Consider This

Consider this…

1 April 2017

9:00 AM

1 April 2017

9:00 AM

IBM to back gay marriage postal vote?

I presume that IBM (and every other corporation that backs gay marriage) would back a postal vote of all Australians on the proposal for gay marriage. Surely, they are not so craven as to lobby for gay marriage (under the false banner of Marriage Equality) but accept the answer only if it occurs by parliamentary vote. That would be showing their political colours – rainbow.

Surely IBM et al are not so thin- skinned as to toe the party line of Australian Marriage Equality’s Alex Greenwich who says that it would be ‘sneaky’ of the government to bypass the decision of the Senate to block the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 by holding a postal plebiscite. Why is it sneaky to attempt to fulfil a promise made at the last election?

Could it be that the chiefs of industry have been swayed by a very tiny cabal of their dinner companions to ignore the public – the public who, much like their shareholders, hold views almost certainly at odds with the cabal’s disdain for a public vote?

A national plebiscite does not require legislation

In 2015, Mr Paul Pirani, Chief Legal Officer of the Australian Electoral Commission, confirmed to the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs that it is possible for a plebiscite to be held without the Parliament passing enabling legislation.

The plebiscite could be conducted as a fee-for-service election pursuant to section 7A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Electoral Act).

Were a plebiscite to be held as a fee-for-service election, the provisions that the government sought in the plebiscite Bill could be outlined in a memorandum of understanding between the AEC and the department that is paying for the plebiscite. The AEC would follow the guidelines that are in that memorandum of understanding.

There would be no need for public finance for the Yes and No campaigns, no need for official Yes and No committees. The electorate are well aware of the issues.

The question in the original Bill, ‘Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?’ would still apply. A simple majority would determine the outcome of the plebiscite.

I can just see it now, big business, just as it did in the UK over Brexit, telling people what to think and how to vote. Should be delicious. So, come on you great heroes of gay marriage, back the right of Australian voters to have a say.

The ‘open’ letter

The open letter from ‘Australian business leaders’ in support of gay marriage unctuously declared ‘rights and liberties of all individuals are sacrosanct’. Indeed, but there is not a right for two men or two women to marry. That has been true for a thousand years, and all major parties have agreed that position until recently. It is perfectly reasonable to regard heterosexual marriage as the norm, a cultural arrangement underpinned by unassailable biological foundations.

Stamping ones feet to declare the matter as one of rights is to twist the meaning of human rights beyond recognition. Indeed, it is an abuse of the English language and an abuse of law to remove from heterosexuals a distinction they have known and understood for eons. The 98 per cent, heterosexuals, may well vote for the law to be swept away, but that is a matter for them.

The chiefs of industry referred to the US Supreme Court declaration on gay marriage. It is true that Obama Supreme Court appointees imposed their values on Americans.

Judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be

But, in dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts said: ‘Petitioners… contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. Voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex. But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be.’

And the chiefs of industry argued that ‘countries that are culturally similar to ours like New Zealand, the United States of America, Canada, and Great Britain’ support gay marriage. I never thought that I would live to see the day when the Left (who inspired our chiefs of industry) would support the ‘Anglosphere’, that dark heart of capitalism that, allegedly, runs the world.

And as for the pathetic economic arguments they used to provide cover for their craven indulgence. They argued marriage equality is a ‘sound economic option given, that a happy workforce is a productive one’. What sophistry! The very small numbers of gays who intend to marry have no right whatsoever to ask their bosses to fix the law to suit their private wishes. Goodness me, what dumb dream will these bosses think of next to divert their businesses from their legal course – to generate value for shareholders – not lecture them on morals. And, still more. The chiefs argue ‘to remain competitive and to attract top talent globally organisations – and nations – must create a fair and respectful environment for all’.

So how come the openly gay CEO of Qantas, an Irish migrant, seemed to be getting on quite nicely in this country before the gay marriage putsch, came to shove? He could, of course, return to Ireland to get married to his partner.Chiefs of industry, have the strength of your newly found conviction – put this to the people and have a postal vote.

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator Australia for less – just $20 for 10 issues

Show comments