Tony Abbott is right.
In the wake of Ireland's successful vote for marriage equality, some Australian politicians and people have been calling for a referendum on the issue here.
On Sunday, Liberal senator Zed Seselja and independent senator Jacqui Lambie called for a referendum to be held in Australia, arguing the people should have a say.
Last week, independent senator Glenn Lazarus also promoted the idea, inexplicably threatening to don a mankini if the vote failed.
However, prime minister Tony Abbott, opposition leader Bill Shorten, and advocacy group Australian Marriage Equality (AME) have all rejected a referendum. Here's why:
Ian Kington / Getty Images
A referendum isn't necessary because the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is not in the Australian constitution.
In Australia, a referendum is a compulsory popular vote to alter the constitution.
Such a vote was necessary in Ireland because the Irish constitution is imbued with social values on the role of the family and women in society. It was ruled that marriage equality could not be legalised in Ireland unless the constitution was amended to explicitly allow it.
The Australian constitution has no such barriers. In fact, it doesn't even define marriage – it just says the government is allowed to legislate on it. Therefore, a referendum isn't needed.
In fact, the High Court has explicitly stated there are no constitutional barriers to legalising marriage equality in Australia.
It's a 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act 1961 that is banning marriage equality – and the federal parliament has the power to amend it.
Buena Vista Pictures
We could technically have a referendum anyway, but the constitution is a weird place to instill social values.
Part of the problem in Ireland is that its constitution entrenched social values in the first place, law professor George Williams recently wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald.
"Ireland shows the danger of entrenching social values in a nation's constitution. What may seem unobjectionable at one point in time can prevent reform 50 years or even a century down the track," he wrote.
"It is better to leave these matters to parliamentarians to resolve so that concepts like marriage can evolve over time."
Plus, parliament has to pass a bill to have a referendum – and if MPs won't vote to change legislation on marriage equality, it's unlikely they'd approve an opportunity to have it enshrined in the constitution.
CBS
Post a Comment