Shorten is right to oppose this unnecessary and undemocratic plebiscite.

Lord knows, I am not a supporter of the Labour Party but Bill Shorten is right to oppose a plebiscite over same-sex marriage.

I mean let's be clear. This notion of holding a plebiscite on the question of  same-sex marriage was simply a trick. It was a delaying tactic, a stick thrown in front of same-sex marriage campaigners to trip them up and impede the progress towards removing one of the last remaining obstacles to equality for gay people.

And it was a very clever trick

A plebiscite has the appearance of dealing with a vexed issue in a democratic way even though we have been able to resolve these issues in the past without any resort to plebiscites. We didn’t need a plebiscite to abolish the death penalty in Australia, or to decriminalise homosexual acts. And, most significantly, we didn’t hold a plebiscite before adding the provision “marriage shall be between a man and a woman” a mere ten years ago.

But suddenly we need a plebiscite to remove it.

Now, thanks to this tactic, the argument has arisen that same-sex marriage entails such a huge change to Australia’s culture and society that everyone is entitled to vote on the issue. There are only two problems with this:

1.   It’s not a huge change. It’s a tiny technical change. 

2.   You’re not voting on anything. Unlike a referendum, a plebiscite is not binding. The answer you write on the paper does affect any legislation, except psychologically. A plebiscite is just a 160 million dollar opinion poll which politicians can then refer to as indicator of public opinion. And clearly the results can be used by both sides to justify their position.

To explain the first point above. Despite the issues that are raised by opponents of same-sex marriage, the question is not whether same-sex couples can live together and raise children and generally be regarded as normal families – they are already legally doing that.  Just like a different-sex couples who are living together, same-sex couples are regarded as living in a de facto marriage by the ATO, Centrelink, the Department of Social Services, the Family Court and just about every legal jurisdiction. They already have the same rights, privileges and obligations as different-sex couples. So that’s not the issue.

And it’s not about whether same-sex couples can get married in the sense of having a marriage ceremony. Same-sex couples can already find celebrants and even churches that will perform marriage ceremonies where they make the same vows, with all the same sincerity and solemnity as different-sex couples. The only difference is that, at the end of the wedding ceremony, the different-sex couples get to sign a Marriage Certificate and their marriage is recorded in the Registry of Births, Marriages and Deaths.

That’s all it comes down to. Signing a certificate. That’s what all the fuss is about.

So, why, given that same-sex couple are already have, for all intents and purposes, the same rights as different-sex couples in regard to tax, inheritances, home loans, superannuation , divorce settlements, child adoption and so on, are opponents of same-sex marriage determined to stop them from having their marriage officially recorded by the Registry Office? The answer can only be - sheer bloody-mindedness. It seems that opponents of same-sex marriage realise they can’t stop same-sex couples living together, raising children, even adopting children and claiming the title of parents but at least they can deny them this one last thing –having their relationship officially recorded in the BDM Registry. Which is really just petty.

And the notion that people have a “right” to vote on this issue is simply incorrect.

It is not a principle of democracy that one group of citizens, regardless of how large it is, can vote to suppress the rights of another group. The most important feature of a right, be it enshrined in a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, Statutes or Common Law is that it applies apply to everyone. This is the nature of Justice: that the rules apply equally to all. Hence, if one person has the right to marry the person of their choosing, then everyone has the right to marry the person of their choosing.

Oddly, I am quite sure that if you polled the opponents of same-sex marriage about arranged marriages – the situation that occurs in some countries where young women and men are simply told who they have to marry – they would repudiate it as barbaric – a violation of the right to choose your own spouse. And yet they take the position that, in Australia, a gay man can only get married to a woman and a gay woman can only marry a man. How is this not the same denial of choice?

The unfortunate situation we find ourselves in is that there are, in Australia, people who enjoy the right and the privilege of being able to marry the person of their choice but who wish to deny that right to others. That denial of what is surely one of the most basic rights, is not something that can be justified by a plebiscite. Even if 90% of the Australian population voted against same-sex marriage it would still be a violation of human rights and thus an invalid vote, just as if a majority of people voted to deny Aboriginal people the right to go to school, or the right of women to be airline pilots. Such votes do occur from time to time in the world but they do not constitute democracy.