Same-sex marriage vote planned
SYDNEY — Australia’s governing Liberal Party met for hours behind closed doors Tuesday to debate same-sex marriage, twisting itself in knots and ending up with a two-step approach: If the Senate does not open the polls for a compulsory national vote, party officials said, then Australians will be invited to cast voluntary ballots on the issue by mail as early as September.
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, speaking at a news conference after the discussions, said that holding a postal vote if the Senate rejected an in-person one would give people the opportunity to “have their say,” though neither vote would be legally binding.
After months of delays and rumors about how Australia would make a democratic decision about the contentious issue, the process itself has become a subject of widespread scorn.
While other countries have decided on same-sex marriage in the courts or in parliament, lawmakers in Australia have spent months bickering about mechanisms. The disagreements include whether to put the issue to legislators or voters, and whether that should be through the mail or a national vote, known in Australia as a plebiscite.
They have also argued about timing, costs and the scope of possible campaigns for and against same-sex marriage, even as a good deal of the negotiating has taken place away from public view.
Polls show that the majority of Australians believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized. Experts say that has been the case for quite some time.
It seems unlikely that legislation supporting a national plebiscite (or same-sex marriage) will pass the Senate this week. In light of that, the government is expected to use its executive power to conduct a nationwide vote by mail, which could be blocked in court.
If that vote does proceed, and Australians decide yes by mail, a parliamentary vote on same-sex marriage could happen before the end of the year — but only if the party in power agrees to it. The postal vote, with an estimated cost of $122 million, will not change the law but simply provide additional guidance about public opinion.
“That will be frustrating for advocates of marriage equality because it is absolutely clear in Australian law that Parliament could make this change today or this week if it wanted to,”said Ryan Goss, a senior lecturer in law at Australian National University. “There are no constitutional or legal reasons to hold this nationwide vote whatsoever.”
Several Liberal Party lawmakers have expressed exasperation with the handful of colleagues, including former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who have resisted a simple vote in Parliament.