I am a 30-year-old woman of liberal upbringing and no particular religious affiliation. Among my peers it is a foregone conclusion that I will be voting "yes" in the upcoming postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage. To admit otherwise would be akin to confessing that I am secretly a homophobe or hate preacher.
The fact is: I will be voting "no".
More Victoria News Videos
Melbourne council shows marriage equality support
Melbourne City Council throws its weight behind the campaign to legalise same-sex marriage. Vision courtesy Seven News Melbourne.
I do not believe I am homophobic. And I am certainly not a hate preacher. Of course my heart goes out to the Penny Wongs of the world. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with whether one loves their children or is a good parent, and such accusations are intolerable. But my peers seem to believe that my two beliefs are incompatible – to vote "no" to same sex marriage is to hate Penny Wong…
In my experience, the debate in the lead up to this postal plebiscite has been characterised by this sort of prejudice by the "yes" voters and their intolerance of genuine discussion around the issues. Legitimate debate is being drowned out; anyone who whispers a doubt to voting "yes" is immediately shunned.
This is not right. And it does not endear me to the same-sex marriage cause. If a "yes" voter were to engage me in a productive conversation, who knows, they might even sway my vote!
I would be able to ask, and they explain, why marriage is considered a "right". It's not enshrined in the constitution like the United States nor is it the sole means of bestowing the legal rights of a relationship. I'm all for loving and living with whomever you like without fear of prejudice or persecution. People should be free to publicly proclaim their love and commitment to each other. Yes, love is love, but how does that make marriage a "right"?
![Yes, love is love, but how does that make marriage a "right"?](http://web.archive.org./web/20170824191836im_/https://www.fairfaxstatic.com.au/content/dam/images/g/t/i/6/1/p/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gy2aar.png/1503574733260.jpg)
Perhaps a "yes" voter would also be able to alleviate my concerns about altering one of the bedrocks of Australian society – the definition of marriage. The steady changes to the foundation principles upon which our country has been built do concern me. The recent census has shown us that religion is on the decrease, and I wonder what ethics will arise to compete with the Christian values of hard work, selflessness, and community. For me, altering the Marriage Act on top of this is too much change to the core fabric of Australian society at once. But it does not mean I would be opposed to it in the future.
I do not believe that either of these views make me a homophobe. In fact, I suspect that same-sex marriage in Australia is inevitable, and I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is the shutting down of our right to sensible public debate and considered decisions.
![Supporters of marriage equality rally outside Sydney Town Hall.](http://web.archive.org./web/20170824191836im_/https://www.fairfaxstatic.com.au/content/dam/images/g/x/q/h/4/g/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gy2aar.png/1503574733260.jpg)
Dr Katherine Harper completed her PhD at the University of Sydney. She has since worked in international development and foreign affairs policy.
862 comments
Comment are now closed