Public support for same-sex marriage on the rise

[Pies4shaw]

The problem, I think, is that there seems to be quite considerable opposition to same sex marriage, if I have understood the "Marriage Equality" website's analysis of the figures.

That particular social conservatism seems likely to cross class and social barriers, so both parties are probably concerned that an "official" party-line in support of same sex marriage is capable of costing them votes.

Since the Australian Government is voted in and out of office by the relatively small percentage of people who "swing" their votes from election to election, the fate of any same sex marriage Bill will likely be determined by internal party perceptions about what effect passing such a Bill might have on "the swinging vote".

Because most swinging voters appear to cast their votes in a short-sighted, knee-jerk kind of way (ideal for changing a government every couple of years), my guess is that the "downfall of the family unit" rhetoric could sway quite a lot of them. It may be that internal party-polling shows a different position but I doubt that because, if it did, the ALP position would probably be quite different.

Thus, politically, it seems to me possible that a "conscience vote" might allow such a Bill to pass but a fixed party position at this time couldn't - because the fixed position from the ALP would have to determined by worrying too much about where the "swinging vote" lies on this issue, so it would likely have to be fixed opposition, rather than fixed support.

[David]

^ I think that was almost certainly the rationale back when Gillard was stonewalling on the issue, but I suspect that moment has passed – public support has risen to a level now where it's a low-risk bet. That someone as gutless and wishy-washy as Bill Shorten has come out all guns blazing in favour of same-sex marriage seems to demonstrate that.

I'd say the main reason Labor made the decision it did on the weekend is simply internal factional politics. The Catholic Right still hold a certain sway on the party and are going to be dragged kicking and screaming all the way. This is more about shoring up Shorten's image and avoiding an embarrassing internal split.

[Pies4shaw]

But isn't that the problem - that the Catholic Right (and other conservative groups) hold the power they do within the ALP because they represent, amongst other things, a certain proportion of the ALP vote? They're not there for their good looks, their intelligence, their erudition or their personal niceness.

[David]

I guess you're right. I don't think there's always an exact match between voting demographics and existing power bases within the party, though. This Joe de Bruyn guy has been a factional powerbroker for some 35 odd years. I reckon it'll take more than a bit of changing social attitudes to negate his influence on the party.

[Tannin]

[Pies4shaw]

Remind me, what was the overall electoral margin at the last Federal election, in percentage terms?

[Tannin]

Not relevant. mate.

(a) Because (as mentioned) they will more than likely stay wedded anyway. (Why they didn't leave and join the DLP in 1955 with the rest of the ultra-right I'll never know.) And

(b) Because they make up a tiny number compared to the huge majority who support gay marriage. Overall Australians are better than 2 to 1 in favour, probably better than 3 to 1, so any rational calculation of electoral chances would take far more cognisance of the large number of votes out there to be won than of the very, very small number to be lost.

(Overall, the number to be lost isn't "very, very small", it is only "small to moderate", but the vast majority of those prepared to vote against a party supporting gay marriage wouldn't vote Labor in a blue fit anyway, so they are of no account)

I stick to my read of the conference decision as being a sensible, pragmatic way to avoid a messy public argument without having any real effect on outcomes.

[David]

Surprised no one's commented on this yet.

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/aug/11/same-sex-marriage-coalition-party-room-rejects-free-vote-for-mps

A plebiscite? Surely Tony jests. But really, I reckon he knows exactly what he's doing. This is the best way for him to keep the issue on the backburner while minimising damage at the election. Hopefully people will see through it.

[Pies4shaw]

I thought I already did, David - see my first post on this page.

Welcome to the wonderful world of realpolitik.

[Tannin]

Even his own party is dirty on him. He stacked the Liberal Party room meeting by wheeling the Nationals in.

[stui magpie]

On one hand I can understand the argument not to change party policy on this part way through a term of government after having taken 1 stance to an election and won.

On the other hand, that's never stopped a government from changing their mind before.

If this is really an issue that's front of mind for a large number of the population, Abbott just doomed his government to lose at the next election as there is now a clear choice between Labor and Liberal on the issue. I suspect however that it won't be much of a factor.

Interestingly I heard Shorten speak on the radio about this twice today and I was pleasantly surprised. He spoke well.

[ronrat]

I suspect Rabbott has learnt from Howard re the republican referendum, In other words give it no chance of ever getting up. And churches can butt out until they fix systemic sexual abuse issues.

[Tannin]

[stui magpie]

^

Sister Francesca and little tim endorse this post.

[HAL]

Does that remind you of it? ?