After speaking during the debate today, I voted against the proposed legislation but attempted to improve it with an amendment. The amendment was lost and I will certainly ask the Legislative Council members to consider it during their deliberations.
My amendment to the debate was entirely reasonable, and in the circumstances a very modest change. The proposed amendment would have made clear that those few overseas countries which have formally introduced “same sex marriage” would not be considered equivalent law to the Tasmanian Relationships Act (2003). I offered to compromise somewhat if there was also compromise from the government. That is, I could support the bill if its scope was limited either to Australian jurisdictions or if overseas marriage laws were specifically excluded.
It was obvious to me that the bill was much more about making a political gesture toward marriage then addressing any remaining discrimination – that’s because there isn’t any remaining discrimination. The fact is, state and federal governments resolved those matters years ago.
I highlighted during my contribution that it was quite a troubling state of affairs that the supplied fact sheet, second reading speech and departmental briefing made no references to recognition of overseas same-sex marriage. In fact, those materials specifically only mentioned civil union-type schemes and downplay any links to marriage. I alerted the parliament to my disappointment that it looked like the Attorney General wanted the broader application of the law to be kept out of the debate.
Nobody likes to be on the losing side of an argument – however I will always proudly challenge moves to fiddle with our essential social institutions. To build recognition schemes and pass laws to remove discrimination is all well and good; but I am amazed that every couple of years there is more policy ground that is demanded from mainstream society to satisfy the wishes of those who actually want much more extreme change. Why we as a society put up such weak resistance to social engineering is beyond me. The Tasmanian people should be on notice for more radical social change which is proposed by this Labor-Green government.
I am particularly thankful to Will Hodgman for providing a free vote on this bill as it clearly relates to matters of conscience.
