Rocky path ahead

WITH the result of the gay marriage postal plebiscite due to be revealed tomorrow morning, both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ camps appear to be preparing for a ‘Yes’ result.

It is understandable that the PM did not want to get bogged down in detail and sought to just ‘get the vote done’ so the public will can be ascertained and made law by Parliament.

But, assuming a majority Yes result tomorrow, this next phase of ironing out the detail will showcase the difficulty of translating a broad Yes vote into specific laws.

Some will see a Yes victory as a mandate to stamp out anything they see as anti-gay speech even if it is traditional religious doctrine emanating from churches, synagogues and mosques.

But using the blunt instrument of state in this context will do little to change hearts and minds or win skeptics over to the equality argument.

If the majority vote is for gay marriage then that is what our democratically elected representatives must enshrine in law.

But they must be careful to simultaneously protect the rights of the religious, the rights of parents and the general right of free speech.

Whatever the size of the ‘No’ vote tomorrow it is likely to be bigger than it might naturally be had its proponents not had the bugbear of the Safe Schools program to play with in their campaign.

We have previously stated our editorial position is that the vote to bring in marriage equality should prevail because its claims are stronger than the arguments of the No camp.

But you do not have to be a rampaging bigot or homophobe to have concerns as a parent about some of the radical social engineering being trialed under the guise of anti-bullying programs in our state schools.

Among other questionable elements to the program teachers are counselled that it is “heterosexist” to refer to students as “girls and boys.”

Homosexuals deserve the right to marry, and parents deserve the right to a nonpartisan education for their kids.