This morning, former Prime Minister and current Liberal backbencher Tony Abbott fronted the media to firmly establish his position as a leader in the vote ‘no’ campaign against marriage equality.
“Obviously I will be voting ‘no’,” Abbott said to reporters outside Parliament House in Canberra.
“But in the end this is not about the politicians,” the politician continued, surrounded by television cameras and microphones. “This is about the people, it’s about your view.”
Except of course that it is very much about the politicians.
The vote, by the people whose view is said to be so important, is not legally binding. Ultimately, $122 million will be spent on a postal plebiscite that could be overruled by parliament. That’s $27 million more than is spent on mental health resources in this country. That’s $54 million more than Homelessness Australia estimates would save 3000 domestic violence victims who are turned away from crisis accommodation each year. Or maybe they could fill some of the soul gaps created by that $100 million federal government cut to the arts.
If this is so much about the people and their view, then you’d think there would be some consideration of opinion polls, which are regularly and scrupulously conducted. According to a Fairfax Nielson Poll, 65 per cent of Australians support same-sex marriage and 75 per cent understand the reform to be inevitable. We know that most Australians are in favour of marriage equality – if this really is about the people then the decision has already been made.
But Tony Abbott insists this isn't about him. It's about you. And your view. But also it's a little bit (a lot) about his view that he would very much like you to agree with.
"And I say to you if you don't like same-sex marriage, vote 'no'," Abbott advocates.
If you're searching for the political argument in this statement - there isn't one.
If you don't 'like' people of the same sex getting married, then don't marry someone of the same sex.
And maybe don't vote on a human rights issue based on an illogical feeling.
Ah, the pitfalls of democracy.
"If you're worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote 'no'."
Religious freedom is quite literally enshrined in our Constitution under section 116, which states that parliament cannot discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. To be clear, section 116 is not being subjected to a plebiscite. "Religious freedom", we must remember, also grants citizens the freedom not to be religious.
Australia is a secular country, meaning that church and state are separate. But Abbott, a man who once held the highest office in our country, wants to govern other people's lives based on his own personal Catholic principles.
If you are indeed worried about 'religious freedom' in this country, I'd argue it's best to vote 'yes'. People who identify as Christian in Australia has been steadily declining for decades. Thus, Christian values have no place in the relationships of a vast majority of Australians, and that is religious freedom.
Furthermore, the irony of telling someone how to vote in order to protect their freedom of speech is beyond comprehension.
But Abbott wasn't finished.
"And if you don't like political correctness, vote no because voting no will help to stop political correctness in its tracks," he said.
The definition of political correctness is as follows: "The avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalise, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against."
POST CONTINUES BELOW: Mamamia Out Loud has a message for politicians about the same sex marriage plebiscite.
Thus, if you want to continue to exclude, marginalise and insult socially disadvantaged people who are legally and socially discriminated against, then stand with Abbott.
Yes. Political correctness is most definitely the enemy. As is kindness, empathy and common decency.
Perhaps Abbott should have stopped after the part about not 'liking' same-sex marriage, because it seems that is where his argument begins and ends. There is no logic to be found in the 'no' campaign.
But, as a former Prime Minister once said, this isn't about politicians. It's about us.
I'm not going to pull at your heart strings. I'm just going to urge you to vote for what makes sense and what is right.
And equality - as Tony Abbott found this morning - is pretty bloody hard to argue with.
Top Comments
I fear if the SSM team continues to hack down anyone from Abbott to Margaret Court and anyone else who says they are against change you'll end up losing the vast middle ground who have no particularly strong view either way because you'll come across as nasty bullies. The best thing you can do is not call for their heads, but to acknowledge there are contra arguments and debate them. Next best is to say nothing as according to polls, you have a majority of votes, so low key is the best play.
Sorry but after spending Saturday night with several gay friends distraught over the "debate" in the lead up to the postal ballot and then in parliament I don't buy your argument about civilised debate and acknowledgement of both sides. Having that "debate" causes considerable distress to LGBTIQ, it causes teens to suicide and ordinary people to be put in the appalling position of having to defend the right of their relationships to exist as equal to heteronormative couples and parents. I'm not going to apologise for coming across forcefully and in harsh criticism anti-SSMs - people's well-being, their right to equal protection and their very lives are at stake. It is no longer acceptable to tolerate anti-LGBTIQ opinions, under the guise of religion or anything else.
Fine, lose then in the knowledge you are right and the others are wrong.
It is not about being right or wrong it is about extending equal civil rights to everyone, no matter their sexual orientation, people's personal religious beliefs are NOT RELEVANT to this legislation - we are a SECULAR society (meaning we cannot make legislation based on religion s116 Aust. Constitution) or are you conveniently choosing to ignore that? But no matter how many times I say this it seems that you're not able to grasp this concept.
How can you say marriage isn't relevant to religion unless you want religious institutions to be out of SSM and it to be performed in a non religious ceremony?
If a man of faith refuses to marry a SS couple, do you believe he should be cuffed and jailed? Fined? Sued?
I don't like Tony Abbott, but I miss his humour value visually (budgie smugglers etc). Not all his values are Catholic, I can assure you, I say that as a Catholic. Not a very good one,but born and bred.
BTW, authors should research Catholic values, they might be surprised. Especially what the lay people believe, and how we live. We are the biggest religious group in this country, and have gone through a lot of discrimination ourselves.Google it.
As far as gay people go, I believe in live, and let live.
Live and let live is a great approach. As far as gay people go, live and let live. As far as a bakery or florist who doesn't want to do a SSM, live and let live still apply, or do you want them destroyed?
It is already ILLEGAL in Australia to discriminate on the basis of; gender, race, religion, creed, or SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Bakeries in Australia NOW, cannot discriminate. Because all of it comes under the umbrella of the Anti Discrimination Act. Just as you can no longer put up signs saying 'No Aboriginals served here', you CANNOT, by Australian *LAW*, discriminate on sexual orientation. So, even WITHOUT marriage equality, it is currently, today, ILLEGAL to DISCRIMINATE ON THE GROUNDS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION. That might be news to you, but that is the LAW. In AUSTRALIA. TODAY. And no govt in Australia will EVER relax those laws, because once you do, it is a slippery slope. Then people will want to discriminate against Middle Easterners. Against Muslims. Against Asians. That is exactly why the law is as it is. Les, you currently if you are a baker or a florist, in Australia, are not allowed to discriminate on sexual preference. That....is.....the.....AUSTRALIAN.....LAW. If a florist or baker - or newsagent, or jeweller, or fast food operator, or petrol station, or whatever - wants to discriminate against Christians or Atheists or Buddhists or gays or lesbians or wiccans or bisexuals or blacks or asians or whatever - here is a hint: DON'T GO INTO BUSINESS. I think that is simple and reasonable enough. If you can't abide by the LAW, get out of business.
That's so wrong. If you don't want to bake a SSM wedding cake due to religious objections, you should lose that business opportunity and the couple should go down the road and get their cake there.
It shouldn't be a legal thing.
Well it is. Would you have ANY idea how demoralising this sort of treatment would be? Constantly feeling your relationship isn't worthy, being refused service, being rejected or mocked or excluded based on something inherent to your existence? Honestly your obtuseness and lack of compassion is just astonishing.