Obviously passing up an opportunity to improve equality in the expectation that we’d then be able to push our preferred approach is a massive act of hubris.
It’s not that we don’t support marriage, it’s that we oppose government having any say in what marriage means.
Marriage should be protected not by excluding particular individuals, but by excluding the state. This would return marriage to the community, to be interpreted by all in line with their own traditions and values.
I would say that marriage equality, as it’s being discussed by the government, is a step in the direction that we want. It means the government has less constrictive rules about marriage, which is a step along the path to the government not having any say at all in what marriage is.
I think there’s scope for a Position Statement here, or at least a press release.
To be released at conclusion of the high court challenges.
If the HC lets it go ahead:
“This is a civil rights issue. While our position goes further, the proposed changes get us closer to equality. We’re not going to pass up an incremental improvement once it’s here (even if the mechanism is daft). Vote Yes.”
If the HC cans it:
“This is a civil rights issue, it shouldn’t even need to be voted on in this way, we’re glad the HC canned it. While our position goes further, there’s no reason Parliament can’t make incremental improvements now.”
The pollies are discussing law changes around auths in the media this afternoon for this vote, so might be best to add our on things we share just to be safe.