This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/25/a-plebiscite-on-same-sex-marriage-might-kick-our-politicians-into-action

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
A plebiscite on same sex marriage might kick our politicians into action A plebiscite on same-sex marriage might kick our politicians into action
(35 minutes later)
As an Irish Australian, I’m proud to be Irish.As an Irish Australian, I’m proud to be Irish.
As a Catholic Australian, I’m not proud at all to be Catholic.As a Catholic Australian, I’m not proud at all to be Catholic.
As an Australian, I’m just gloomy.As an Australian, I’m just gloomy.
Sleepy, socially conservative Catholic Ireland is now the globe’s preeminent example of progressive democratic social and legal change by voting in a referendum to legalise same sex marriage. Sleepy, socially conservative Catholic Ireland is now the globe’s pre-eminent example of progressive democratic social and legal change by voting in a referendum to legalise same-sex marriage.
The Catholic church proved its utter irrelevance in the referendum result. The Catholic bishops told Irish voters that children had a right to a mother and a father. What about a child’s right not to be molested by an ordained father? What about a parent’s right to trust that a bishop won’t hide a paedophile priest in their parish?The Catholic church proved its utter irrelevance in the referendum result. The Catholic bishops told Irish voters that children had a right to a mother and a father. What about a child’s right not to be molested by an ordained father? What about a parent’s right to trust that a bishop won’t hide a paedophile priest in their parish?
The Irish people, once so willing to heed to the clergy, decisively determined that Catholic bishops possess little credibility these days when it comes to knowing what’s in the best interests of children.The Irish people, once so willing to heed to the clergy, decisively determined that Catholic bishops possess little credibility these days when it comes to knowing what’s in the best interests of children.
Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, said the result was a “reality check” for the church and that if “the referendum is an affirmation of the views of young people the church has a huge task in front of it.” Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, said the result was a “reality check” for the church and if “the referendum is an affirmation of the views of young people the church has a huge task in front of it”.
He didn’t exactly spell out what that task is. I hope to God he doesn’t believe it is to convince young Irish Catholics that they are wrong and the church is right. The key task ahead for the Catholic church in Ireland – and the world – is to face squarely the enormous damage the church has done to children and how out of touch the church is on matters of family, parenting and self-sacrificing love.He didn’t exactly spell out what that task is. I hope to God he doesn’t believe it is to convince young Irish Catholics that they are wrong and the church is right. The key task ahead for the Catholic church in Ireland – and the world – is to face squarely the enormous damage the church has done to children and how out of touch the church is on matters of family, parenting and self-sacrificing love.
Related: Same-sex marriage referendum in Australia would just be a 'big opinion poll'
The Irish referendum bursts any claim that western society isn’t ready to change its definition of marriage. Yet prospects for such change in Australia are bleak.The Irish referendum bursts any claim that western society isn’t ready to change its definition of marriage. Yet prospects for such change in Australia are bleak.
Make no mistake – Tony Abbott is the primary constraint to the Australian parliament debating, voting and most likely passing an amendment to the Marriage Act. By threatening to force some of his own MPs to vote against their consciences, by demanding they toe the party line that marriage is between a man and a woman, Abbott ensures the legislation never gets introduced. Make no mistake: Tony Abbott is the primary constraint to the Australian parliament debating, voting and most likely passing an amendment to the Marriage Act. By threatening to force some of his own MPs to vote against their consciences, by demanding they toe the party line that marriage is between a man and a woman, Abbott ensures the legislation never gets introduced.
Then again, let’s not fall for the nonsense position peddled by the usually smart and pragmatic deputy Labor leader Tanya Plibersek to bind Labor MPs into supporting same sex marriage. There are Labor members with strongly held views, some rooted in deeply-held religious beliefs, who in conscience could not support such a position. Then again, let’s not fall for the nonsense position peddled by the usually smart and pragmatic deputy Labor leader, Tanya Plibersek, to bind Labor MPs into supporting same-sex marriage. There are Labor members with strongly held views, some rooted in deeply held religious beliefs, who in conscience could not support such a position.
Forcing them to do so plays to the stereotype that the left is openly hostile to religious belief and intolerant of differing views. Plibersek’s position fails to understand that for social and legal change to be accepted and long lasting it must be achieved through argument and persuasion, not coercion. Forcing them to do so plays to the stereotype that the left is openly hostile to religious belief and intolerant of differing views. Plibersek’s position fails to understand that for social and legal change to be accepted and long-lasting, it must be achieved through argument and persuasion, not coercion.
If our MPs won’t or can’t debate the matter openly, the people can do it for themIf our MPs won’t or can’t debate the matter openly, the people can do it for them
During my time as premier, the NSW parliament considered legislation to allow same sex adoption. As Labor leader, I gave my MPs a conscience vote. So too did the Liberal leader of the opposition. The bill was widely debated. People expressed strongly held views and respectfully listened to one another. A number of MPs and many in the community changed their minds because of what they heard in the debates. During my time as premier, the NSW parliament considered legislation to allow same-sex adoption. As Labor leader, I gave my MPs a conscience vote. So too did the Liberal leader of the opposition. The bill was widely debated. People expressed strongly held views and respectfully listened to one another. A number of MPs and many in the community changed their minds because of what they heard in the debates.
Political parties saw members fall to either side of the vote. When the numbers were counted the law passed and everyone accepted the change. If MPs on either side had been coerced I doubt the community – or the parliament itself – would have accepted the result. Today in NSW no one is seriously arguing to repeal same sex adoption. It is simply and unremarkably the law of the land. Political parties saw members fall to either side of the vote. When the numbers were counted the law passed and everyone accepted the change. If MPs on either side had been coerced, I doubt the community – or the parliament itself – would have accepted the result. Today in NSW no one is seriously arguing to repeal same-sex adoption. It is simply and unremarkably the law of the land.
Various crossbench senators suggest that a referendum in Australia may break the parliamentary deadlock on same sex marriage. I have great sympathy for this argument – but the prime minister is right. We don’t need to change our constitution; we need to change the Marriage Act and it’s the parliament’s job to do that. Various crossbench senators suggest that a referendum in Australia may break the parliamentary deadlock on same-sex marriage. I have great sympathy for this argument, but the prime minister is right. We don’t need to change our constitution; we need to change the Marriage Act and it’s the parliament’s job to do that.
So, what about this as a way forward: while MPs are navel-gazing on the manner in which they might hold a vote, let’s just get the public to actually vote. Let’s have a plebiscite. If our MPs won’t or can’t debate the matter openly, the people can do it for them. Sure, it won’t be binding. But it might just be a way for the Australian people to burst through, just like their Irish brothers and sisters, and bring about real and lasting change. So what about this as a way forward: while MPs are navel-gazing on the manner in which they might hold a vote, let’s just get the public to actually vote. Let’s have a plebiscite. If our MPs won’t or can’t debate the matter openly, the people can do it for them. Sure, it won’t be binding. But it might just be a way for the Australian people to burst through, just like their Irish brothers and sisters, and bring about real and lasting change.