(Transcript from SBS World News Radio)
After Ireland's historic referendum vote to legalise same-sex marriage, the latest voice to join the public debate on marriage equality in Australia has been the Prime Minister's own sister.
Liberal Councillor Christine Forster, who is in a long-term lesbian relationship, hopes Tony Abbott will allow his party a conscience vote if the matter is raised in parliament.
Kristina Kukolja has more.
(Click on the audio tab above to hear the full report)
Mr Abbott has made it clear he doesn't support a popular vote on marriage equality, saying it's the parliament's job to deal with the issue if it arises.
"Referendums are held in this country where there is a proposal to change the constitution. I don't think anyone is suggesting the constitution needs to be changed in this respect. Under the constitution, questions of marriage are the preserve of the Commonwealth Parliament."
And while positions on the cross-bench vary, there's dissent from within Mr Abbott's very own ranks.
Liberal Senator Zed Seselja, who like the prime minister doesn't support gay marriage, believes Australia should follow Ireland's lead.
"If you are going to go down the path of pushing for such a fundamental change, then perhaps a referendum is the way to go."
The issue even has advocates divided, including among those who would want to see same-sex marriage legalised.
Shirleene Robinson is from a group known as Australian Marriage Equality.
"I think the issue with a referendum is that it would actually be quite time consuming and expensive. It's probably easier for this to go through the federal parliament."
Unlike Ireland, Australia doesn't need a referendum to allow same sex marriage.
It would only require legislative change.
For his part, Federal Opposition Leader Bill Shorten wasted no opportunity to take a political shot at the Prime Minister in responding to the issue.
"Tony Abbott's pretty quickly rushed out to say he doesn't want Australians to have a say in marriage equality. He says it should be the parliament. Tony Abbott can't have it both ways. If there isn't to be a referendum on it and he's ruled that out, then he needs to explain why he's denying his own members of his party the right to exercise their conscience on marriage equality."
Labor's policy platform is to support same-sex marriage, but the party allows MPs a conscience vote.
Deputy leader Tanya Plibersek had proposed that be changed, calling instead for a binding vote in the affirmative.
In recent days, some Labor MPs who were previously opposed to marriage equality have changed their views.
Tony Abbott says, if the legislation were to reach that point in parliament, it's for the Liberal party room to decide whether its MPs should get to vote according to their conscience.
Mr Abbott's sister Christine Forster, a Liberal City of Sydney Councillor, tells Sky News she hopes he will encourage colleagues in that direction.
"His personal position is well known and he's entitled to that position, but I would like nothing more for the current prime minister, who happens to be my brother, to take the same type of approach as David Cameron took. We need to move forward on a free vote and if it was a free vote, even if it went to parliament and didn't get up the first time, it would be a pretty close result, I believe. And we'd not be far away from actually getting this through."
The Greens want a vote to be held by the end of the year.
Senator Scott Ludlam is confident of the numbers in both houses of federal parliament.
"It's not one of those things that you would normally say we'd see sooner rather than later. I've been in the Senate now for nearly seven years and we've had a bill for marriage equality in Australia come on several times and it keeps falling short. There were reports last week that we might only be four votes short in the House of Representatives and that we might be able to carry a majority in the Senate. So, I hope what's happened overseas will move things along. It's really about time."
Independent Senator David Leyonhjelm too, has a marriage equality bill before parliament.
"The traditional argument is equality and that doesn't resonate with them. My argument is that it's not the government's business what gender person you're allowed to marry. In the old days, governments used to say a black person couldn't marry a white person or a Catholic couldn't marry a Protestant and a Jew couldn't marry a Gentile. Still the government says a man can't marry a man or a woman can't marry a woman. All we're really saying is get the government out of it."
Some conservative opponents argue that families and children, in particular, will be harmed if same-sex marriages become legal in Australia.
In 2013, the first same sex marriage laws in the ACT were reversed by the High Court, after a challenge by the Abbott federal government.
Share
