such as marriage should have the express consent of the electorate. Changing marriage will change society. The people’s voice needs to be heard before this is done.

US Chief Justice John Roberts made the same point in his powerful dissenting judgement in the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Proponents of same sex marriage need “to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the cause,” he said. Let the people decide.

This persuasion lies at the very heart of democracy. Acceptance can’t be imposed by unelected judges or by politicians acting without a mandate. Progressives don’t believe in mandates because they don’t see the need for them. Shorten dismisses those who don’t agree with him as being “stuck in the past.”

That’s why the Coalition party room decision to reject a free conscience vote on same sex marriage in the life of this Parliament is the right one. Abbott has promised to put the matter to the Australian people “to settle this matter once and for all.” Far better — and fairer — to take the issue of revising marriage to the country and handle it in the new Parliament.

It is not certain what will happen after the next election. There could be a non-binding plebiscite or referendum allowing states and territories to make their own marriage laws. But what is clear is that voters will know exactly what they have voted for. The people will have decided.