No marriage vote: behind the scenes

GetUp is sending out emails giving details of how our parliamentary masters elected representatives voted the other day to defeat the gay marriage bill before parliament. If you're a member of GetUp then they send you how your MP voted in your electorate, in my case Peter Garrett voted yes (at least he's good for something).

If not a GetUp member, there's a complete list of how all the MP's voted here at the GetUp site.

In the email they state:

Part of the reason the yes vote was low is because Tony Abbott did not allow Coalition MPs to vote with their conscience. Many, like Malcolm Turnbull, Mal Washer and Teresa Gambaro, actually had to vote against their stated beliefs on the issue; other supporters abstained from voting in the Senate. This we know for sure: the only way we’ll ever see leadership on this issue from Canberra is if Coalition MPs who support ending marriage discrimination speak out inside their party room for the right to a conscience vote. It's important that we congratulate those who have, and ask them to continue doing just that. If you're still not sure what to say, click here for some tips so you can ask your member to step up and start the conversation.

This issue isn’t going to disappear – there are yet more bills before Federal Parliament and the states like Tasmania are moving fast. With a majority of Australians now on board, it’s only a matter of time before politicians catch up. For many MPs, this journey has already happened. Peter Garrett, for instance, was inspired by Barack Obama to lend his support – despite public criticism from some members of his local branch. So it's really important that we thank these people, especially those who stuck their neck out because they believed it was the right thing to do, not necessarily the easy thing.

Politicians rarely hear from ordinary constituents after the fact, and they almost never get thanked. So whether you’re calling to say you’re happy or disappointed with how your MP voted, hearing from you sends a message that you care how they voted. It shows you’re paying attention, reading beyond the headlines and are committed to holding them accountable.

Although change might not happen as rapidly as we'd hope, we're making steady progress and we know it's only a matter of time until marriage discrimination is ended once and for all. Sometimes it takes patience; often it takes persistence. Always it’s worth it.

I was also interested to read what went on in the local ALP Kingsford-Smith electorate when Garrett made it clear he was going to vote yes for marriage equality. Basically the branch spat the dummy, sending him an open letter which was published in the local rag the Southern Courier. Here is some of that letter:

Dear Mr Garrett We note the ALP Maroubra Branch and Kingsford-Smith Federal Electorate Council’s recent motions supporting the existing definition of marriage in the Commonwealth Marriage Act - that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Your public position, as we understand it, is that you will vote to change the definition to a union between any two adults which will make same sex and heterosexual marriage legally the same.

The Maroubra Branch members have specifically raised the following issues to better understand your position.
........................
Research strongly shows that same sex unions have significantly different normative values to traditional marriages between men and women. Do you accept that the definition change you support also calls into question other marital norms, eg permanence; fidelity; sexual consummation; impediments of consanguinity; the limitation to two people only? If not, why?

Do you acknowledge that our society may be limited in its ability to foresee the consequences of diluting the simple clear model of marriage that we have?

Do you think that schools that teach that marriage is not and cannot be between two people of the same sex should be coerced by law to either teach that same sex marriage is the equivalent of heterosexual marriage or suffer deregistration by Education Departments or other penalties?

Do you accept the assertion by some advocates of same sex marriage that an adherence to the traditional definition of marriage is ipso facto homophobic and bigoted?

Do you accept that people who wish to preserve traditional marriage in its current simple unambiguous form can still hold genuine love, respect and charity towards gay and lesbian people? more

Pretty incredible, especially when the Federal Labor Party changed it's platform to embrace gay marriage. WTF is the local ALP branch doing coming out against that? No wonder I don't vote Labor. The local branch at least is certainly not representative of community attitude, particularly given this is the eastern suburbs of Sydney which has the highest concentration of gays in Australia. How could they be so bloody ignorant and small minded?

Anyway, here's most of Garrett's reply.

The National Conference of the Labor Party considered this matter most recently in November 2011. The platform now states “Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples irrespective of sex who have a mutual commitment to a shared life”. 

Conference also determined that Members of Parliament are free to vote on this matter as informed by their conscience and on that basis I have decided I will support the Bill. 

Additionally, I have sought the views of the constituents of Kingsford Smith, with a majority in favour, and also note the Kingsford Smith FEC resolution. 

The ambit of the questions you raise in the letter, for the most part, go to the issue of whether or not additional recognition of same sex couples as is contemplated by amending the Marriage Act, will in some way weaken the traditional bonds of marriage and cause adverse impacts on children and society as a whole. 

I do not believe this will be the case nor do I consider there is substantial evidence to support this view nor the other propositions you have put in your correspondence to me. 

For the record I am a strong supporter of marriage, having been in that happy state for 27 years and I greatly value family life. 

At the same time, I don’t consider that sexual orientation in and of itself is sufficient reason to deny any person the right to which others are entitled. In that sense I find myself in agreement with President Obama, amongst others, who have identified the denial of this right as an important issue to be considered. 

Just as I do not believe we should discriminate against people on the basis of race or religious views, the same applies in this instance to the question of choice of partner and the equal recognition of that choice and commitment by the state. 

It is important to note that the Jones Bill does not impose any obligation on ministers of religion to recognise same sex marriage. 

I am firmly of the view that the integrity and commitment within any relationship lies at the heart of durable family and community relationships we all value. 

I don’t believe the denial of the rights or opportunities of one group over another will contribute to this shared societal goal of healthy relationships. 

Indeed it is clear to me that there are now differing and evolving attitudes and practices to marriage, for instance the increasing number of de facto relationships, and that enabling an additional group of people to have their joint commitment recognised by the state as marriage should not be seen as weakening its meaning or import. the rest

Think he actually did quite well in this case. Going against his whole local branch and listening to what his constituents were saying instead.