A MARRIAGE equality plebiscite will open the LBGTQI community up to months of ridicule during the for and against campaigns according to Member for Macquarie Susan Templeman.
The bill to hold a same-sex marriage plebiscite passed the House of Representatives on Thursday.
The bill still has to pass the Senate, which is not controlled by the government.
Speaking in federal Parliament on Thursday, October 20, Ms Templeman said the campaign would become an excuse for public vitriol aimed at LBGTQI people.
“In theory, having a public, mass vote on something is a nice idea. I can understand why people have been attracted to it. It sounds democratic,” she said.
“It does sound sensible until you think about the months of campaigning that it would trigger. When you think about that, you realise that the concerns about the impact the debate will have on members of the LGBTQI community, their families and their friends—in other words, all of us—you have to say no to a plebiscite.
“The dangers of the damage that a debate about same-sex marriage could bring outweigh any other arguments in favour of it.”
Ms Templeman said the psychological trauma of a prolonged yes and no campaign would be damaging to many people from the LGBTQI community.
Member for Hawkesbury Dominic Perrottet said Ms Templeman’s were out of order.
“I completely disagree with Ms Templeman’s view in relation to the plebiscite,” he said.
“I have utmost faith in the public and always believe in the very best of my fellow citizens. We have a long history of civil, courteous and robust debate in Australia.
“There is no democracy in the Labor Party on this issue so it’s no surprise they wont give us, the people, a vote in this debate. I will always trust the will of the people over a privileged few who think they know what’s best for us.”
Ms Templeman added that there was no reason why a decision on same-sex marriage had to come down to a plebiscite.
“There are so many practical reasons why we do not need a plebiscite. John Howard did not have one when he change the Marriage Act in 2004. It is hard to see why, when you have changed the original piece of legislation, a change back should require a different sort of process,” she said.
