Gillard and Brown

For a while it seemed like a bad election for Australia’s million or so gays and lesbians. Tony Abbott felt threatened by us, a Family First candidate linked gay marriage to child abuse, and Penny Wong looked weak in toeing the party line against marriage. With the Greens now potentially holding the balance of power in both houses of Parliament gay marriage has never been closer to the political centre stage.

The question concerning supporters of marriage equality is whether the Greens will reward their faith while negotiating with Labor.  Is gay marriage a core promise, we wonder?

The issue is certainly close to Adam Bandt’s heart – it was a key plank in his initial campaign against Lindsay Tanner. He also set off a trend amongst city-based Labor candidates for declaring their personal support for gay marriage.  One can’t imagine Bob Brown suddenly walking away from the matter either.

What should Julia Gillard do?  The answer is a no-brainer. Up to 14 of a future Gillard Cabinet would vote in favour of equality if given a free vote, and she needs Greens votes in both houses to form a Government and deliver an agenda. The political price to pay for bringing the Greens on board regarding marriage is potentially much smaller than veering left on other key Green policies on refugees and emissions trading. In fact, all it would take would be the opportunity to introduce a Private Member’s Bill with a subsequent free vote. Gillard could even take some of the credit if she dared – by having a Labor MP introduce the bill.  If that sounds alarms on her political radar a Greens Senator or Bandt could do it.  A vote by the ALP’s National Executive supporting a free vote on the issue, would then the way for MPs to follow their hearts.  The stumbling block, of course, will be the ever present threat of an early election keeping MPs from coming out of their gay marriage closets.

That being the case, the post-election negotiations are a tough moment for gays and the politicians they have placed their faith in. Yes, many gays vote on issues unrelated to identity.  But it clearly grates with most of this significantly-sized voting group that the major parties feel able to simply sidestep their biggest remaining hurdle to equality.

Gay rights lobbyists are familiar with being treated as a party to transactions. Gays had their transaction in 2008 with 58 positive legal changes that removed nearly all Commonwealth discrimination against them.  In the Labor Party play book they must now go to back of queue with gratitude. There must be no whining while wiser heads try to manage the marginals; no disruption while a deal is stitched together to form a stable government.

But the problem for gay representatives and mainstream parties is that gay individuals are less willing to put up with these childish demands than in past decades. The increasing Greens vote amongst gays and lesbians is the result. If you think that doesn’t have political implications for the whole electorate – simply review the voting tallies from 21 August.

Whether or not they like being forced into political transactions, gay voters still have a choice to make. Green horse-trading in the coming days is the only way to get the issue of gay marriage into formal political debate in the life of the next Parliament.

One key reason for this is not marginal seat voters, weak leaders or Christian lobby groups – it is the disorganization of gay and lesbian communities themselves. Instead of calling Penny Wong a ‘traitor’ or asking her to ‘get on the next boat home’ as some have recently, the gay blogosphere and magazines might benefit from some self-reflection first. They are stuck relying on the Greens because they have left themselves with no other choice. To give one example, funding better research and lobbying would give Wong a lot more to work with in her blokey poll-driven party. The lone lesbian in the Cabinet should be able to rely on more than her own will when it comes to raising gay and lesbian issues in the ALP. Sadly that has rarely been the case.

Gay communities should not be relying on freak electoral results to get their issues on the table. They should be putting their money where their mouth is instead. Eighty per cent tell academic and political researchers that they want access to marriage. Only a tiny minority does anything about it. Their straight supporters are also silent and stingy when it comes to the heavy lifting.

While the Greens may be the short term answer to moving the equality debate forward, in the long term gay voters need to look hard in the mirror and decide what they really want from the political system.  Political crumbs and victimhood, or equality through organization.

The Greens had better look ahead also. The flip side of their new bargaining power is that they will become the next scapegoats of gay communities if they use it unwisely. Doing a deal for a ‘civil union’ system of relationship recognition or letting the issue fall from the negotiating table is the quickest way to that outcome. Civil Unions may be a wonderful idea if they are an alternative for marriage.  But they are a terrible idea if offered as a replacement for marriage. And they are a terrible idea for a party that so far has had the courage and foresight to make equal love a key part of its political pitch.

Tags: Adam Bandt gay marriage, Australian election gay marriage, Australian Greens gay marriage, bob brown gay marriage, Julia Gillard gay marriage, Labor gay marriage, marriage equality, Penny Wong, Ryan Heath, ryan heath gay marriage, same sex marriage, Tony Abbott, Tony Abbott gay marriage

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 28th, 2010 at 1:30 pm and is filed under Australia, Politicians. You can follow any comments to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.