All MPs should contribute to any Marriage Act change
I find Trent Zimmerman’s comment itself curious when he says it is “curious” that MPs opposing change now expected “the right to determine” any final legislation (“Tensions increase over rival SSM bill”, 10/11). The postal vote was free and elective, but parliament was always going to determine the changes to the Marriage Act.
Surely it is axiomatic that all parliamentarians now participate in the debate over the detail of any proposed amending legislation. Isn’t that the democratic system in operation? For Zimmerman to call it “curious” indicates more about his philosophy than the proper workings of parliament. Jerome Paul, Balmain, NSW
It does not surprise me that the marriage plebiscite appears to be heading for a majority Yes vote. It has been obvious for some time that most people see this issue as a simple act of gener- osity with no ramifications beyond its immediate declared aim — a nobrainer which means a decision reached without any real thought. That’s the problem: there are serious consequences, and they require intelligent consideration and cannot be simply dismissed.
Add to this category of the wellmeaning but ill-informed, those who deny there will be adverse consequences for freedom of speech and religion when they really mean they know there will be, but simply don’t care.
A significant minority know exactly where this is heading, and will use any change in the law to further their cause, particularly through the education system. Who in their right mind would believe that they will quietly disappear and leave the rest of us alone once the law is on their side? Peter Davidson, Ashgrove, Qld