tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/same-sex-marriage-plebiscite-29871/articlesSame-sex marriage plebiscite – The Conversation2023-05-25T01:41:41Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2057452023-05-25T01:41:41Z2023-05-25T01:41:41ZWhat can we learn from the marriage equality vote about supporting First Nations people during the Voice debate?<p>In recent months in Australia, we have seen <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/09/rockhampton-mob-ringleader-was-head-of-patriots-group-that-posted-anti-islam-content">vigilante racism</a> in Rockhampton, <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/we-are-tired-swans-legend-slams-booing-of-buddy-franklin/u2vlwkbcy">booing</a>, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-19/lawyer-for-ex-hawthorn-players-speaks-after-clarkson-takes-leave/102370598">abuse</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65095927">vitriol</a> directed at First Nations footy players, and the <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-14/rally-at-banksia-hill-detention-centre-conditions/102341648">appalling treatment</a> of First Nations children jailed in adult prisons.</p>
<p>Racism is a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/apr/05/indigenous-voice-no-campaign-event-reinforced-racist-stereotypes-watchdog-says">major issue</a> in the debate over the proposed First Nations Voice to Parliament – and it will likely only continue to get worse.</p>
<p>Regardless of how First Nations people intend to vote, racist <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/22/linda-burney-blasts-peter-dutton-for-spreading-misinformation-on-indigenous-voice">public commentary</a> has a harmful impact on the mental health and wellbeing of people and their communities. <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-19/stan-grant-media-target-racist-abuse-coronation-coverage-enough/102368652">Stan Grant’s decision to step away</a> from his role with the ABC is a high profile example of this. </p>
<p>Recognising these likely impacts, the federal Labor government has <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-10/budget-allocates-millions-to-support-indigenous-mental-health/102326916">committed $10.5 million</a> to support mental health services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the lead-up to the referendum vote later this year. </p>
<p>This is a welcome initiative that will enable Aboriginal community-controlled organisations to provide further support for their respective communities.</p>
<p>We can also learn from the experiences of LGBTQIA+ people during Australia’s marriage equality plebiscite how a national vote like this can affect the mental health of a historically marginalised community.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-how-indigenous-lgbtiq-people-dont-feel-fully-accepted-by-either-community-161096">New research shows how Indigenous LGBTIQ+ people don't feel fully accepted by either community</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Mental health impacts of the marriage equality plebiscite</h2>
<p>Studies found that increased exposure to the “no” campaign messaging in the lead-up to the marriage equality plebiscite, as well as the harmful public debate, led to <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-the-marriage-equality-debate-damaged-lgbt-australians-mental-health-110277">greater levels</a> of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajpy.12245?needAccess=true&role=button">psychological stress</a>, depression and anxiety among the queer community.</p>
<p>Our research focusing on the wellbeing of Indigenous and LGBTQIA+ communities suggests the Voice to Parliament debate will also disproportionately affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. </p>
<p>We have found that while people who identified as both Indigenous and LGBTQIA+ experienced frequent sex and gender discrimination, <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-how-indigenous-lgbtiq-people-dont-feel-fully-accepted-by-either-community-161096">the impact of racism</a> was more profoundly felt. As a result, it’s important to protect Indigenous people against racism in the very public debate over the Voice.</p>
<p>During the marriage equality plebiscite, mental health services catering to LGBTQIA+ clients saw a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-18/same-sex-marriage-survey-lgbtqi-mental-health-support/8955956">dramatic increase</a> in demand. This led to longer wait-lists and increased stress on the healthcare system. The mental health of LGBTQIA+ people in electorates recording a high “no” vote <a href="https://doi-org.ezproxy.ecu.edu.au/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.015">was also more affected</a> than people in electorates voting “yes”. </p>
<p>This would suggest that funding support for Indigenous people in communities associated with higher levels of racism is a priority. Pre-polling and post-referendum analysis would help establish which areas require this. </p>
<p>A supportive community also matters. LGBTQIA+ people with a close social circle they perceived as supporting marriage equality suffered less severe <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-how-the-marriage-equality-debate-damaged-lgbt-australians-mental-health-110277">negative mental health outcomes</a> from the “no” campaign. For those who didn’t receive support from their friends and family, public messages of support helped. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, not all Indigenous LGBTQA+ peoples <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2673-995X/3/1/5.%20Conceptualising%20Wellbeing%20for%20Australian%20Aboriginal%20LGBTQA+%20Young%20People.%20Youth,%203(1),%2070-92.">have access</a> to social supports. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1659698394665984000"}"></div></p>
<h2>How could the Voice referendum affect First Nations people?</h2>
<p>According to various surveys, a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/27/a-majority-of-first-nations-people-support-the-voice-why-dont-non-indigenous-australians-believe-this">majority</a> of Indigenous people support constitutional recognition. But unlike the <a href="https://doi-org.ezproxy.ecu.edu.au/10.2104/ha080044">1967 referendum</a>, the Voice to Parliament referendum faces an organised “no” campaign. </p>
<p>There is opposition to the Voice from some media and social media sources that purposefully confuse the case for constitutional recognition. This makes the task ahead more difficult for “yes” campaigners and Indigenous people more broadly. </p>
<p>Racialised stressors that come with the referendum are an additional burden to First Nations communities. One example of this is the opposition’s repeated insistence about “insufficient detail” on the Voice, particularly from the more <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-22/peter-dutton-says-indigenous-voice-will-re-racialise-the-country/102378700">conservative side</a> of the “no” campaign.
This invalidates and distorts the work, expertise and experience of Indigenous people over decades on all sides of the debate.</p>
<p>This vote will have little adverse impact on the lives of non-Indigenous Australians. However, supporting Indigenous family members, friends and colleagues is important. Like the marriage equality plebiscite, a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5899433/">minority community</a> will face the greatest impact from the vote, not the majority with power.</p>
<p>Being supportive of Indigenous people firstly requires an understanding that we, as First Nations people, are entitled to <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-a-lot-of-first-nations-peoples-debates-around-the-voice-to-parliament-are-not-about-a-simple-yes-or-no-199766">diverse</a> political views. </p>
<p>We are not here to educate or carry the burden of raising awareness on the referendum. We are also not interested in experiencing increased racial violence under the guise of political debate. This debate is one that non-Indigenous people can walk away from, but will remain felt by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. </p>
<p>Sustained mental health support for Indigenous people after the referendum will hopefully lessen the harm from the racism that will probably follow, irrespective of the outcome. </p>
<p>In order to combat racism and <a href="https://thewest.com.au/news/indigenous-voice-to-parliament/aec-warns-of-increasing-misinformation-over-indigenous-voice-to-parliament-referendum-c-10739488">misinformation</a>, it is vital for non-Indigenous people to have informed conversations about the referendum – <a href="https://togetheryes.com.au/">around the kitchen table</a>, at work, and even at your infamously racist uncle’s house. </p>
<p>Within our <a href="https://nit.com.au/09-05-2023/5891/murdoch-university-leadership-declares-unanimous-support-for-the-uluru-statement-and-yes-for-the-voice-to-parliament">respective</a> <a href="https://www.ecu.edu.au/about-ecu/voice-to-parliament">organisations</a>, non-Indigenous colleagues are also educating themselves and others around them. They are taking the opportunity to elevate the voices of their Indigenous peers and proactively considering ways to support Indigenous communities throughout the campaign and afterwards.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/205745/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bep Uink receives funding from the NHMRC and Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shakara Liddelow-Hunt receives funding from the NHMRC. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sian Bennett receives funding from Pathways of Care Longitudinal Study (POCLS), NSW Government.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Braden Hill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In order to combat racism and misinformation, it is vital for non-Indigenous people to have informed conversations about the referendum with those around you.Braden Hill, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Students Equity and Indigenous), Edith Cowan UniversityBep Uink, Research fellow, Murdoch UniversityShakara Liddelow-Hunt, Research assistant, Telethon Kids InstituteSian Bennett, Lecturer, Edith Cowan UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1531002021-01-19T19:07:32Z2021-01-19T19:07:32ZSydney Festival review: The Rise and Fall of Saint George shows the transformative power of music<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379377/original/file-20210118-18-1vlw80b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1087%2C1384%2C5734%2C3534&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bianca De Marchi/Sydney Festival</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Rise and Fall of Saint George is a story about place, belonging and community that taps into universal tensions of identity and faith in multicultural societies. </p>
<p>Playing for one night only at the Sydney Festival, the breezy and open space of the Headland at Barangaroo Reserve with Sydney Harbour as backdrop provided an additional dose of catharsis to this haunting and humorous tribute to freedom exemplifying the transformative power of music. </p>
<p>Electronica composer and musician Paul Mac and playwright Lachlan Philpott collaborated to create a personal and poignant reflection on the divisive national same-sex marriage debate in Australia and one of its local consequences: the destruction of a giant mural of George Michael in Newtown by several young men in separate incidences, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/19/vandalised-george-michael-mural-sydney-makeover">one of whom claimed </a> it violated his Christian faith. </p>
<h2>Reflection and healing</h2>
<p>Scott Marsh’s mural was commissioned by Mac and Johnny Seymour for the side of their home in Newtown following the death of George Michael in 2016. The singer is depicted as a saint in priestly robes with a cross dangling from one ear, his head surrounded by a rainbow-coloured halo and smoking marijuana. </p>
<p>For 11 months, the mural was a site of commemoration, celebration, pilgrimage and reassurance for the residents of Newtown — and further afield, given the made-for-Instagram quality of Marsh’s work. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379418/original/file-20210119-15-2y757t.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="George Michael in priestly robes with a cross dangling from one ear, his head surrounded by a rainbow-coloured halo and smoking marijuana" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379418/original/file-20210119-15-2y757t.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379418/original/file-20210119-15-2y757t.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379418/original/file-20210119-15-2y757t.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379418/original/file-20210119-15-2y757t.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=803&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379418/original/file-20210119-15-2y757t.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379418/original/file-20210119-15-2y757t.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379418/original/file-20210119-15-2y757t.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1009&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The original mural in Newtown.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sydney Festival</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The mural’s life was cut short by vandals and has become a site of contest over freedom of expression and faith. But this one-hour performance directed by Kate Champion with a huge choir, excellent music and a great lineup of singers is a celebration of life, love and resilience in unpredictable times. </p>
<p>The battle for George’s visibility played out in the performance is both reflection and healing, and a reminder freedoms cannot be taken for granted.</p>
<p>The mood during the marriage equality debate was intense given the divisiveness of the campaign. The result of the postal survey was a resounding yes, but roughly one-in-four of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/same-sex-marriage-survey-by-the-stats-a-resounding-yes-but-western-sydney-leads-no-vote-87258">votes were for no</a>. This is still a lot of people.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/same-sex-marriage-survey-by-the-stats-a-resounding-yes-but-western-sydney-leads-no-vote-87258">Same-sex marriage survey by the stats: a resounding 'yes' but western Sydney leads 'no' vote</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>News audio broadcast from the same-sex marriage debate takes you back to the heightened emotion of that time. Video of Newtown streetscapes evoke the neighbourhood’s narrow and close knit rows of houses, and the lyrics reflect the importance of tolerance and acceptance: “with open minds there’s room for you here”, the choir sings.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379380/original/file-20210118-23-1cwjj8x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Singers stand on stage." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379380/original/file-20210118-23-1cwjj8x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379380/original/file-20210118-23-1cwjj8x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379380/original/file-20210118-23-1cwjj8x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379380/original/file-20210118-23-1cwjj8x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379380/original/file-20210118-23-1cwjj8x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379380/original/file-20210118-23-1cwjj8x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379380/original/file-20210118-23-1cwjj8x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Rise and Fall of Saint George is a celebration of life.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bianca De Marchi/Sydney Festival</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Juxtaposed with audio from Penny Wong and Tony Abbott are cheeky and ribald lyrics balancing the gravity of the destruction of the mural with a humour that might ameliorate those violent acts: “Now we have a plebiscite that’s more dinky di than vegemite!”</p>
<h2>Listening without prejudice</h2>
<p>Rather than drawing on George Michael’s music, the show perpetuates his legacy as a freedom fighter for not only gay rights, but the right to be who you are and live your own truth without judgement. </p>
<p>In this, it embodies his call to listen without prejudice. </p>
<p>Mac speaks candidly about his personal experience of prejudice with the defacement of the mural; the fear the waves of vandalism to the mural caused him, his partner and the local community, and the vigils held to protect the mural. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379379/original/file-20210118-23-12sgcje.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man at a piano." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379379/original/file-20210118-23-12sgcje.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379379/original/file-20210118-23-12sgcje.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379379/original/file-20210118-23-12sgcje.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379379/original/file-20210118-23-12sgcje.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379379/original/file-20210118-23-12sgcje.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379379/original/file-20210118-23-12sgcje.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379379/original/file-20210118-23-12sgcje.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paul Mac candidly shares his story.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bianca De Marchi/Sydney Festival</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Threats they received during this time were a reminder of the suspicion and fear divisiveness can generate. </p>
<p>Incidents of defacement were followed by the chalking up of affirmative messages by the local community. The final act of vandalism hid George with black paint reflecting that the ownership of sites of commemoration can be unpredictable.</p>
<p>But out of acts of violence — and resistance to violence — is born a transformative musical experience of community courage and determination.</p>
<p>Both George Michael’s “sainthood” and the push for LGBTQ rights will go on, and will take unpredictable twists and turns that emphasise the need to remain vigilant. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379378/original/file-20210118-17-2zpj46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="The original mural, covered in black paint." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379378/original/file-20210118-17-2zpj46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/379378/original/file-20210118-17-2zpj46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379378/original/file-20210118-17-2zpj46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379378/original/file-20210118-17-2zpj46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379378/original/file-20210118-17-2zpj46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379378/original/file-20210118-17-2zpj46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/379378/original/file-20210118-17-2zpj46.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The mural became a site of contention, eventually being covered with black paint.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bianca De Marchi/Sydney Festival</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And as the lyrics noted, despite black paint hiding George Michael in the mural, “his soul is aflame”. He remains a beacon for freedom across the globe.</p>
<p>As we stood to leave Barangaroo, and the bright lights of Luna Park twinkled across the harbour, I felt a sense of gratitude. I was thankful to the community who conceived and brought this show to life: a performance that gave us space to reflect and celebrate, that moved the debate on the mural forward, and offered engagement as a solution to prejudice.</p>
<p><em>The Rise and Fall of Saint George was at Sydney Festival, January 15.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153100/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin Ellis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A celebration of life, love and resilience, The Rise and Fall of Saint George is a restorative experience.Justin Ellis, Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Newcastle, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1239882019-09-24T20:14:01Z2019-09-24T20:14:01ZSwollen executive pay packets reveal the limits of corporate activism<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/293736/original/file-20190924-54744-7rgofp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Though Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce might be outspoken on some progressive issues, he supports the system that pays him 300 times that of the average Australian.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span>, <a class="license" href="http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en">FAL</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Qantas boss Alan Joyce is reportedly Australia’s highest-earning chief executive. He’s also a firm believer in corporate activism.</p>
<p>His pay packet is estimated to have been <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-chief-alan-joyce-tops-ceo-pay-table-20190916-p52rta.html">A$23 million</a> last year – though it’s apparently dropped a little since. </p>
<p>Joyce thinks he should use his position to push social causes he believes in. Under his watch, Qantas strongly backed the 2017 campaign for same-sex marriage, much to the chagrin of politicians with a different view.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-market-for-virtue-why-companies-like-qantas-are-campaigning-for-marriage-equality-82905">The market for virtue: why companies like Qantas are campaigning for marriage equality</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Senior government minister Peter Dutton told business leaders at the time of the same-sex debate to “<a href="https://ethics.org.au/activist-ceos/">stick to their knitting</a>”. Similar sentiments have been expressed recently by Ben Morton, the point man of prime minister Scott Morrison. </p>
<p>Corporate leaders should mind their own business and focus on maximising shareholder value, Morton told the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. </p>
<p>Joyce responded. “That’s democracy and companies are part of democracy, we represent individuals, passengers, employees, shareholders,” <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/bad-for-democracy-alan-joyce-weighs-in-as-war-of-words-between-government-and-business-intensifies-20190918-p52sq1.html">he said</a> “We should have a voice on that, and it shouldn’t get to a stage if you don’t agree, don’t speak up, because I think that’s bad for democracy.” </p>
<p>It seems like it has the makings of heavyweight stoush. But really it’s a phoney war.</p>
<p>All this twisted debate in which chief executives talk about democracy and politicians about business management shows are the limits of corporate activism.</p>
<p>The whole thing is simply a distraction from the need for a real debate about the fact already huge CEO salaries <a href="https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/">continue to grow</a> while <a href="https://theconversation.com/theres-an-obvious-reason-wages-arent-growing-but-you-wont-hear-it-from-treasury-or-the-reserve-bank-122041">average wages stagnate</a>. </p>
<h2>Moral postures</h2>
<p>Morton, who is assistant minister to the prime minister and cabinet, <a href="https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-morrisons-right-hand-man-dispenses-with-niceties-in-lecturing-big-business-123530">unleashed his critique</a> in the wake of reports companies were <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/banks-leave-staff-open-to-join-atlassian-at-climate-rally-20190903-p52nin">giving employees time off</a> to attend climate change rallies on September 20. </p>
<p>“Too often I see corporate Australia succumb or pander to similar pressures from noisy, highly orchestrated campaigns of elites typified by groups such as GetUp or activist shareholders,” <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-seduced-by-noisy-elites-mia-on-tax-industrial-relations/news-story/6d2a9b8780e1e0aa1fb6cc6f3ace1d82">Morton said</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-behind-the-current-wave-of-corporate-activism-102695">What's behind the current wave of 'corporate activism'?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>“Too often big businesses have been in the front line on social issues, but missing in action when arguing for policies which would grow jobs and the economy.”</p>
<p>This could well have been interpreted as criticising the likes of Joyce – and Joyce certainly appeared to jab back when he <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/bad-for-democracy-alan-joyce-weighs-in-as-war-of-words-between-government-and-business-intensifies-20190918-p52sq1.html">addressed the National Press Club</a> a few days later. </p>
<p>He listed advocating for company tax cut and its industrial relations reforms as evidence he and other chief executives talked about major economic issues.</p>
<p>But businesses that ignored social issues, he said, hurt their bottom line: “You have to do both – and good companies will do both.”</p>
<h2>In defence of inequality</h2>
<p>Looking beyond <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/bad-for-democracy-alan-joyce-weighs-in-as-war-of-words-between-government-and-business-intensifies-20190918-p52sq1.html">Joyce and Morton’s hyberbole</a>, what’s evident is what the debate is not about.</p>
<p>It entirely avoids the problem of the <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/inequality/">broadening gap between the rich and poor</a>. </p>
<p>Whatever Joyce’s social justice instincts on other issues, he is clearly not the person to talk about about inequality. But it’s not just that he’s silent on this issue. Instead of retreating to his counting house, he came out swinging in defence of his earning almost 300 times the average Aussie income. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ceo-pay-is-more-about-white-male-entitlement-than-value-for-money-100245">CEO pay is more about white male entitlement than value for money</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>“My salary was determined by our shareholders,” <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6392297/why-jetstar-wont-fly-to-canberra/">he said</a>. “That’s because our market capital went from just over $2 billion to $10 billion. And our shareholders did exceptionally well out of it”.</p>
<h2>So much for the quiet Australians</h2>
<p>Morton said he had “an old-fashioned view” that businesses should “maximise return to their shareholders”.</p>
<p>The case of Alan Joyce shows profit maximisation is not at all incompatible with corporate activism. Nor is support for a limited range of progressive social causes incompatible with defending the inequality epitomised by super-size executive salaries.</p>
<p>Morton described himself as standing up for the “<a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/bad-for-democracy-alan-joyce-weighs-in-as-war-of-words-between-government-and-business-intensifies-20190918-p52sq1.html">quiet Australians</a>”. So it might be considered an irony that his complaints about CEOs pandering to a left elite helped distract attention from the issue of inequality. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/another-official-australian-report-has-been-doctored-to-gloss-over-rising-inequality-123091">Another official Australian report has been doctored to gloss over rising inequality</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Joyce meanwhile insisted he would continue to do what is <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/18/qantas-and-virgin-bosses-reject-morrison-government-calls-to-be-silent-on-social-issues">“morally right”</a> for society. </p>
<p>But declaring unelected corporate executives have a responsibility to use their privileged position in the economic pecking order to push business-friendly political causes is, at best, controversial. At worst, his belief he has the right as a chief executive to represent people who haven’t chosen his as a political representative is downright anti-democratic. </p>
<p>All this quibbling narrows the political and economic agenda to a sterile debate between “good ethics is good business” activism and good old-fashioned capitalism. </p>
<p>Whichever one you pick, the fair distribution of economic prosperity among working Australians has been left off the democratic table. Such are the limits of CEO activism.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123988/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carl Rhodes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The phoney debate about corporate activism distracts from the need for a debate about inequality.Carl Rhodes, Professor of Organization Studies, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/874462017-11-15T05:08:13Z2017-11-15T05:08:13ZThe road to same-sex marriage support has been long – and the fight isn’t over yet<p>Today’s same-sex marriage survey results represent a moment of extraordinary change. It is well within living memory that homosexuality in Australia was considered a crime, a sickness and a threat to the nation itself. The final Australian state to decriminalise male homosexuality was Tasmania, as recently as 1997. Plenty of gay men still remember the fear of prison terms that shadowed their lives. </p>
<p>Plenty of lesbians still remember that, although their sex lives were never criminalised, the police and the courts found ways to oppress and harass them nonetheless. Many LGBTIQ people still carry the emotional and physical scars of brutal medical interventions designed to fix something that was never broken.</p>
<p>And yet, from the birth of the Australian lesbian and gay rights movement at the end of the 1960s, through the growing inclusivity of LGBTIQ activist politics in the decades since, we have somehow reached a point in November 2017 where millions of heterosexual Australians have chosen to tick a box saying “yes”.</p>
<p>In the process, they have helped a once demonised, pathologised and criminalised minority take a major step towards equality.</p>
<h2>Fighting for recognition</h2>
<p>There is a long history of Australian same-sex couples understanding their <a href="http://www.auswhn.org.au/blog/marriage-between-women/">relationships</a> as marriages and <a href="http://www.auswhn.org.au/blog/marriage-histories/">fighting</a> for legal recognition. But for many of the lesbian and gay activists who built the early rights and liberation movements, marriage wasn’t part of their agenda.</p>
<p>Feminist <a href="http://www.auswhn.org.au/blog/not-the-marrying-kind/">critiques</a> of marriage as a mechanism of patriarchal oppression inspired many activists to condemn the very idea of wedlock. But I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to argue that the outcome of this survey began, at least in part, in the <a href="https://cv.vic.gov.au/stories/a-diverse-state/out-of-the-closets-into-the-streets/consciousness-raising-groups/">consciousness-raising</a> groups, protests and parties of the 1970s movement.</p>
<p>Perhaps the greatest success of early activists was convincing queer people that they deserved better; to stop listening to the harmful lies that told them they were sick, their desires were shameful and they were destined for sad and lonely lives. Instead, queer people were told to come out, be proud and change the world.</p>
<p>This created happier lives for many LGBTIQ people, of course. But it also dramatically shifted how the straight world understood this evil “other”. It is much harder to fear homosexuals once you’ve discovered that the lovely women who live next door are more than just roommates. That the blokes who run the local newsagency are more than simply business partners. A generation of kids has grown up with gay uncles and trans cousins in a world where the idea of “queer” represents an expansion of possibilities rather than a terrifying threat.</p>
<p>This change didn’t come from nowhere. It is a direct consequence of people who burst out of the closet in the 1970s, then turned around and smashed the damn thing to pieces.</p>
<p>The other consequence of the early movement was a tradition of organising and campaigning that has stood the community in good stead throughout this survey.</p>
<p>I don’t want to romanticise this activist history. The LGBTIQ community has never been a neatly united entity, harmoniously reaching for common goals. Some <a href="https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/nn94xd/some-on-the-radical-queer-left-still-think-gay-marriage-is-bad-for-the-lgbtq-community">queer activists</a> still argue that marriage is a force of oppression and see this campaign as a capitulation rather than a victory.</p>
<p>But for me, a great joy in the last few months has been watching the campaign run alongside grassroots actions ranging from street marches to flying rainbow flags off balconies. All of these acts are part of a powerful tradition and elements of one of the great social movements of Australian history.</p>
<h2>Bigotry continues</h2>
<p>There are, of course, many good people who voted “no”, and who will be saddened by the outcome of this survey. For many older Australians, for example, I can imagine that any change to marriage feels like a loss. I hope they will come to understand that this change will not impact them at all.</p>
<p>Sadly, the “no” campaign was dominated by arguments soaked in bigotry. Although attitudes to lesbian and gay couples have seen extraordinary change in recent decades, trans people still seem to comprise a scary “other” that is all too easily demonised. As a result, same-sex marriages were barely mentioned by the “no” campaign except as some kind of slippery slope that would <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/battle-of-the-mums">supposedly lead</a> to more freedoms for trans individuals.</p>
<p>Also all too often, an element of the “no” campaign was the idea that LGBTIQ people are a threat to children. This deeply harmful rhetoric has a <a href="http://www.auswhn.org.au/blog/child-in-anti-lgbt-campaigns/">long history</a> in Australian life. “No” campaigners have demonised LGBTIQ parents and placed at risk the safety of <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/health/2017-10-23/marriage-debate-puts-kids-at-risk/9075384">children</a> in rainbow families. And they have risked exacerbating the vulnerability of young LGBTIQ people in schools.</p>
<p>Our celebrations are bitter-sweet. The majority of Australians have rejected these hurtful arguments, and yet the campaign has revealed how much work there is left to be done. </p>
<p>Trans and gender non-conforming people, in particular, deserve a greater voice and the support of the rest of their community, as do LGBTIQ school students. Also needing our continued activism are the gay refugees now trapped on <a href="http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/338468/gay-detainees-on-manus-fear-for-their-future">Manus Island</a>. These men were forced to flee Iran to find safety. They have been placed by the Australian government in a country in which homosexuality remains illegal.</p>
<h2>The personal is political</h2>
<p>Feminist and gay liberation activists in the 1970s embraced the slogan “the personal is political”, so permit me a personal reflection on this political moment. I’ve been surprised by how much this campaign has affected me. I’m a middle-aged gay man with an amazing partner and incredibly supportive family, friends and colleagues. I imagined that the “no” campaign would simply wash over me.</p>
<p>But I’ve been deeply hurt by so much of what has been said about people I love. I worry for the impact I’ve seen this campaign have on families. I’m angry that the validity of my relationship was considered an open question. I’m furious that every homophobe who has ever spat offensive words at me and threatened me with violence has been given an opportunity to place further judgement.</p>
<p>But I’m also incredibly proud. My community has fought a campaign that was overwhelmingly positive. Our straight and cisgender (those whose gender and biological sex align) allies have stood alongside us, offering their support in ways that I’ve found truly moving. And the majority of Australians has cared enough about this issue to find a letterbox and send in their “yes” vote. There is much to feel good about in that.</p>
<p>And so this goes back to the parliament, where it should have been resolved in the first place, and the next battle for LGBTIQ activists begins. It is only since 2013 that LGBTIQ people have been protected under federal anti-discrimination laws. It is now up to the prime minister to reject any marriage bill that diminishes these protections. Right now, it is the least he can do.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87446/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott McKinnon was a volunteer participant in an advertisement for Australian Marriage Equality.</span></em></p>Given that only 20 years ago Tasmania decriminalised male homosexuality, the same-sex marriage survey result represents an extraordinary change. But there is still work to be done.Scott McKinnon, Vice-Chancellor's Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/862052017-11-05T19:18:04Z2017-11-05T19:18:04ZGay rebels: why some older homosexual men don’t support same-sex marriage<blockquote>
<p>I … don’t for the life of me understand why the gay community has decided to emulate an institution that doesn’t work for even straight people … It is laughable</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is what a 59-year-old black gay activist in Los Angeles told me of his <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9780230244122">views on same-sex marriage</a>. He is typical of many older gay men who are bemused by the younger generation’s desire for marriage, reflecting the radically different experiences of those who grew up in far more restrictive and intolerant decades.</p>
<p>We know that generally <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-06/same-sex-marriage-result-calculator/8856294">older Australians</a> are less supportive of same-sex marriage. In 2013, I interviewed a small international sample of men as part of my research on sexuality and ageing. Most of the men over 50 were dubious, if not opposed, to gay marriage, while most of those under 30 were supportive. While these results may not apply directly to Australia in 2017, they are indicative of a generational divide between young and old gay men.</p>
<p>These older men have largely remained silent in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/same-sex-marriage-6397">current same-sex marriage debate</a>. I suspect this is because they do not want to be accused of betraying their own kind or exhibiting “internalised homophobia”, which for decades has been the accusation hurled at gay people who do not conform to the prescribed norms of the sub-culture.</p>
<p>It is vital that we listen to their perspectives, because older gay men are an already marginalised group, experiencing greater financial and social insecurity than younger men. We must ensure that same-sex marriage should it be legalised does not further sideline their experiences. </p>
<h2>Rebels with a cause</h2>
<p>One aspect of same-sex marriage that could confuse older gay men, and possibly also lesbians, is that it is at odds with beliefs they might have formed when they were young. In the early 1970s, feminists and gay liberationists asked their followers to think about how to liberate their own needs from the constraints of family, and experiment with alternative forms of intimate relationships, very different to the idea of nuclear family: heterosexual married parents with biological children. </p>
<p>In the early days, these relationships were as simple as two men regarding themselves as an item. The acknowledgement of friends, and sometimes siblings and parents, was enough public acceptance. Often these men would live separately but share a bed, kitchen and living room when it suited, a relationship that sociologists call “living apart together”. </p>
<p>By the late 1990s, these relationships had developed to include informal “families” that could include former boyfriends or girlfriends, supportive siblings and children from former heterosexual relationships. Children from surrogacy or informal insemination between gays and lesbians became more common in the early 2000s.</p>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=C9OGcmFeNaEC&pg=PA151&lpg=PA151&dq=Single+Worlds+and+Homosexual+Lifestyles:+Patterns+of+Sexuality+and+Intimacy&source=bl&ots=nyVreTqwDR&sig=LVOG307nsnf010klwjDkHQMHgOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwid_tfQzp7XAhXMGpQKHZs6AYcQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Single%20Worlds%20and%20Homosexual%20Lifestyles%3A%20Patterns%20of%20Sexuality%20and%20Intimacy&f=false">North American sociologist Martha Fowlkes</a> called these gay rebels “marriage non-conformists”. Others argued that the push for <a href="http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo14770063.html">same-sex marriage</a> is having a “mainstreaming” effect on gays and lesbians, that is, that they are being turned into “pseudo straights”.</p>
<h2>The appeal of marriage</h2>
<p>Gay marriage would suit propertied gays and social conservatives who want the security of marriage for their relationships. It would also suit gay religious observers who want to make peace with their church and vicar or synagogue and Rabbi and be accepted by them. Maintaining gay relationships without church or state sanction takes courage and perseverance. </p>
<p>Marriage and children may appeal to young gay men because the alternative is to place their trust in community organisations and the social practices of the gay world. These are not always uniform or supportive. For example, I have argued that <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9780230573956">bars and clubs are the only safe space</a> for gay men to congregate and socialise in large numbers. Many of the young men I spoke to, however, complained of the impoverished relationships gay men formed there. </p>
<p>Parental approval can matter as much for young gays as it does for young straights and anecdotal evidence I heard while interviewing gay men of all ages suggested that for some young gay men marriage would ensure their parents’ approval. 22-year-old Zane (pseudonym) from Melbourne wanted to mimic his parents’ successful marriage of 30 years: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I want to have a really hetero life and … have children and … build a family and those kind of things with my partner and look forward to doing that … and I’d love to … grow old with someone. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>He justified his views as a more wholesome lifestyle than he had observed in clubs and bars where in his view drug taking and casual sex were commonplace.</p>
<p>Others spoke of benefits relating to property and estate planning. Garth (psuedonym) a 23-year-old university student from Melbourne, told me, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>I can see like the benefits for like tax purposes and division of estate and stuff if someone dies so that makes it completely understandable as to why you would want to [get married]. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Other research shows that young gay men under 30 almost uniformly support gay marriage as a right or because, like their straight brothers and sisters, they want to mark and celebrate the success of their relationship achievement. </p>
<h2>Listening to older gay men</h2>
<p>It is not clear what effect same-sex marriage would have on gay people and the gay world. My suspicion is that its effect would be conservative. This could explain why it has the <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4736569.htm">support of some religious figures</a> and conservative commentators. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/malcolm-turnbull-makes-conservative-case-for-samesex-marriage-at-yes-launch-20170910-gyed86.html">Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull</a> said many people would vote for same-sex marriage because “they believe the right to marry is a conservative ideal as much as any other conservative principle”. </p>
<p>Should same-sex marriage be approved, the fear among radical queers is that it would become the gold standard for same-sex relationships and other relationship styles would be regarded as less worthy. </p>
<p>This is about more than marriage. My <a href="http://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9781137435316">latest research</a> shows that gay men aged 60 and over had a strong propensity not to stop working after retirement and to have poorly planned superannuation. These men told me they used work to keep retirement boredom at bay. <a href="https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjWga-SjZ_XAhWEo5QKHSbvD5oQFggmMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.superannuation.asn.au%2FArticleDocuments%2F359%2FASFA_Super-account-balances_Dec2015.pdf.aspx&usg=AOvVaw39tz-K7_0arZmwSVb3oRA8">Poorly-planned super</a> is also a feature of Baby Boomers and of some men living with HIV. </p>
<p>I interviewed four older men living with HIV. Two had made careful plans for their old age while the other two had not, saying that because of their HIV they had not expected to live to old age. In contrast, many young gay men knew about and were interested in old-age planning.</p>
<p>Because gay social spaces and practices valorize youthfulness, they can serve to propagate ageist beliefs. Some young gay men I interviewed said that older gays were only permitted to share their social spaces if they were youthful. Some also said gay men of the Baby Boomer generation had brought HIV/AIDS on themselves. </p>
<p>Others however lamented the absence of non-sexualised social settings where different generations could socialise and exchange experiences. </p>
<p>If more young gay men embrace a “pseudo straight” identity through marriage and children, it is likely older men will continue to be marginalised along with their views and beliefs about relationships and family. It is refreshing to know, however, that some young gays have a real interest in speaking to and learning from older gays and their lived experience.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86205/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Robinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When it comes to same-sex marriage, there’s a big gap in support between old and young gay men. Older gay men often see marriage as conservative, and fear marriage will create a “gold standard” for gay relationships.Peter Robinson, Senior lecturer in History and Sociology, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/845932017-09-26T05:28:43Z2017-09-26T05:28:43ZDon’t be distracted by an SMS in the same-sex marriage survey debate<p>Ding, another text message – this time not from a friend or work, but from the marriage equality campaign. An SSM SMS.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187486/original/file-20170926-17414-1ax25gb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187486/original/file-20170926-17414-1ax25gb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/187486/original/file-20170926-17414-1ax25gb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187486/original/file-20170926-17414-1ax25gb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187486/original/file-20170926-17414-1ax25gb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187486/original/file-20170926-17414-1ax25gb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187486/original/file-20170926-17414-1ax25gb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/187486/original/file-20170926-17414-1ax25gb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A personal copy of the same sex marriage SMS received and screen captured.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Graeme Orr</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Smile and keep it? Delete it and grumble? Or yawn? <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/text-message-doorknocking-for-yes-vote-receives-mixed-response-20170923-gynfp0.html">Many grumbled publicly</a>, even some who’re voting Yes.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"911451155103752192"}"></div></p>
<p>What is the law and protocol of such campaigning? Especially in the febrile atmosphere of the marriage law “<a href="https://auspublaw.org/2017/08/the-2017-australian-marriage-law-postal-plebisurvey/">plebisurvey</a>”, a platypus of a process that is neither a binding vote nor a normal collection of statistics.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/national-poll-vs-sample-survey-how-to-know-what-we-really-think-on-marriage-equality-82450">National poll vs sample survey: how to know what we really think on marriage equality</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As we shall see, it is a voluntary survey about a relatively simple social issue that has been done to death. And in the vacuum of genuine debate, some obsess about tactics and – surprise, surprise – the majority turn off from the process.</p>
<h2>The law says</h2>
<p>But first to the law. Only unsolicited <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/Phones/Phone-complaints/Telemarketing-complaints/unsolicited-communications-concerning-the-australian-marriage-law-postal-survey">commercial</a> e-messages are prohibited by the national <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/sa200366/s16.html">Spam Act</a>. Even then, purely factual commercial material (not sales pitches) is allowed, as are political fundraisers or merchandising messages, provided that they are authorised.</p>
<p>Under the <a href="https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/safeguards">Safeguards Act</a> that covers the survey, advocacy material must be authorised. Campaign SMSs need only include a web link to identify their source, in this case <a href="https://voteyes.org.au/">voteyes.org.au</a>. (Here, recipients had to drill down two levels to learn that the real source was the <a href="http://www.equalitycampaign.org.au/">Equality Campaign</a>, “a joint initiative of Australian Marriage Equality and Australians for Equality”).</p>
<p>This type of “spampaigning” is nothing new. Parties have long had <a href="http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s90b.html">preferential access</a> to e-copies of the electoral roll, to compile databases about electors’ leanings and mail them directly. </p>
<p>Automated <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/worldtoday/election-robocalls-annoying-voters-but-left/7570312">robocalls</a> have waxed and waned in recent decades. Labor’s 2016 <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/07/04/queensland-labor-defends-sending-medicare-campaign-text">“Mediscare” texts</a> were an example of slippery SMS campaigning, triggering <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Electoral_Matters/2016Election/Report">reform</a> of authorisation requirements.</p>
<p>We drown in marketing messages each day. So why would political marketing offend, and why is the SSM debate so wrapped up in issues of process, not substance?</p>
<h2>Political animal vs privacy</h2>
<p>In part, all this is just an extension of the fact that humans are, as Aristotle said, “<em><a href="http://www.the-philosophy.com/man-political-animal-meaning-aristotle-quote">zoon politikon</a></em>”: social and political creatures. </p>
<p>When we enrol to vote we are no longer merely individuals shopping for opinions or information. We are fellow citizens, with a public role to play, our franchise to exercise.</p>
<p>On the other hand, we crave privacy even while selling our eyeballs to the Facebooks of the social media world. Marriage equality is a sensitive issue for millions of traditionalists and progressives alike.</p>
<p>The real story here, however, is not the palaver about receiving SMSs. Sure, our relationship with our mobile gadgets is quite intimate, so some people may be miffed at getting advertising via text message and wish the Spam Act was widened. </p>
<p>But that is just to say that SSM is a social issue that arouses some strong feelings. Any crude campaigning on such issues risks alienating some, just as it aims to promote its viewpoint and encourage action.</p>
<p>The latest heat over SMSs will blow over before the next issue over the plebisurvey process blows up. The real curiosity lies in how the substance of SSM appears almost irrelevant to this two-month advocacy period. </p>
<p>Remember, this is an issue that has been deliberated for <a href="http://www.auswhn.org.au/blog/marriage-histories/">more than a decade</a>. The Yes campaign reiterates its positive message about equal love and rights, and a negative one about homophobia. The No campaign doubles down on its positive message about the tradition of marriage, and a slew of negative messages.</p>
<p>There is nothing new to say. The vast majority of us formed an opinion long ago. All that will shift is the salience or strength of the issue for some.</p>
<p>In the vacuum of this elongated and highly strung campaign, political blowhards focus instead on tactics and process. In turn, a content-hungry media happily fans that. Partly this is standard practice for the political caste, for whom process is endlessly fascinating.</p>
<h2>A poll distraction</h2>
<p>But I fear it is also a tactic for the No campaign: generate cynicism, muddy the waters, and deter some lukewarm “yes” leaners from returning their forms. This is a classic example of a tactic used in systems with voluntary voting, like the United States. You can win not by convincing a true majority, but by holding your base and driving down turnout.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-same-sex-marriage-not-all-views-deserve-respect-82433">When it comes to same-sex marriage, not all views deserve respect</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are signs that it is working. For more than a year, a significant majority said it <a href="http://www.essentialvision.com.au/decision-on-same-sex-marriage-5">wanted to vote on SSM</a>, either to finally resolve the parliamentary impasse, or out of a wider weariness with representative government and a yearning for direct democracy.</p>
<p>Yet <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/samesex-yes-vote-losing-ground-in-newspoll/news-story/1d21b1dbe415c8a678f39a311f9d6d9c">this week’s Newspoll</a> found that fewer people today think the plebisurvey is a good idea than a bad one. </p>
<p>We are an ornery mob. Faced with the direct democracy sausage we thought we craved, are we now turning up our noses at it? If so, can we hold our noses for the next few weeks until the final forms are returned on November 7, and the result published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics <a href="https://marriagesurvey.abs.gov.au/key-dates">on November 15</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84593/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graeme Orr does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Most people have probably already made up their mind which way to vote in the same sex marriage postal survey. But the recent SMS campaign may distract some from even voting.Graeme Orr, Professor of Law, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/842762017-09-25T20:11:56Z2017-09-25T20:11:56ZCognitive ability plays a role in attitudes to equal rights for same-sex couples<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/186709/original/file-20170920-19979-lusrif.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The same-sex marriage postal ballot forms have been posted to Australians on the electoral roll.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Morgan Sette</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/revealed-who-supports-marriage-equality-in-australia-and-who-doesnt-82988">Recently</a>, Alice Campbell and I revealed the demographic traits associated with people expressing support for equal rights for same-sex couples using the <a href="http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda">Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey</a> – a large, longitudinal survey that is representative of the Australian population.</p>
<p>My subsequent analyses of the HILDA Survey point to another important factor: cognitive ability. Specifically, there is a strong and statistically significant association between higher cognitive ability and a greater likelihood to support equal rights between same- and different-sex couples.</p>
<p>This may shed some light on why those who stand against equal rights may not be persuaded by evidence-based arguments in the ongoing marriage equality debate.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/revealed-who-supports-marriage-equality-in-australia-and-who-doesnt-82988">Revealed: who supports marriage equality in Australia – and who doesn’t</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Measuring cognitive ability and support for equal rights</h2>
<p>From time to time the HILDA Survey collects one-off information from participants. During the 2012 face-to-face interviews respondents participated in <a href="http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2013n44.pdf">three hands-on tests</a> aimed at determining their cognitive ability. Such tests evaluated the degree to which participants were able to:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>recall and recite backwards progressively longer strings of numbers;</p></li>
<li><p>correctly pronounce 50 irregularly spelled words; and</p></li>
<li><p>match symbols and numbers based on a printed key against time.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>These tests are not perfect. They may contain some measurement error, may be culturally biased, and may not constitute a complete measure of cognitive ability. Yet they are widely recognised instruments routinely employed in psychological and educational research, and have been shown to be highly correlated with overall intelligence.</p>
<p>My analysis involved estimating the degree of support for the rights of same-sex couples at different levels of this measure of cognitive ability.</p>
<p>To do so, respondents’ scores in the three tests were rescaled and averaged into a composite measure of cognitive ability. Scores ranged from zero (lowest ability) to one (highest ability).</p>
<p>Support for equal rights came from a 2015 HILDA Survey question asking respondents to rate their degree of agreement with the statement “Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples do” on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree).</p>
<h2>A striking association</h2>
<p>Analyses based on a sample of more than 11,600 people revealed that those with lower levels of cognitive ability in 2012 were much less likely than those with high levels of cognitive ability to express support for equal rights in 2015.</p>
<p>The association was substantially and statistically significant.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/YP7YV/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>Some population groups – older people and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, for example – may be more opposed to equal rights and also perform worse in cognitive ability tests. For the former group, this may be due to cognitive decline, and for the latter it may be due to English not being their first language.</p>
<p>To prevent this and other factors tampering with the results, I adjusted the models for age, gender, sexual identity, highest educational qualification, religiosity, ethno-migrant background, area remoteness, and state/territory of residence.</p>
<p>After these adjustments, as expected, the association between cognitive ability and support for the rights of same-sex couples faded moderately. Yet it remained large and statistically significant. </p>
<p>It is worth emphasising that education is controlled for in the models. Therefore, the results cannot be explained by people with high cognitive ability having higher educational qualifications.</p>
<p>The results were also quite robust: the patterns remained when excluding respondents from a non-English-speaking background, measuring support in 2011, and considering the measures of cognitive ability separately. However, the magnitude of the association differed across tests.</p>
<h2>Is it only attitudes toward same-sex couples?</h2>
<p>This finding poses the question of whether the pattern extends to people’s views about social equity in other life domains.</p>
<p>To test this, I extended the HILDA Survey analysis to examine the associations between cognitive ability and supportive attitudes toward women’s emancipation, women’s capability as political leaders, and single mothers.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/85GnZ/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>The same pattern emerged across all of the outcomes. Higher levels of cognitive ability were unambiguously associated with greater levels of support for egalitarian worldviews.</p>
<h2>What does it all mean?</h2>
<p>The findings do not mean that all who intend to vote “no” in the marriage ballot have a low level of cognitive ability. Nor do they mean that all those who intend to vote “yes” have a high level.</p>
<p>Yet the results suggest that, on average, people who stand against equal rights for same-sex couples are less likely to have cognitive resources that are important to participating in meaningful debate.</p>
<p>These may include the ability to: engage in abstract thinking and process complex chains of ideas; separate arguments based on facts from unfounded ones; not feel threatened by changes in the status quo; and critically engage with new or diverse viewpoints.</p>
<p>These results may thus shed some light over why some on the “no” side may be failing to offer or accept <a href="https://theconversation.com/evidence-is-clear-on-the-benefits-of-legalising-same-sex-marriage-82428">evidence-based arguments</a>, or why they keep relying on philosophically, historically or empirically <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-christians-arguing-no-on-marriage-equality-the-bible-is-not-decisive-82498">flawed ones</a>.</p>
<p>This applies, for instance, to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313">scientifically unsupported</a> claim that children are worse off in same-sex households. In fact, these arguments are being exploited by a “no” advertising campaign that relies almost exclusively on <a href="https://theconversation.com/marriage-vote-how-advocacy-ads-exploit-our-emotions-in-divisive-debates-83501">emotional instead of rational arguments</a>.</p>
<p>It is possible many supporters of the “no” case could not be convinced by reason and evidence. If so, the “yes” side’s best way to minimise the possibility of a surprise “no” victory – one that’s driven by a mobilised minority – may be to target the overwhelming <a href="https://theconversation.com/revealed-who-supports-marriage-equality-in-australia-and-who-doesnt-82988">majority of Australians</a> who support equal rights to have their say.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84276/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Francisco Perales receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of its Discovery Early Career Researcher Award scheme for a project titled 'Sexual Orientation and Life Chances in Contemporary Australia'.</span></em></p>There is a strong and statistically significant association between respondents’ cognitive ability and their support for equal rights between same- and different-sex couples.Francisco Perales, Senior Research Fellow (Institute for Social Science Research & Life Course Centre) and ARC DECRA Fellow, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/835012017-09-12T19:42:11Z2017-09-12T19:42:11ZMarriage vote: how advocacy ads exploit our emotions in divisive debates<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184835/original/file-20170906-9843-1qcwy8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The 'Yes' campaign's first ad focused on the evidential flaws with the 'No' campaign's ads.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The same-sex marriage debate in Australia was always bound to be divisive and emotive. And as a public vote on whether it should be legalised nears, the role of advocacy advertisements will become increasingly important in swaying the opinion of undecided voters. </p>
<p>While polls show <a href="http://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/955846060138299394/1024/10/scaletowidth#tl-955846060138299394;1043138249">strong support</a> for marriage equality at present, the history of widespread advocacy campaigns shows that the “No” campaign has many unfair advantages – especially when it uses ads to make its point.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/revealed-who-supports-marriage-equality-in-australia-and-who-doesnt-82988">Revealed: who supports marriage equality in Australia – and who doesn’t</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>The No campaign’s natural advantage</h2>
<p>The efficacy of both the “Yes” and “No” arguments can be related to Mill’s <a href="http://documents.routledge-interactive.s3.amazonaws.com/9781138793934/A2/Mill/MillHarm.pdf">“harm principle”</a>: one side believes the only harm being done is to those who happen to be attracted to those of the same sex; the other side believes harm is being done to religious and moral values. How they present these ideas will dramatically affect the outcome of the vote.</p>
<p>However, the No campaign has distinct advantages when it advertises. These primarily relate to status-quo bias. <a href="https://www.princeton.edu/%7Ekahneman/docs/Publications/Anomalies_DK_JLK_RHT_1991.pdf">Research shows</a> that political actors often have an aversion to change, and will disproportionately focus on perceived losses relative to perceived gains.</p>
<p>As such, advocacy campaigns that focus on losses tend to do better than those focused on gains. On same-sex marriage, the gain is clear for some (such as those seeking to marry, and the rights this affords), but it is more reliant on more abstract notions like “fairness” for those not directly affected.</p>
<p>To that end, a campaign that suggests same-sex marriage will <a href="https://theconversation.com/without-proper-protections-same-sex-marriage-will-discriminate-against-conscientious-objectors-83348">somehow erode many people’s rights</a> (or those of their children) has an advantage over a campaign focused on establishing new rights.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/without-proper-protections-same-sex-marriage-will-discriminate-against-conscientious-objectors-83348">Without proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<p>The No campaign’s second advantage comes with its ability to muddy the waters and associate as many negatives with same-sex marriage as it can. Again, this uses status-quo bias: when in doubt, people typically vote no. </p>
<p>And “facts” play an almost negligible role in changing voter behaviour in the face of strong emotionally based arguments.</p>
<h2>The ad campaigns so far</h2>
<p>So far, the ads for and against same-sex marriage have been intelligently made. </p>
<p>Polls have consistently shown that as the religiosity of Australians has declined, support for gay rights has grown. This bodes poorly for the No campaign, and it knows it. As a result, the <a href="https://acl.nationbuilder.com/marriage_coalition">Australian Christian Lobby</a> has focused more on the idea that same-sex marriage will lead to a sort of social, moral decline.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KqXLfp2sFHQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An Australian Christian Lobby ‘No’ ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Its ad cites no evidence for the assertions in it, but facts and evidence are less relevant in political advertising than many might like to think. </p>
<p>It’s a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-30/why-the-first-no-campaign-ad-will-work/8856722">smart ad</a>: it builds an emotional connection with traditional family-oriented voters, based on fear. Importantly, it sows doubt in those it connects with, which can be hard to overcome.</p>
<p>Another ad designed to air on Father’s Day was blocked by Free TV Australia, which considered the ad political. The group behind it, <a href="http://www.dads4kids.org.au">Dads4Kids</a>, neglected to attach an identification tag, which would have resolved the issue.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/l1aTJtaT2uk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Dads4Kids’ Father’s Day ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The group <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/03/dads4kids-ad-is-dodgy-campaign-tactic-in-marriage-debate-says-lgbti-activist">denied</a> the ad was either political or related to the marriage vote. But two lines in the 60-second spot appear designed for the debate: first, “Your mummy and I are a perfect team”, then “I can’t wait to … watch as you put on a wedding ring”. These are presented as positive messages, but reinforce existing ideals of parenting as between men and women. </p>
<p>These kinds of ads may be used again, but are less effective for the No campaign than the more overtly stress- or fear-inducing ones.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/factcheck-are-children-better-off-with-a-mother-and-father-than-with-same-sex-parents-82313">Experts</a> assert there is no evidence to support the No campaign’s assertions. Its messaging is, in that strict sense, irrational. </p>
<p>But that’s the point: muddying the waters in advocacy advertising plays on the unquestioning parts of the brain. Fear of the unknown and unknowable can be baseless – even silly – but it works. </p>
<p>When <a href="http://www.equalitycampaign.org.au">Yes Equality</a> launched its first TV ad, it was defensive, and focused on the evidence problems with the No ads.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/i_iQuyzS6Wk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A Yes campaign ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/marriage-equality-campaign-launches-tv-ad-starring-ian-thorpe/news-story/a9f221b5d05d86fc241b173f75dda18a">latest ad</a> from the Yes campaign doesn’t give viewers the time to build any connection: there are too many faces, too much going on.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pl5pEmg4N_0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Another ad from the Yes campaign.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Debunking and clearing up confusion is important, as is mobilising voters, but the most successful campaigns focus more on establishing emotive-empathetic links with viewers than rational ones</p>
<p>Such campaigns usually rely on stress or anger. The US campaign against “Hillarycare” did it in 1993; when unions fought the WorkChoices legislation, they did it too; and the mining industry did it in its battle against the Rudd-Gillard mining taxes in 2010.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/P5y3b9iVgGs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A union anti-Workchoices ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Giving the same-sex marriage debate relatable, likeable faces, and building emotional narratives, will be critical to countering the fear-based charge of the “No” ads. This is especially the case if the campaign maintains or increases its advertising spending.</p>
<h2>Lessons from Ireland</h2>
<p>Ireland’s 2015 referendum on same-sex marriage offers compelling – if not completely analogous – examples of what might happen in Australia.</p>
<p>Ireland <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/23/gay-marriage-ireland-yes-vote">voted in favour</a> of same-sex marriage, 62% to 38%. This was well down from pre-referendum opinion polls, where support was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/21/majority-irish-voters-support-lgbt-marriage-gay-graham-norton">as high as 76%</a>. Polling shows Australians’ support for marriage equality is similarly strong — <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6707-australian-views-on-gay-marriage-february-march-2016-201607191635">as high as 76%</a> – and it’s likely a charged debate will bring a similar drop.</p>
<p>However, there is a key difference. In Ireland, political ads are <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/enacted/en/html">banned on broadcast media</a> – so, no TV spots, nor radio. Australia has no such prohibition.</p>
<p>The complexity of an issue like same-sex marriage (or almost any political issue) is not well distilled into 30-second audio-visual pitches. Instead of through ads, the Irish debate largely took place on panel discussions, in parliament, and in public and private places around the country.</p>
<p>The closest ads Ireland ran to Australia’s TV spots were internet-based, such as those made by the <a href="http://ionainstitute.eu">Iona Institute</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaRK-0W5HQI&feature=youtu.be">Mothers and Fathers Matter</a>. These pushed the idea that both a mother and a father were necessary or ideal for bringing up children.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q6HD8KLQBvA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Mothers and Fathers Matter campaign ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zaRK-0W5HQI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Iona Institute ad.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Otherwise, the ads were made for billboards, newspapers and the internet, but their impact was likely to be lower than if TV spots were used. Internet ads generally have lower saturation and reach fewer demographics (including older voters, who are <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-22/election-2016-vote-compass-same-sex-marriage/7520478">more likely to resist same-sex marriage</a>).</p>
<p>And static, image-based ads don’t have the <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00913367.1991.10673202">same efficacy as TV ones</a> – especially in terms of emotive reactions, which lend themselves more to irrational associations.</p>
<h2>What to expect as the vote nears</h2>
<p>Ireland’s experience shows that even where ads are kept from broadcast media, there can be a dramatic drop in support for same-sex marriage after a prolonged, divisive debate. But throwing well-made TV and radio ads into the mix may well prove a critical distinction between Australia and Ireland.</p>
<p>The No campaign will continue to draw on as many negative associations as possible, especially related to children. Its campaign has been significantly dependent on fear, and shows no indication of changing.</p>
<p>Once the vote is properly underway, the intensity of the ads is likely to increase. Without an adequate counter from the Yes campaign – especially one offering more emotionally compelling messages – the advantages of the No campaign are likely to narrow the polling gap significantly.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83501/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>George Rennie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The history of widespread advocacy campaigns shows that the ‘No’ campaign has many unfair advantages in the marriage equality debate.George Rennie, Lecturer in American Politics and Lobbying Strategies, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823722017-09-07T05:37:55Z2017-09-07T05:37:55ZHigh Court dismisses challenge, so Australia is off to the (postal) polls on same-sex marriage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184660/original/file-20170905-28041-1ip8an3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">We don't yet know why the High Court decided the way it did in upholding the validity of the postal vote.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Samantha Manchee</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The High Court has today <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/07/same-sex-marriage-postal-survey-is-lawful-high-court-finds?CMP=share_btn_tw">confirmed</a> the validity of the government’s proposed <a href="https://theconversation.com/using-the-abs-to-conduct-a-same-sex-marriage-poll-is-legally-shaky-and-lacks-legitimacy-82245">postal survey on same-sex marriage</a>. This means that from September 12, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) will post out surveys asking if the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.</p>
<p>With the start of the postal survey imminent, the court heard the challenge as a matter of urgency this week, handing down its decision less than 24 hours after the hearings finished.</p>
<p>We don’t yet know the reasons why the court decided the way it did. To reach a finding of validity, it had to work through several quite technical constitutional and legal arguments.</p>
<h2>Did the plaintiffs even have a right to challenge the survey?</h2>
<p>Not just anyone can challenge government actions in court. There must first be established what is known as “standing”. This means a right to challenge because of a “special interest” in the case.</p>
<p>This was difficult to establish in this particular challenge. It’s one of the reasons there were so many plaintiffs – including independent lower house MP Andrew Wilkie, Felicity Marlowe, a woman in a long-term same-sex partnership who also has three young children, and Australian Marriage Equality, a group specifically established to advocate for same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>The government objected to the standing of each of the plaintiffs. It claimed, for instance, that Marlowe’s concerns about the distress the survey would cause her and her family rose no higher than “emotional concern” that was insufficient to establish standing.</p>
<p>Standing was a significant question in this case. This is because the High Court has <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1975/52.html">previously held</a> that it is extremely difficult to establish the necessary “special interest” to challenge government expenditure.</p>
<p>It would have been a most unsatisfying result if the court had made its decision purely on the basis that no-one had a special interest to challenge the survey. One of the plaintiffs’ submissions was that if they do not have standing, the only people who could challenge the law would be the state governments or the ABS. The plaintiffs rightly submitted that this would have serious implications for the rule of law. </p>
<p>But rather than enter this legal quagmire, the court avoided answering the difficult issue of standing by finding that the challenge would have failed in any event.</p>
<p>This is entirely consistent with <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2005/61.html">its 2005 precedent</a>, which was an attempt to challenge the Howard government’s spending on advertising for its WorkChoices policy.</p>
<h2>Did parliament give the government permission to withdraw $122 million?</h2>
<p>The first of the substantive challenges against the postal survey was that the government did not have a valid “appropriation” to withdraw the $A122 million for it from the Treasury. </p>
<p>Before the government withdraws money, it first needs permission from the parliament, known as an appropriation. This process of parliamentary approval for government withdrawal of funds is required by <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s83.html">Section 83</a> of the Constitution, which states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>No money shall be drawn from the Treasury of the Commonwealth except under appropriation made by law.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It was common ground that parliament has not passed any new appropriation to authorise the withdrawal of the $122 million. So, the government <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00661">drew on</a>a pre-authorised $295 million bucket of money that had been established by the parliament as a contingency fund. This is known as the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017A00060">Advance to the Finance Minister</a>. </p>
<p>In order for the finance minister to draw upon that money, two conditions need to be met:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the finance minister needs to be “satisfied that there is an urgent need for expenditure”; and</p></li>
<li><p>the expenditure needs to be “unforeseen” at the time the act was passed (which was in May, 2017).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>One argument was that this type of appropriation is constitutionally invalid – that it gives the government, in effect, a blank cheque to spend up to $295 million, which is in breach of the fundamental purpose of Section 83. </p>
<p>However, the Commonwealth argued that this type of pre-approval has a history that dates to early English and colonial practice. Parliament has approved the withdrawal, but chosen to do so by giving the government a wide discretion, limited by the specified amount of money.</p>
<p>The plaintiffs also argued that the expenditure was neither urgent nor unforeseen. They argued that something could only be “urgent” if it needed to be dealt with so quickly that it would not be possible to go to parliament to seek a special appropriation. They said that the only cause of “urgency” was of the government’s own making: it had chosen to require the survey results to be available by November 15, 2017. </p>
<p>In response, the government argued that it was for the minister, and not parliament or the court, to be satisfied that the expenditures were urgent, and that urgency could be created by changes in policy that result in an urgent need for expenditure within timeframes determined by the government.</p>
<p>The plaintiffs then said a postal survey was not only unforeseen, but in fact was specifically contemplated by the government, even if the exact details had not been determined by May.</p>
<p>The policy of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage was part of the government’s platform at the 2016 election. After the plebiscite was first defeated by the Senate in November 2016, the idea of conducting it via a postal survey was contemplated by at least some government ministers. It had been contemplated so seriously that the Department of Finance had received advice from the attorney-general’s department on the option of conducting a postal plebiscite in March 2017.</p>
<p>The government argued in response that the expenditure was unforeseen because, while the policy of conducting a plebiscite was longstanding, the expenditure on a postal survey by the ABS was not endorsed by cabinet, and thus becoming official government policy, until after the budget in May. This was enough to make the expenditure unforeseen.</p>
<p>The plaintiffs raised an additional argument that the expenditure was not for what is referred to as the government’s “ordinary annual services”. Under the Constitution, the Senate’s powers over expenditure on such services is limited. Under Section 53 of the Constitution, it can’t introduce or amend such expenditures, although it can reject them outright. </p>
<p>The Advance to the Finance Minister the government was relying on is found in what is known as Appropriation Act No 1, which contains expenditures for the government’s ordinary annual services. The Senate’s powers over this bill are therefore limited. The plaintiffs argued it was wrong for the government to draw on the Advance to the Finance Minister contained in such a bill for the postal survey, which was a new, unique and extreme set of circumstances.</p>
<p>The difficulty with each of the arguments that challenged the $122 million is that the court is generally reluctant to interfere with how the parliament has decided to authorise government withdrawal of funds.</p>
<p>The High Court has previously indicated that the question is, essentially, a matter to be resolved by the parliament. For instance, the last time the court was asked to look at this issue (in the 2005 case referred to above), it endorsed the idea that it is for parliament to determine how it exercises the supervisory responsibility given to it in Section 83. </p>
<h2>Dressing up a plebiscite as a statistical survey</h2>
<p>When the idea of a non-binding plebiscite first emerged in early 2017, many assumed the government would ask the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), the organisation ordinarily responsible for conducting elections and votes, to conduct it. </p>
<p>The AEC can conduct plebiscites under the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s7a.html">Commonwealth Electoral Act</a>. This allows the government to contract the AEC’s services for such an exercise.</p>
<p>However, there was a major constitutional issue with this course of action: the Commonwealth didn’t have any statutory basis to spend the money to contract the AEC. This has become a requirement since the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/23.html">successful High Court challenge</a> to similar spending for the National School Chaplaincy Program.</p>
<p>When the postal survey was announced, the Commonwealth revealed it was not going to ask the AEC, but the ABS. The ABS already has statutory authority to spend money on statistical surveys under the <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/cth/consol_act/casa1905241/">Census and Statistics Act</a>, so the Commonwealth must have thought it was at least able to avoid this basis for a constitutional challenge.</p>
<p>However, the decision to ask the ABS has run into two major hurdles.</p>
<p>The first is that the ABS is not well set up to conduct large-scale exercises of this kind. As a matter of simple logistics, the AEC has had to transfer staff to the ABS just so it has the expertise and resources to undertake the job. The AEC has also had to update the electoral roll and provide that information to the ABS.</p>
<p>While there is a specific statutory provision that allows the AEC to transfer information to the ABS, the AEC isn’t authorised to give the ABS the postal addresses of silent voters. So, again, the ABS has had to call on the AEC for help, and contract the AEC to send those votes out on its behalf.</p>
<p>All of this demonstrates how unusual it is to ask the ABS to conduct a “survey” of this kind. Legally, it has raised another challenge to the scheme, on the basis that the AEC is not allowed to assist the ABS in this way.</p>
<p>The second hurdle is that under the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01005">Census and Statistics Act</a>, the ABS may only collect statistical information that is prescribed by regulation. </p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017C00661">directing</a> the ABS to conduct the survey, the treasurer indicated that the information sought, relating to the opinions of participating voters about same-sex marriage, fell within the types of prescribed statistical information that are set out in the <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00706">Census and Statistics Regulation 2016</a>, and more specifically:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>births, deaths, marriages and divorces;</p></li>
<li><p>law; and</p></li>
<li><p>population and the social, economic and demographic characteristics of the population.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>This led to an argument about the interpretation of the term “statistical information” in the act. The plaintiffs argued that statistics referred to the collection of objective, factual data, and not personal, subjective beliefs or opinions. However, they came up against a difficulty: the ABS has always collected information about religious beliefs.</p>
<p>The Commonwealth argued for a more dynamic definition of “statistics”. It argued the term extended to all information that is required to obtain a working knowledge of the population to assist the government fulfil its functions, and that there were many examples of statistical exercises including the collection of information about opinions.</p>
<h2>What next for marriage equality?</h2>
<p>While we now have an outcome from the High Court, we don’t yet know why. </p>
<p>On September 12, the ABS will start to conduct a survey on whether to legalise same-sex marriage in Australia. Many hope this will eventually lead to marriage equality in Australia. </p>
<p>While the political process now takes centre stage, the High Court will be writing its reasons to explain why it allowed this course of events to continue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82372/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gabrielle Appleby receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a constitutional consultant to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Commonwealth Parliament</span></em></p>To find the government’s postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage valid, the High Court had to work through several quite technical constitutional and legal arguments.Gabrielle Appleby, Associate Professor, UNSW Law School, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823132017-09-06T20:15:17Z2017-09-06T20:15:17ZFactCheck: are children ‘better off’ with a mother and father than with same-sex parents?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183709/original/file-20170829-1542-1u356h6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many of the studies on this question examine the outcomes for children in same-sex parented families where both parents are women.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184869/original/file-20170906-9843-13n294b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184869/original/file-20170906-9843-13n294b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184869/original/file-20170906-9843-13n294b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184869/original/file-20170906-9843-13n294b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184869/original/file-20170906-9843-13n294b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=334&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184869/original/file-20170906-9843-13n294b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184869/original/file-20170906-9843-13n294b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184869/original/file-20170906-9843-13n294b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Liberal MP Kevin Andrews, interviewed on Sky News, August 13, 2017.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfu18kSIDqI">YouTube</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<blockquote>
<p>Optimally, you’ve got the input from both [a mother and a father] and the children brought up in those circumstances are, as a cohort, better off than those who are not.</p>
<p>… whether it’s in terms of health outcomes, mental health, physical health, whether it’s in terms of employment prospects, in terms of how this is generated from one generation to another, the social science evidence is overwhelmingly in one direction in this regard. <strong>– Liberal MP Kevin Andrews, excerpts from an <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfu18kSIDqI">interview on Sky News</a>, August 13, 2017.</strong> </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Public campaigns for and against same-sex marriage have been heightened by the Turnbull government’s plan to conduct a $122 million <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/ABS+Media+Statements+-+Australian+Marriage+Law+Postal+Survey">voluntary postal survey</a> asking the nation whether same-sex couples should be able to marry under Australian law.</p>
<p>Discussing his opposition to same-sex marriage during <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfu18kSIDqI">an interview</a> on Sky News, Liberal MP Kevin Andrews said children who are brought up with a mother and a father “are, as a cohort, better off than those who are not”.</p>
<p>Andrews also said the “social science evidence is overwhelmingly in one direction in this regard”.</p>
<p>Let’s look at the research.</p>
<h2>Checking the source</h2>
<p>When asked for sources to support his statements, a spokesperson for Kevin Andrews told The Conversation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mr Andrews wrote a book called “<a href="http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/6105053">Maybe I Do</a>”. You might also like to look at the 2011 report, <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/law/news/docs_pdfs_images/2011/Sep/FKS-ResearchReport.pdf">For Kids’ Sake</a>, by Professor Patrick Parkinson of the University of Sydney and studies by Douglas Allen (2015) in Canada and Paul Sullins (2015) in the US.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Verdict</h2>
<p>Kevin Andrews’ assertion that children who are brought up with a mother and father are, “as a cohort, better off than those who are not” is not supported by research evidence.</p>
<p>The majority of research on this topic shows that children or adolescents raised by same-sex parents fare equally as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents on a wide range of social, emotional, health and academic outcomes. </p>
<h2>Response to Kevin Andrews’ sources</h2>
<p>First of all, let’s look at the sources provided by Andrews’ spokesperson to support his statements. A summary of Kevin Andrews’ book on the National Library of Australia website says it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… reviews the evidence on the benefits of marriage for society, children, and adults. It argues that healthy, stable, and happy marriages are the optimal institution for promoting individual well being and healthy societies. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s true that there is a large body of evidence to show that stability in marriage and family life is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091824/">beneficial for children</a>, particularly in early childhood. Some research has shown that these benefits are associated with <a href="http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Cohabitation,%20marriage,%20relationship%20stability%20and%20child%20outcomes%20July%202011.pdf">higher average income and education levels</a> among married couples, rather than marriage itself. </p>
<p>But these studies didn’t involve comparisons between opposite-sex and same-sex married couples, so they do not defend the argument that heterosexual marriage leads to better outcomes for children than same-sex marriage. In fact, some research suggests same-sex marriage would <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-11202-004">provide benefits</a> for children being raised in these families.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184623/original/file-20170905-14281-res10c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184623/original/file-20170905-14281-res10c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184623/original/file-20170905-14281-res10c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184623/original/file-20170905-14281-res10c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=410&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184623/original/file-20170905-14281-res10c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184623/original/file-20170905-14281-res10c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184623/original/file-20170905-14281-res10c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=516&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=Mho5IDhazvxAEhpyDSi-yA-1-14">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Patrick Parkinson’s report, <a href="http://sydney.edu.au/law/news/docs_pdfs_images/2011/Sep/FKS-ResearchReport.pdf">For Kid’s Sake</a>, links rising rates of divorce, family conflict and instability in parental relationships with increasing psychological distress among young people in Australia. One of Parkinson’s conclusions was that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the most stable, safe and nurturing environment for children is when their parents are, and remain, married to one another.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074431/">studies that support these assertions</a>. This research supports the importance of family stability, quality relationships between parents and children, and the need for access to socioeconomic resources – but not the need for parents to be heterosexual.</p>
<p>Douglas Allen’s <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01494929.2015.1033317">2015 paper</a> is a critical, but not systematic, review of more than 60 studies relating to same-sex parenting and/or child outcomes. This paper does not present findings related to child outcomes.</p>
<p>Rather, Allen says that, due to sampling bias and small sample sizes in the existing body of work, there is currently no conclusive scientific evidence demonstrating that children raised by same-sex couples do better or worse than children raised by heterosexual couples.</p>
<p>Andrews’ spokesperson also pointed to 2015 research from Paul Sullins. Sullins’ <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2500537">2015 analysis</a> of data from the US National Health Interview Survey indicated that children raised by same-sex parents were more than twice as likely to experience emotional problems than those raised by heterosexual, married parents who were biologically related to their children. But this analysis <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/using-pseudoscience-to-undermine-same-sex-parents/385604/">was</a> <a href="https://familyinequality.wordpress.com/2015/02/27/bogus-versus-extremely-low-quality/">criticised</a> for not taking into account the stability of the family environment.</p>
<p>The author combined all children in same-sex families into one category, while placing children in opposite-sex families into separate categories – including different categories for step-parents and single parents, for example. So the comparison made was between <em>all</em> same-sex parented families, and a <em>selection</em> of <em>stable</em> heterosexual families. </p>
<h2>Research on outcomes for children in same-sex parented families</h2>
<p>Now let’s look at other studies that have been conducted around the world. Many of these studies examine the outcomes for children in same-sex parented families where both parents are women. There has been comparatively little research on families in which both parents are men. It can be difficult to achieve adequate sample sizes of children raised in <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-families-with-2-dads-raise-their-kids-77386">two-father families</a>, given the small number of these families. There is no research showing that children raised by gay fathers fare worse than other children. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://journals.lww.com/jrnldbp/Abstract/2016/04000/Same_Sex_and_Different_Sex_Parent_Households_and.1.aspx">study published in 2016</a> using data from the <a href="http://www.childhealthdata.org/learn/NSCH">US National Survey of Children’s Health</a> for <a href="http://childhealthdata.org/docs/drc/2011-12-fast-facts.pdf">2011-12</a> compared outcomes for children aged six to 17 years in 95 female same-sex parented families and 95 opposite-sex parented families. </p>
<p>The study found no differences in outcomes for children raised by lesbian parents compared to heterosexual parents on a range of outcomes including general health, emotional difficulties, coping behaviour and learning behaviour. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184621/original/file-20170905-9760-1di0o1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184621/original/file-20170905-9760-1di0o1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184621/original/file-20170905-9760-1di0o1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184621/original/file-20170905-9760-1di0o1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184621/original/file-20170905-9760-1di0o1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184621/original/file-20170905-9760-1di0o1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184621/original/file-20170905-9760-1di0o1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184621/original/file-20170905-9760-1di0o1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=Mho5IDhazvxAEhpyDSi-yA-2-87">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A paper published for the American Sociological Association in 2014 <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11113-014-9329-6">reviewed 10 years’ of scientific literature</a> on child well-being in same-sex parented families in the US. The literature review covered 40 original published studies, including numerous credible and methodologically sound social science studies, many of which drew on nationally representative data. </p>
<p>The authors concluded there was clear consensus in scientific literature that children raised by same-sex couples fared as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. This applied for a range of well-being measures, including: </p>
<ul>
<li>academic performance</li>
<li>cognitive development</li>
<li>social development</li>
<li>psychological health</li>
<li>early sexual activity, and </li>
<li>substance abuse.</li>
</ul>
<p>The authors noted that differences in child well-being were largely due to socioeconomic circumstances and family stability. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract">meta-analysis published in the Journal of Marriage and Family in 2010</a> combined the results of 33 studies to assess how the gender of parents affected children. The authors found the strengths typically associated with married mother-father families appeared to the same degree in families with two mothers and potentially in those with two fathers. </p>
<p>The meta-analysis found no evidence that children raised by same-sex couples fared worse than children raised by opposite-sex couples on a range of outcomes including:</p>
<ul>
<li>security of attachment to parents</li>
<li>behavioural problems</li>
<li>self perceptions of cognitive and physical competence, and</li>
<li>interest, effort and success in school.</li>
</ul>
<p>This review included studies from Europe, the UK and the US. The authors said that scholars had achieved </p>
<blockquote>
<p>a rare degree of consensus that unmarried lesbian parents are raising children who develop at least as well as their counterparts with married heterosexual parents. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In Australia, <a href="https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-635">a large study</a> published in the peer-reviewed BMC Public Health Journal in 2014 (and of which I was one of five co-authors) surveyed 315 parents representing 500 children. 80% of children had a female same-sex attracted parent, while 18% had a male same-sex attracted parent. </p>
<p>The results did support <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0012711">previous</a> <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02646830412331298350">research</a> showing that stigma related to a parent’s sexual orientation is negatively associated with mental health and well-being.</p>
<p>But, overall, the study found children and adolescents raised by same-sex parents in Australia fared as well as children of opposite-sex parents, and better on measures of general behaviour, general health and family cohesion.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpc.13171/abstract">follow up paper published in 2016</a> found there was no difference between children raised in female same-sex parent households and children raised in male same-sex parent households.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184622/original/file-20170905-26556-1nxdxli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184622/original/file-20170905-26556-1nxdxli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184622/original/file-20170905-26556-1nxdxli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184622/original/file-20170905-26556-1nxdxli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184622/original/file-20170905-26556-1nxdxli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184622/original/file-20170905-26556-1nxdxli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184622/original/file-20170905-26556-1nxdxli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/184622/original/file-20170905-26556-1nxdxli.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/success?src=Mho5IDhazvxAEhpyDSi-yA-1-49">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Further work from the same project reported on surveys and interviews with adolescents raised by same-sex parents. <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cch.12180/full">This study</a> (of which I was one of four co-authors) did find that some adolescents with same-sex parents reported experiencing anxiety relating to fear of discrimination, which was linked to poorer well-being.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1359105311403522">US study published in 2011</a> found adolescents raised by lesbian mothers were more likely to have reported occasional substance use, but not more likely to have reported heavy use, than other adolescents.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1353%2Fdem.0.0112?LI=true">2010 analysis</a> of data from the 2000 US census found that children raised by same-sex couples had no fundamental deficits in making normal progress through school compared to children raised by opposite-sex couples. </p>
<p>When parents’ socio-economic status and the characteristics of the students were accounted for, the educational outcomes for children of same-sex couples couldn’t be distinguished with statistical certainty from children of heterosexual married couples.</p>
<h2>Analysing studies that show different results</h2>
<p>Some studies have indicated that adults raised by same-sex parents fare worse on some educational, social or emotional outcomes. But the <em>majority</em> of research does not support this. There are also studies that have been published and later discredited, but continue to be used as references.</p>
<p>The 2012 US <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610%20on%20the%20psychological%20impact%20of%20same-sex%20parenting">New Family Structures Study</a>, also known as the “Regnerus study”, is <a href="http://family.org.au/the-kids-aren-t-all-right-new-family-structures-and-the-no-differences-claim/">often</a> <a href="http://www.marriagealliance.com.au/mark_regnerus_how_different_are_the_adult_children_of_parents_who_have_same_sex_relationships_findings_from_the_new_family_structures_study_social_science_research_41_2012_752_770">cited</a> by groups opposed to same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>The study looked at outcomes for adults aged 18-39. It compared outcomes for adults with a parent who had had a same-sex relationship, with outcomes for adults raised by still-married, heterosexual couples who were biologically related to their children. It showed the adults with a gay or lesbian parent or parents fared worse on a range of social, educational and health outcomes. But this study has been <a href="http://www.hrc.org/blog/michigan-judge-delivers-devastating-blow-to-junk-scientist-regnerus">very</a> <a href="http://www.hrc.org/blog/ut-austin-denounces-mark-regnerus-anti-gay-study">widely</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/?utm_term=.25f7a821264a">criticised</a>. </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.asanet.org/documents/ASA/pdfs/ASA_March_2015_Supreme_Court_Marriage_Equality_Amicus_Brief.pdf">a brief</a> filed in the US Supreme Court in 2015, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Sociological_Association">American Sociological Association</a> said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Regnerus study … did not specifically examine children raised by same-sex parents, and provides no support for the conclusions that same-sex parents are inferior parents or that the children of same-sex parents experience worse outcomes. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>As outlined by the American Sociological Association, the study removed all divorced, single, and step-parent families from the heterosexual group, leaving only stable, married, heterosexual families as the comparison. In addition, Regnerus categorised children as having been raised by a parent in a same-sex relationship </p>
<blockquote>
<p>regardless of whether they were in fact raised by the parent … and regardless of the amount of time that they spent under the parent’s care.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A subsequent <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/10/new-criticism-of-regnerus-study-on-parenting-study/?utm_term=.3bc3e975e063">reanalysis</a> of the data, using different criteria for categorising respondents, found the results <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X1500085X">inconclusive</a>, or suggestive that “adult children raised by same-sex two-parent families show a comparable adult profile to their peers raised by two-biological-parent families”.</p>
<h2>Strengths and weaknesses of evidence on outcomes for children</h2>
<p>The “gold standard” for research on child and family outcomes are studies that involve randomly selected, population-based samples. This has been difficult to achieve in research on same-sex parenting because many population-based studies don’t ask about parents’ sexual orientation. Even where they do ask, not all studies include a sample of children or adults raised by same-sex parents that is large enough to provide for reliable statistical analysis. </p>
<p>This has led to criticism of the quality of evidence on outcomes for children raised by same-sex parents, because most studies have relied on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convenience_sampling">convenience</a> or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics)#Voluntary_Sampling">volunteer</a> samples, which are not randomly selected, and so may include bias.</p>
<p>However, there are methodological limitations in all studies. And, as outlined earlier, recent analyses of population-based data sets have supported the finding that children or adolescents raised by same-sex couples do not experience poorer outcomes than other children. So there is no clear basis to the argument that convenience samples lead to “incorrect” findings due to bias. <strong>– Jennifer Power</strong></p>
<h2>Review</h2>
<p>This FactCheck gives a good broad overview of the research and scientific consensus in regard to child health and well-being in same-sex parent families. The studies included, on balance, represent the current understanding of academics and child health experts on child health and well-being outcomes in same-sex parent families. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.nllfs.org/">National Lesbian Longitudinal Family Study</a> provides additional evidence to support the verdict of this FactCheck. As a well established and methodologically robust longitudinal study, the National Lesbian Longitudinal Family Study provides important additional insights.</p>
<p>In the Australian context, the <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/same-sex-parented-families-australia">2013 Australian Institute of Family Studies</a> review of same-sex parent families also supports the overall verdict of this FactCheck. </p>
<p>It should be noted that <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13691050701601702">research</a> has indicated that same-sex parent families experience stigma and discrimination, and when they do it can impact on child health and well-being.</p>
<p>Overall, however, the verdict in this FactCheck is appropriate based on current research. <strong>– Simon Crouch</strong> </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162128/original/image-20170323-13486-72k52f.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Conversation FactCheck is accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em>The Conversation’s FactCheck unit is the first fact-checking team in Australia and one of the first worldwide to be accredited by the International Fact-Checking Network, an alliance of fact-checkers hosted at the Poynter Institute in the US. <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-factcheck-granted-accreditation-by-international-fact-checking-network-at-poynter-74363">Read more here</a>.</em></p>
<p><em>Have you seen a “fact” worth checking? The Conversation’s FactCheck asks academic experts to test claims and see how true they are. We then ask a second academic to review an anonymous copy of the article. You can request a check at <a href="mailto:checkit@theconversation.edu.au">checkit@theconversation.edu.au</a>. Please include the statement you would like us to check, the date it was made, and a link if possible.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82313/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Power has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council, ACON and Relationships Australia for research work related to parenting. Jennifer was a co-author on two papers cited in this document, as disclosed in the text. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Crouch has previously received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.
Simon Crouch is a co-author on three papers cited in the article.</span></em></p>Discussing his opposition to same-sex marriage, Liberal MP Kevin Andrews said children who are brought up with a mother and father are ‘better off than those who are not’. Let’s look at the research.Jennifer Power, Senior Research Fellow at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/833482017-09-04T02:40:25Z2017-09-04T02:40:25ZWithout proper protections, same-sex marriage will discriminate against conscientious objectors<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184318/original/file-20170901-26012-3x4leq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If marriage is to be redefined, substantial protections should be provided for conscientious objectors.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Many politicians have <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/08/25/pyne-slams-red-herring-marriage-claims">confidently claimed</a> that the introduction of same-sex marriage does not have the potential to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/21/abbott-insists-marriage-equality-threat-to-religious-freedom-after-brandis-calls-it-a-trick">violate religious liberty</a> or the rights of conscientious objectors.</p>
<p>This is clearly false considering the situation overseas and in Australia. If Australia is to redefine marriage, substantial protections should be provided for conscientious objectors.</p>
<h2>Why do we need protections?</h2>
<p>In countries where same-sex marriage is legal, people who have opposed it have been <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/cochran-v.-city-of-atlanta">fired</a> or <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2014/04/05/backlash-against-brendan-eich-crossed-a-line/#13c4b0a26f8a">forced to resign</a> from their jobs.</p>
<p>Business owners such as <a href="https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/case-details/state-of-washington-v.-arlene-s-flowers-inc.-and-barronelle-stutzman">florists</a>, <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/ashers-bakery-loses-gay-marriage-cake-legal-challenge-10630650">bakers</a> and <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html">photographers</a> have been forced to compromise their beliefs and provide their services or face legal sanctions. In one US case, this resulted in a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148472/Anti-gay-bakers-ordered-pay-135k-lesbian-couple-refused-wedding-cake-say-fine-ruin-financially-despite-raising-100-000-GoFundMe.html">$135,000 fine</a>. </p>
<p>Religious organisations that have refused to allow their facilities to be used for same-sex marriages have been denied government benefits such as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18grove.html">tax exemptions</a>. Universities with more traditional positions on marriage and sexuality have been <a href="https://www.dailyxtra.com/trinity-western-to-sue-after-being-denied-accreditation-60463">denied accreditation</a>. Advocacy groups promoting the view that marriage is only between a man and a woman have <a href="https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/96002410/charities-commission-strips-family-first-of-charitable-status">lost their charitable status</a>.</p>
<p>In rare situations, those who have refused to facilitate same-sex marriages <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html">have been imprisoned</a>.</p>
<p>In Australia, where same-sex marriage has not been introduced, there are already many examples of individuals suffering from discrimination, intimidation, boycotts and legal action.</p>
<p>Hobart’s Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous was required to appear before Tasmania’s anti-discrimination commissioner after distributing a <a href="http://www.sydneycatholic.org/pdf/DMM-booklet_web.pdf">letter defending traditional marriage</a>. This followed a <a href="http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/transgender-rights-activist-martine-delaney-drops-complaint-over-catholic-churchs-marriage-booklet/news-story/d8d9079bf932526b27e5f094e57dbe84?nk=7bd2d275fddd376333435b60d3ac811c-1474933967">complaint</a> that it violated anti-vilification laws. The complaint was withdrawn, but only after a substantial amount of time and money had been expended on the proceedings.</p>
<p>Opponents of the redefinition of marriage have also been forced to cancel <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/samesex-marriage-event-off-threats-to-hotel-staff/news-story/d45bd0f9e9a774fc3e3d0741f176da13?nk=3254f4e511a5bb0dff67889b7abad448-1504160567">hotel bookings for conferences</a> and been refused <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/09/26/printers-refuse-to-print-anti-same-sex-marriage-book/">printing services</a> for books promoting traditional marriage.</p>
<p>People and businesses have also experienced intimidation, boycotts and even death threats. This has included <a href="https://www.cis.org.au/commentary/articles/diversity-what-diversity/">university academics</a>, <a href="https://freedomforfaith.org.au/library/rights-clash-looms-in-same-sex-debate">corporate employees</a>, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-14/coopers-brewery-not-involved-gay-marriage-video/8351894">businesses</a>, <a href="http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/saying-this-ad-lies-is-a-lie/news-story/aeb0c04e304fbf5ead61a0f7d8386cee">concerned mothers</a>, and <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-25/suspicious-packages-addressed-to-acl-causes-evacuation/8844052">lobby groups</a>.</p>
<p>Governments have also been willing <a href="https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/36889114/city-of-sydney-100-000-yes-vote-pledge/">to donate</a> to proponents of same-sex marriage and provide other benefits (such as flying rainbow flags) while denying any such support for opponents of change. This is despite <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2017/08/10/abc-journalists-warned-to-be-fair-in-reporting-same-sex-marriage-debate/">40% of the population</a> supporting traditional marriage.</p>
<p>Importantly, supporters of change do not want to introduce same-sex marriage, but <a href="https://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Documents/Exposure-Draft-Marriage-Amendment.pdf">two-person marriage</a>. This new definition will raise additional challenges for conscientious objectors. </p>
<p>Some of the issues relating to gender identity that have already arisen overseas include <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/court-rejects-hamilton-dad-s-fight-to-get-warnings-from-school-board-over-false-teachings-1.3870555">parents prevented from removing</a> their children from programs encouraging students to consider their gender identity, religious schools <a href="https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/marriage/pages/1802/attachments/original/1502311817/138516__4.pdf?1502311817">threatened with closure</a> if they do not address issues of sexuality and gender identity in a government-approved manner, and the possibility of <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/05/new-law-allows-government-to-take-children-away-if-parents-dont-accept-kids-gender-identity/">parents losing custody of their children</a> if they refuse to affirm their child’s chosen gender identity.</p>
<p>These are just a few examples that could be used to demonstrate the problems that may arise when marriage is redefined – especially when it has been redefined without providing substantial protections for conscientious objectors.</p>
<h2>How to provide substantial protections</h2>
<p>The importance of providing conscience protections is affirmed not just by opponents of change but also by advocates for same-sex marriage such as US law professor <a href="http://religionandpolitics.org/2015/04/01/why-law-professor-douglas-laycock-supports-same-sex-marriage-and-indianas-religious-freedom-law/">Douglas Laycock</a> and Liberal MP <a href="https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/opinions/same-sex-marriage-law-protects-rights-all-parties">Tim Wilson</a>. </p>
<p>Their support indicates that conscience protections should not be seen as excusing bigotry. Rather, they are a legitimate means of best promoting everyone’s welfare.</p>
<p>These protections are particularly appropriate considering that a failure to adequately protect conscientious objectors <a href="http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=19233">violates the right to equality</a>. This is the very right that advocates of change assert to be of such importance to the issue of marriage equality (despite international human rights law declaring that the right is <a href="http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-01/what-does-human-rights-law-say-about-marriage-and-equality/8856552?pfmredir=sm">not violated</a> by a country deciding against introducing same-sex marriage).</p>
<p>The right to equality under international human rights law clearly protects attributes such as religion and political opinion. Examples include Articles 2 and 26 of the <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CCPR.aspx">International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights</a>. </p>
<p>A failure to protect conscientious objectors can be regarded as a violation of their right to equality. This is because it subjects them to discrimination based on their religion or political opinion.</p>
<p>The merits of providing such protections can also be supported on many other grounds. These include conscience rights, religious liberty, parental rights, privacy, freedom of association, the rights of children, and freedom of speech.</p>
<p>To provide effective protection to conscientious objectors, legislation redefining marriage should:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>permit individuals, companies and religious bodies to decline to facilitate a same-sex marriage or related celebration;</p></li>
<li><p>protect the freedom of individuals to express their views about marriage;</p></li>
<li><p>ensure government action does not inappropriately undermine parental duties; and</p></li>
<li><p>prohibit discrimination by government bodies, companies and individuals against conscientious objectors.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Despite the importance of providing such protections, the failure of so many politicians to recognise that redefining marriage will cause Australians to suffer discrimination does not inspire confidence that these protections will be provided. If politicians won’t even recognise the potential for harm despite overwhelming evidence it is very unlikely that they will strongly advocate for comprehensive protections for conscientious objectors.</p>
<p>The probability of this outcome is indicated by the bills proposed <a href="https://www.scribd.com/document/355646076/Marriage-Amendment-Definition-and-Religious-Freedoms-Bill-2017">this year</a> and <a href="https://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Mediareleases/Documents/Exposure-Draft-Marriage-Amendment.pdf">previously</a>. These provided very limited protections for religious ministers, civil celebrants and religious organisations. </p>
<p>The failure of federal politicians to take seriously the legitimate concerns that people have about the consequences of changing our marriage laws may be one of the reasons why so many will be voting “no” at the upcoming postal ballot.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83348/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Greg Walsh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Conscience protections for those opposed to same-sex marriage should not be seen as excusing bigotry. Rather, it is a legitimate means of best promoting everyone’s welfare.Greg Walsh, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, University of Notre Dame AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/829882017-08-30T20:07:40Z2017-08-30T20:07:40ZRevealed: who supports marriage equality in Australia – and who doesn’t<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183580/original/file-20170828-17108-ydnkkz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Increasing numbers of Australians agree with the notion of same-sex couples having the same rights as different-sex couples.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/James Ross</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ahead of the postal plebiscite on marriage equality, much is being written about the relative chances of a “Yes” or “No” outcome, and the strategies both sides need to influence public opinion.</p>
<p>However, the bulk of the public debate seems to be based on intuitive or speculative perceptions of the traits of people who are likely to oppose or support marriage equality, or on anecdotal evidence.</p>
<p>We used data from the <a href="http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/hilda">Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey</a> (HILDA) to assess trends in the degree of support for marriage equality, and to ascertain the characteristics of those Australians who do, or don’t, support it.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/finding-balance-on-marriage-equality-debate-a-particular-challenge-for-the-media-82506">Finding balance on marriage equality debate a particular challenge for the media</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>The data</h2>
<p>In 2005, 2008, 2011 and 2015, the HILDA Survey asked its national panel to rate their degree of agreement with the statement “Homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples do” on a scale from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree).</p>
<p>The HILDA data have strengths and weaknesses compared to recent <a href="https://theconversation.com/coalition-position-worsens-in-newspoll-to-trail-46-54-82743">poll data</a>. The drawbacks are that they are relatively old (July 2015-February 2016), and do not collect information about views on same-sex marriage <em>specifically</em>.</p>
<p>However, they are collected with much more statistical rigour (probability sampling, population representativeness), feature sample sizes that dwarf those of opinion polls (>15,000 respondents), and encompass rich demographic information.</p>
<h2>Degree of support</h2>
<p>We find a pronounced trend between 2005 and 2015 in the degree to which Australians agree with the notion of same-sex couples having the same rights as different-sex couples.</p>
<p>As seen below, the percentage of people who “strongly agree” (the highest point in the scale) rose from 19.2% in 2005 to 46.3% in 2015. In contrast, the percentage of people who “strongly disagree” (the lowest point) fell markedly from 26.7% in 2005 to 12.9% in 2015.</p>
<p>The percentage of people who chose any of the five intermediate responses either remained stable, or decreased slightly.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/kVXI5/2/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>
<p>Defining agreement as response points five to seven on the “agree side” of the aforementioned question, the 2015 HILDA Survey reveals agreement rates of 66%, up from 39.8% in 2005. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/W2grP/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>When agreement is defined as response options four to seven, the 2015 agreement rate grows to 78%. </p>
<h2>Who supports equal rights?</h2>
<p>Examination of the 2015 HILDA Survey data revealed marked differences in the degree of support for equal rights for same-sex couples across population subgroups.</p>
<p>Such support was significantly greater among:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>women;</p></li>
<li><p>non-heterosexual (gay/lesbian, bisexual) people;</p></li>
<li><p>younger people;</p></li>
<li><p>people with degree-level or year 12 as their highest educational qualifications (compared to lower than year 12, or a professional qualification);</p></li>
<li><p>non-religious people;</p></li>
<li><p>people born in Australia or an English-speaking country (compared to people born in a non-English-speaking country);</p></li>
<li><p>people with higher incomes; and</p></li>
<li><p>people living in major cities (compared to those living in regional/remote areas).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Once these factors were accounted for, there were few and small differences across Australia’s states and territories.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/EmG5E/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="1000"></iframe>
<h2>Who sits on the fence?</h2>
<p>About 12.4% of the 2015 HILDA Survey respondents selected the mid-point of the seven-category response scale when reporting on their agreement with the rights of same-sex couples. </p>
<p>This is an important portion of the Australian population. They represent those who may be swayed in either direction.</p>
<p>Examining their traits reveals these respondents were more likely to be men, heterosexual, older than 40, religious, to have below-year-12 education or professional qualifications, from a non-English-speaking background, in the bottom quartile of the income distribution, and from regional/remote areas of Australia.</p>
<h2>Social change</h2>
<p>The longitudinal nature of the HILDA Survey data enabled us to compare trends over time in support for the rights of same-sex couples between population segments. </p>
<p>Between 2005 and 2015, support rates increased across all of the population subgroups under scrutiny. This was even the case among groups that expressed the lowest levels of support.</p>
<p>For the most part, the group differences in support rates reported before remain reasonably constant over time. Interesting exceptions included a reduced “support premium” associated with holding university-level qualifications, and increasing <a href="https://theconversation.com/ethnic-religious-communities-may-be-the-no-campaigns-secret-weapon-in-same-sex-marriage-fight-82429">religious disparities</a>.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mJNOl/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="450"></iframe>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-christians-arguing-no-on-marriage-equality-the-bible-is-not-decisive-82498">To Christians arguing ‘no’ on marriage equality: the Bible is not decisive</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>What does all this mean?</h2>
<p>The figures reveal an overwhelming tide of support toward the rights of same-sex couples within Australian society.</p>
<p>However, certain population groups are clearly lagging behind in their support. This includes male, older, and religious Australians, and those from non-English-speaking backgrounds. These same traits are also predictive of being undecided on the issue. This implies campaigners for a Yes vote should redouble efforts in putting forward arguments that appeal to these groups.</p>
<p>Even with a favourable outcome, the moral scrutiny to which the LGBT community is being subjected will likely have <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/oct/08/same-sex-marriage-irish-campaign-had-negative-effect-on-most-lgbti-people">long-term negative consequences</a>. Social friction and debates about the rights of same-sex couples are unlikely to disappear after the plebiscite. Our results point toward population groups that will need further convincing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82988/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Francisco Perales receives funding from the Australian Research Council as part of its Discovery Early Career Researcher Award scheme for a project titled 'Sexual Orientation and Life Chances in Contemporary Australia'.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alice Campbell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>HILDA data reveal an overwhelming tide of support toward the rights of same-sex couples within Australian society.Francisco Perales, Senior Research Fellow (Institute for Social Science Research & Life Course Centre) and ARC DECRA Fellow, The University of QueenslandAlice Campbell, PhD Student, Life Course Centre and Institute for Social Science Research, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/828162017-08-29T20:11:53Z2017-08-29T20:11:53ZHypocrisy reigns on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183400/original/file-20170825-18734-1wesren.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Marriage is not an automatic right for anyone.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The same-sex marriage debate, like all public debates, is messy. However, more than most, it has become a proxy for something else. It has become a culture war, ugly and unproductive. The air has become filled with sound and fury, signifying nothing but self-reinforcing division.</p>
<p>This debate should separate two existential questions. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>First, how can we ensure equality of intimate partnerships for all, with appropriate cultural, political and legal recognition?</p></li>
<li><p>Second, how can we maintain respect for customary and traditional rites?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>This separating out of the key issues has been excluded by the current framing of the debate.</p>
<p>Even if simply posed, existential questions do not lend themselves to simple answers. They require careful negotiation between social relations, private decisions, and public law. But at least we will be giving ourselves a chance for a meaningful outcome.</p>
<p>The abortion debate is illustrative here of what a descent into cultural war achieves. For many conservatives and right-wing critics, abortion was reduced to a slogan, the “<a href="https://righttolife.com.au/home">right to life</a>”. For many feminists and liberals, abortion was reduced to an alternative slogan, a woman’s “<a href="http://www.reproductivechoiceaustralia.org.au/about">right to choose</a>”. That standoff is still searingly painful.</p>
<p>With arguments over marriage equality or otherwise, the debate has begun in the wrong place, and without the wisdom of the judges in the landmark US case <a href="http://science.jburroughs.org/mbahe/BioEthics/Articles/Summary_Roe_v_Wade.pdf">Roe v Wade</a>. Hyperbole, hypocrisy and half-truths abound. Rites are confused for rights, appropriation is asserted in the name of recognition, and proponents on both sides pull out whatever facts they can find to make their case.</p>
<p>Labor senator Penny Wong, for example, is guilty of using out-of-context debating points. Responding recently to the Australian Christian Lobby calling the adopted children of gay couples a “stolen generation”, she replied with a <em>non sequitur</em>: we “<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/we-love-our-children-penny-wongs-stunning-senate-speech-about-the-marriage-plebiscite-20170809-gxs9in.html">love our children</a>”.</p>
<p>More seriously, her reference took the equation out of context. It came from a <a href="http://www.acl.org.au/tags/stolen_generation">blog post</a> made more than four years ago in reference to Kevin’s Rudd’s apology to the Stolen Generations speech.</p>
<p>On the other side, the Australian Christian Lobby continue to be a master of half-truths, post-truths and misdirection. Its <a href="http://www.acl.org.au">website</a> claims that “Redefining marriage will threaten your freedom of speech; Redefining marriage can take away your religious freedom”, and so on. This is no different from <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/marriage-plebiscite-tony-abbott-urges-a-no-vote-to-reject-political-correctness-and-protect-religious-freedom-20170808-gxs6m6.html">Tony Abbott saying</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you don’t like same-sex marriage, vote no. If you’re worried about religious freedom, and freedom of speech, vote no.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Hyperbole abounds on both sides, as does hypocrisy. </p>
<p>Many of the gay lobby who once derided marriage as bourgeois now advocate for it. The same good people who have for years sensitively respected <a href="http://alga.org.au/files/Peopling-the-Empty-Mirror.pdf">the rights of Aboriginal peoples</a>, including to exclude others from their sacred sites, now treat the religious rites of Christians as available sites for political appropriation. </p>
<p>This point should not be passed over. “Marriage equality” advocates have no more right to appropriate the traditions of Christians than they do the customs of Indigenous peoples. Yes, Christianity was once powerful, and yes, it wrongly asserted those same practices to be the societal norm, but that does not make the contrary position any more just. </p>
<p>Alternatively, many of those on the Christian side who argue that marriage is sacred have hypocritically allowed priests, clergy and ministers to marry non-Christians for years without public controversy. </p>
<p>In a parallel process, there has been no public controversy raised by the churches over the fact that the number of marriages performed in Australia each year by <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3310.0">civil celebrants</a> has been more than 70% since 2010.</p>
<p>If Christians were so worried about the sacredness of marriage, this too would have been a pressing public issue for the past few decades. It is now more than ironic that – by implicitly claiming for those same decades that holy matrimony equals marriage and presenting their tradition as both the mainstream norm and the legal definition – they are being hoisted on their own petard. </p>
<p>In other words, the Christian definition of marriage has, in effect, been broadened or narrowed depending on who wants to participate in it.</p>
<p>Marriage is not an automatic right for anyone. Having intimate committed relations with others is a social question, and the nature of those relations is subject to an ethics of care. </p>
<p>Except for <a href="https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/your-relationship-status">registering relationships</a>, the state and the law needs to intervene only when that ethics of care has been breached in precisely defined ways. What we need is both equality of partnerships before the law and deep respect for others’ sacred traditions.</p>
<p>Lesbian, gay, and transsexual people want equal recognition of same-sex partnerships (a modern rights claim). This is possible in law without entering into questions of what it means to be a procreating being and/or to adopt children. That is a separate debate – or, to be more precise, it is two separate questions for deep dialogue.</p>
<p>People of particular sacred orientations want the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman to be upheld (a traditional cosmological claim). This should be possible, so long as it is not claimed as the overriding social norm for all.</p>
<p>Both can be handled, but not by the claiming the right to marriage nor by seeking exclusive legal protection of a religious rite.</p>
<p>When the premises of a debate cross different existential understandings, we should allow the possibility of accepting two apparently opposing principles at the same time. Reconciliation requires going back to basics. In this case, the two premises may be in fundamental tension, but they are not legally contradictory.</p>
<p>I will be boycotting this plebiscite. But not for the obvious reasons. Rather, I will be doing so because we have yet to properly define the terms of the debate. </p>
<p>My argument is very simple. There are two conflicting ontologies: modern rights versus cosmological rites, and the difference cannot be resolved by giving one precedence over the other.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82816/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul James does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>We need to get beyond hyperbole and half-truths from those both for and against marriage equality, and go back to basics.Paul James, Professor of Globalization and Cultural Diversity, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/830022017-08-24T12:05:14Z2017-08-24T12:05:14ZGrattan on Friday: A ‘No’ vote in the marriage ballot would be a humiliation for Turnbull<p>The two mega issues dominating federal politics, the citizenship crisis and the marriage ballot, have little in common – except that Malcolm Turnbull desperately needs each to come out the right way for him.</p>
<p>A narrow, black-letter interpretation of the Constitution’s Section 44 (i) which rendered three senior Nationals ineligible to sit in parliament would cause chaos for the government and, internally, for the Coalition.</p>
<p>A “No” result in the postal ballot might be less immediately serious, but it would leave a running sore that would further reduce Turnbull’s diminished authority.</p>
<p>It’s hard to believe that inquiries into the circumstances of Greens senator Scott Ludlam and the Justice Party’s Derryn Hinch by Western Australian barrister John Cameron, a man with no apparent political motive but a long-term preoccupation with questions of citizenship qualifications, could have produced such an extraordinary domino effect.</p>
<p>The government is relying on the High Court to read the Constitution’s section in what the lay person might describe as pragmatic legal terms, rather than literally.</p>
<p>The case has been set down for October 10-12, prolonging the uncertainty for the government, which sought a mid-September hearing.</p>
<p>The government is arguing that of the five referred so far (with the Nationals’ Fiona Nash and crossbencher Nick Xenophon to come), the eligibility of the Nationals’ Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan as well as former Greens senator Larissa Waters should be upheld. It maintains Ludlam, who – like Waters – has resigned, should be found ineligible, while One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts’ situation turns on paperwork.</p>
<p>One sidelight of the case is that Tony Windsor, whom Joyce fended off in New England at the election, has been given leave to appear, adding further aggravation for Joyce. Windsor’s lawyer will contest Joyce’s eligibility and would like to cross-examine him.</p>
<p>Under pressure over keeping Joyce and Nash in the ministry while the High Court ponders, the government has been struggling with how to handle the politics. There were suggestions it might refer some Labor people to the court and claims Bill Shorten wouldn’t produce his own renunciation documentation (no-one doubts it is in order) because he was protecting people on his own side. But now the government has pulled back.</p>
<p>Before it gets to consider the citizenship cases, the High Court has to hear, on September 5-6, the challenges to the postal vote, where a main issue is whether the funding, which comes from the advance to the finance minister, is legitimate. The government is using that method to circumvent the lack of parliamentary approval for the spending.</p>
<p>Michael Keating, a former head of the finance department and the prime minister’s department, strongly <a href="https://johnmenadue.com/michael-keating-is-it-legitimate-to-pay-for-a-postal-plebiscite-using-the-advance-to-the-minister-of-finance/">questions</a> this course. Keating sees it as an “entirely inappropriate” use of the advance and cannot recall the finance department ever being asked to facilitate the use of this fund “for a purpose that seemed unlikely to be supported by the parliament”.</p>
<p>Assuming the ballot survives the legal challenges, polls out this week show the battle is starting with the “Yes” case in a good position.</p>
<p>Newspoll found 63% favoured same-sex marriage being legalised; 67% said they would definitely vote and a further 15% probably would. Essential had 57% supporting a change to the law; 63% definitely intended to vote, and 18% indicated they probably would.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, it would be rash to predict the result from these early polls. It’s a voluntary ballot, and the campaign will run for weeks after voting papers are sent out from September 12.</p>
<p>Despite being voluntary, and regardless of Australians’ disillusionment with the political process generally and many people’s scepticism about the postal ballot specifically, early signs suggest voters are quite engaged. </p>
<p>It’s not just the high proportion saying they’ll vote but also the substantial number of new enrolments and people updating their details on the roll. On the latest figures, 90,000 new electors had enrolled, among 765,000 enrolment transactions processed since the announcement of the ballot. </p>
<p>Enrolments closed midnight Thursday; at the end of Thursday there were more than 165,000 transactions still to be processed, with work continuing through the weekend.</p>
<p>With no government funding for campaigning, this battle will test the mobilisation power of both sides: those churches, lobby groups, political figures and others urging a No vote, and the marriage equality groups, Labor, Greens, GetUp!, unions and the like promoting change.</p>
<p>The Yes advocates are trying to narrow the issue, to centre it on the question of rights and justice for the LGBTI community. At the core of their case is the argument that altering the marriage law won’t alter anything for other people.</p>
<p>The opponents are widening the debate in at least two directions.</p>
<p>First, they are taking it to the broad question of religious freedom in Australia, arguing this will be, if it is not already, under threat. This debate is now travelling well beyond the exemptions for those not wanting to have anything to do with same-sex marriage ceremonies.</p>
<p>Second, the critics are going to the general issue of “political correctness” and anger at “elites”. Tony Abbott and others are seeking to hoover up broad discontents and urge people to use a No vote as some sort of general protest.</p>
<p>A Yes win would be a major blow for Abbott, given his heavy political investment in the campaign.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, if the No forces are routed, a rearguard action can be expected from them.</p>
<p>The government says if there is a Yes vote it will facilitate a private member’s bill to implement the result. But the precise terms of that bill are to be agreed on later. A last hurrah from a defeated No side would be over how extensive the protections for critics of same-sex marriage should be in that legislation.</p>
<p>A win for the No side would have deep implications for Turnbull. For him personally, a No victory would be a devastating humiliation. It would have echoes of the rebuff he received at the 1999 republic referendum. </p>
<p>He might have put a lot more effort into that campaign than he plans with this one, but he comes to it as the nation’s leader.</p>
<p>He would have kept an election promise (sort of) but set back a cause once seen as central in his political agenda.</p>
<p>And what about Australia? If more were to vote No, then Australia, a nation that prides itself on the fair go, would have spoken in a way that kept it out of kilter with comparable nations, including Britain, New Zealand, the US, Ireland, and most of western Europe. That surely would send an unfortunate message internationally.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83002/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A ‘No’ result in the postal ballot would leave a running sore that would further reduce Malcolm Turnbull’s diminished authority.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/824292017-08-24T00:42:25Z2017-08-24T00:42:25ZEthnic religious communities may be the ‘No’ campaign’s secret weapon in same-sex marriage fight<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/183533/original/file-20170827-27560-xp8szu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Community leaders will play a very important role in whipping votes for or against in the same-sex marriage plebiscite.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Chris Mitchell, formerly The Australian’s editor-in-chief, got it right recently when he pointed to <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ethnic-angst-on-samesex-marriage-vows/news-story/d5d6d118eb86144405208bde889c6794?login=1">social conservatism among many ethnic communities</a> as a key factor in deciding the result of the upcoming same-sex marriage survey. <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/opinion/samesex-advocates-outed-when-it-comes-to-democratic-values/news-story/58daecdb924a074d089e85f9c94138c0">He noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… the truth is, many recent migrant groups from Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu backgrounds will be among the most passionate opponents of SSM. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>At the 2016 federal election, two if not three seats went to the government on the back of an unexpected rise in the Christian Democratic Party’s primary vote. The preferences then flowed to the Liberals. </p>
<p>These seats had large numbers of voters with a Chinese background. They were hit with a massive Weibo social media campaign by evangelical Christians of Chinese ethnicity targeting fears over same-sex marriage and the Safe Schools program – and the impact <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/hate-speech-risk-in-samesex-marriage-plebiscite-says-fred-niles-cdp-20160716-gq74vy.html">was dramatic</a>.</p>
<h2>The power of fear</h2>
<p>The “No” campaign has <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/church-warns-of-samesex-coercion-for-schools-hospitals/news-story/3eae56b41c28c0ac16bbf4ecafe04288">already linked</a> same-sex marriage with Safe Schools. This linking of the two was perfected in the Chinese community at the 2016 federal election with real effect. </p>
<p>However, <a href="https://theconversation.com/tony-abbott-morphs-same-sex-marriage-into-a-culture-war-issue-82279">the idea</a>, promoted by the likes of Tony Abbott, that all “politically correct” issues can be confronted by voting “no” may prove to be something of an overstep.</p>
<p>The Chinese community, and many religious minorities, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/nov/10/ush-to-weaken-racial-discrimination-act-opposed-by-ethnic-and-religious-groups">were resolute</a> in resisting Abbott’s and then Malcolm Turnbull’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-05/government-backtracks-on-racial-discrimination-act-changes/5650030">push to amend Section 18C</a> of the Racial Discrimination Act. They did not <a href="https://theconversation.com/australians-believe-18c-protections-should-stay-73049">buy the argument</a> about freedom of speech.</p>
<h2>The numbers game</h2>
<p>Assuming the government’s <a href="http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/pyne-calls-mccormacks-samesex-marriage-sordid-comments-unacceptable/news-story/8bb9cfb88a57e901a2145a78b1cd4093">prediction</a> of a survey turnout of at least 50% is correct, the “winner” will need to secure just over 4 million votes from about 8 million people surveyed.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/036">2016 Census</a> provides some insight into the numbers of minority community Australians involved in the same-sex marriage vote.</p>
<p>About 2.5 million Christians living in Australia were born overseas. 500,000 have come from eastern and southern Europe, 160,000 from North Africa and the Middle East, 155,000 from the Americas, 400,000 from southeast Asia, 150,000 from northeast Asia, 130,000 from southern and central Asia, and 200,000 from sub-Saharan Africa.</p>
<p>Not all are of voting age, nor are they all Australian citizens. But they do form serious reservoirs of more conservative cultural values. </p>
<p>Looking at Australian citizens of voting age, there are about 8.5 million Christians, about 4.7 million secularists and non-believers, about 300,000 Buddhists, about 230,000 Muslims, 160,000 Hindus, and about 60,000 Jews. If 60% of the believing communities responded “No”, then same-sex marriage could fail.</p>
<p>As the “Yes” vote groups already realise, getting the vote out will be crucial. The “No” campaigners only need to convince those undecided not to vote. So, voting “Yes” becomes an increasingly “brave” act, and one that may be experienced as a serious breach of community norms. </p>
<h2>What to expect</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2003/11/a_common_missed_conception.html">Religious blocs</a>, consisting of conservative Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders, have previously united to confront the UN over birth control strategies, and show their resistance to abortion and similar interventions. </p>
<p>Effectively, that bloc now has the US government <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-global-gag-order-5-questions-answered-77838">in its corner</a>. They may well be joined by Buddhist and Hindu leaders this time around. </p>
<p>Interfaith meetings <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/religious-leaders-reserve-the-right-to-call-homosexuality-a-sin/news-story/7cb99e1bbc4af12af58ccdd8b21627f2">have taken place</a> where religious leaders combined to confront government agencies on the same-sex marriage question, and even the very legitimacy of homosexuality. Where it occurs, the debate is fiery, as was revealed by the opposing submissions from religious leaders and gay activists <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Same_Sex_Marriage/SameSexMarriage/Submissions">from ethnic communities</a> to the Senate inquiry into same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>Community leaders will play an important role among those voters who have poorer English language skills. It’s not hard to envisage churches, temples, mosques, synagogues and similar holding working bees, where attendees can be assured they have filled in the forms correctly, and they can then be collected and posted en masse so none are lost.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/arts/television/07sara.html">example of grandchildren</a> of retired Jewish families in Florida arguing them into supporting a black Democrat presidential candidate (Barack Obama) in 2008 indicates that strategies can be implemented that minimise the stereotypical attachment of older religious people to conservative values. </p>
<p>However, it is not clear, for example, how younger Muslim or Hindu people will go arguing with their parents and grandparents to support same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>If the voluntary vote survives a High Court challenge <a href="https://theconversation.com/using-the-abs-to-conduct-a-same-sex-marriage-poll-is-legally-shaky-and-lacks-legitimacy-82245">over its legality</a>, it may well prove a much more powerful weapon for the conservatives than a compulsory plebiscite would ever have been.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82429/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Jakubowicz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Social conservatism among many ethnic communities will be a key factor in deciding the result of the upcoming same-sex marriage survey.Andrew Jakubowicz, Professor of Sociology, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/824982017-08-22T19:26:07Z2017-08-22T19:26:07ZTo Christians arguing ‘no’ on marriage equality: the Bible is not decisive<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182922/original/file-20170822-30538-k0fd56.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Christians who call on the Bible to support their arguments against marriage equality are on shaky ground.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/The Conversation</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As Australia faces a <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-09/same-sex-marriage-postal-plebiscite-14-days-to-enrol-to-vote/8791312">postal plebiscite</a> on same-sex marriage, we are seeing a steady stream of articles arguing the “yes” or “no” case. Many on the “no” side are prone to citing the Bible or appealing to “biblical values”. But what does the Bible actually say about human sexuality and homosexuality in particular?</p>
<p>What follows represents a summary of critical biblical scholarship on the issue. Critical biblical scholarship draws on a range academic disciplines including literary criticism, archaeology, history, philology, and social science to offer the most plausible, historically grounded interpretation of the Bible. It is not simply a matter of personal belief or citing official church doctrine.</p>
<p>Australian scholars are among leaders in the field when it comes to sexuality and the Bible. <a href="http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/%7Eloader/home.html">William Loader</a> has written several books on the matter and this Anglican <a href="https://www.dymocks.com.au/book/five-uneasy-pieces-by-michael-kirby-9781921817243/">collection of essays</a> is also excellent.</p>
<p>When it comes to homosexuality there are, at most, six passages of the Bible that are relevant. So what do these passages say?</p>
<p>The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is well known. This is where the terms “sodomite” and “sodomy” originate, and it has long been associated with biblical condemnation of male homosexual sex. It is, however, actually about gang-rape. </p>
<p>In this story, the men of Sodom seek to rape two visitors (who are actually angels). Their host, Lot, defends them and offers them protection in his house, but offers his virgin daughters to be raped in their place. </p>
<p>It is a deeply problematic and complex story that warrants an article of its own, but what is clear is that sexual violence and rape is harshly condemned, and so God destroys the town with sulphur and fire. Despite the linguistic history of the word “sodomite”, Genesis 19 has nothing to say about homosexuality or mutually consenting adults of the same gender expressing their desire and love.</p>
<p>Two of the laws of Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) seem more pertinent. They call a man lying with another man instead of his wife an “abomination”. </p>
<p>We should note first that the imagined scenario is a married man committing adultery with another male. It is not describing what we would understand to be a sexual orientation. We might also note the inherent sexism here: women apparently don’t have the same desire or their sexuality is deemed too insignificant to be worthy of comment.</p>
<p>Again, we need some context. Yes, this verse clearly condemns adulterous homosexual sex in calling it an “abomination” (to'ebah), but here some of the other things also called an “abomination” in the Bible: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Egyptians eating with Hebrews;</p></li>
<li><p>having an image of another god in your house;</p></li>
<li><p>sacrificing your child to the god Molech;</p></li>
<li><p>having sex with your wife when she is menstruating;</p></li>
<li><p>taking your wife’s sister as a second wife; and</p></li>
<li><p>eating pork.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Banned likewise is wearing mixed-fabric clothing, interbreeding animals of different species, tattoos, mocking the blind by putting obstacles in their way, and trimming your beard. </p>
<p>As you can see, there is quite an assortment of ancient laws, some of which seem to make good sense (such as no child sacrifice) and others of which the majority of Christians no longer keep (such as eating pork and wearing a wool-silk blend). </p>
<p>To claim one set as timeless truths while ignoring the others is patently hypocritical and goes against the grain of the text itself.</p>
<p>These two verses in Leviticus are the sum total of what the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) says about same-sex activities. The remainder of the biblical references occur in the New Testament, written between approximately 50 and 110 CE in the context of the Roman Empire.</p>
<p>The attitudes and norms of Graeco-Roman culture are critical in understanding these texts. In Graeco-Roman society, there was an acceptance that men might be attracted to other men. Even if married (to a woman) and often prior to marriage, a wealthy man might have a young male lover or male partner. </p>
<p>In educational settings, several ancient authors comment on the male-male mentoring that often included pederasty (sex with boys). The main ancient objection to male-male sexual activity was that one partner had to take the “woman’s role” of being penetrated. </p>
<p>In a patriarchal society, to be masculine was to be the active partner, whereas to be passive was deemed feminine and shameful.</p>
<p>These attitudes find their way into the New Testament in various forms. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:10 list a wide group of people who will not “inherit the Kingdom” without changing. Paul is using a standard list of vices here to make a wider rhetorical point.</p>
<p>Where some English translations might include “homosexuality” on this list, the translation is not that simple, which is why various English words are used (adulterer, immoral persons, prostitutes).</p>
<p>The Greek word malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 means “soft” or “effeminate” and captures the Graeco-Roman distaste at a man taking a “female” role. In the Bible it is commonly used to describe fancy clothing, and outside the Bible was a term for cult prostitutes. </p>
<p>The word <em>arsenokoites</em> is rarer. Scholars have debated whether it refers to male prostitution or pederasty or something else. To translate it “homosexual” is problematic for two reasons: it is unlikely Paul had any concept of sexual orientation and he was certainly not describing a committed adult relationship.</p>
<p>In Romans 1:26-27, Paul condemns people swapping out their usual partner for one of the same gender. He claims this is a result of idolatry and uses is as part of his argument for why one should only follow (his) God. </p>
<p>It is typical of the strong “them and us” rhetoric of the ancient world, serving a larger argument and is not a statement on sexuality per se. As New Testament scholar Sean Winter summarises:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Paul shares a stereotypical Jewish distrust of Graeco-Roman same sex activity, but is simply not talking about loving partnerships between people with same sex orientation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We need to put all this in perspective. These are six verses out of more than 31,000 verses or roughly 0.016% of the text. In contrast, the Bible contains more than 2,000 verses about money (and related issues of greed, wealth, loans, and property), and more than 100 specifically on one’s obligation to care for widows.</p>
<p>In other words, monitoring and proscribing human (homo)sexual activity is not a particular concern of the Bible when compared to the overarching demand for justice, economic equality, and the fair treatment of foreigners and strangers. For certain Christian groups to make this the decisive Christian issue is simply a misreading of biblical values.</p>
<p>Lest readers think the Bible is against sexuality generally, there is an entire biblical book devoted to celebrating human sexual desire. Written in the style of a Mesopotamian love poem, <a href="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Song%20of%20Songs%201">the Song of Songs</a> (sometimes called Song of Solomon), speaks positively of both female and male sexual yearning.</p>
<p>Serious Christians cannot ignore the Bible. They can, however, make sure that they interpret it with all the tools available to them, that they examine their own biases, and stop over-simplifying the issues.</p>
<p>The Bible offers a <a href="https://theconversation.com/note-to-margaret-court-the-bible-isnt-meant-to-be-read-that-literally-78665">wide variety of marriage arrangements</a>, many of which we no longer condone. It never condemns same-sex marriage, partly because it simply does not address the issue directly.</p>
<p>It does, however, give us an ethic to guide how we treat one another: an ethic based upon God’s generous love and a profound concern for justice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82498/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robyn J. Whitaker does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For Christian groups to claim the Bible speaks against same-sex marriage is simply a misreading of biblical values.Robyn J. Whitaker, Bromby Lecturer in Biblical Studies, Trinity College, University of DivinityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/824282017-08-21T19:24:31Z2017-08-21T19:24:31ZEvidence is clear on the benefits of legalising same-sex marriage<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182170/original/file-20170816-6110-1wu8srf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred upon those in the fortunate position of being able to legally marry.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Emotive arguments and questionable rhetoric <a href="https://theconversation.com/wong-bernardi-debate-puts-four-myths-about-marriage-on-show-44509">often characterise</a> debates over same-sex marriage. But few attempts have been made to dispassionately dissect the issue from an academic, science-based perspective.</p>
<p>Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the more robust, rigorous and reliable information that is publicly available, the better. </p>
<p>There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.</p>
<p>Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/conservatives-prevail-to-hold-back-the-tide-on-same-sex-marriage-82151">Conservatives prevail to hold back the tide on same-sex marriage</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>What does the research say?</h2>
<p>Widescale <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64795/">research</a> suggests that members of the LGBTQ community generally experience worse mental health outcomes than their heterosexual counterparts. This is possibly due to the stigmatisation they receive.</p>
<p>The mental health benefits of marriage generally are <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/353319?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">well-documented</a>. In 2009, the American Medical Association <a href="https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/policies-lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-queer-lgbtq-issues">officially recognised</a> that excluding sexual minorities from marriage was significantly contributing to the overall poor health among same-sex households compared to heterosexual households.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1446893/">Converging lines</a> <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2072932/">of evidence</a> also suggest that sexual orientation stigma and discrimination are at least associated with increased psychological distress and a generally decreased quality of life among lesbians and gay men.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23237155">A US study</a> that surveyed more than 36,000 people aged 18-70 found lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals were far less psychologically distressed if they were in a legally recognised same-sex marriage than if they were not. Married heterosexuals were less distressed than either of these groups. </p>
<p>So, it would seem that being in a legally recognised same-sex marriage can at least partly overcome the substantial health disparity between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. </p>
<p>The authors concluded by urging other researchers to consider same-sex marriage as a public health issue.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1525/srsp.2006.3.1.33">review of the research</a> examining the impact of marriage denial on the health and wellbeing of gay men and lesbians conceded that marriage equality is a profoundly complex and nuanced issue. But, it argued that depriving lesbians and gay men the tangible (and intangible) benefits of marriage is not only an act of discrimination – it also:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>disadvantages them by restricting their citizenship;</p></li>
<li><p>hinders their mental health, wellbeing, and social mobility; and</p></li>
<li><p>generally disenfranchises them from various cultural, legal, economic and political aspects of their lives. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>Of further concern is <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1400254#t=article">research</a> finding that in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents living in areas where gay marriage was allowed, living in areas where it was banned was associated with significantly higher rates of: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>mood disorders (36% higher);</p></li>
<li><p>psychiatric comorbidity – that is, multiple mental health conditions (36% higher); and </p></li>
<li><p>anxiety disorders (248% higher). </p></li>
</ul>
<h2>But what about the kids?</h2>
<p>Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that children raised in same-sex households perform worse on a variety of life outcome measures when compared to those raised in a heterosexual household. There is <em>some</em> merit to this argument.</p>
<p>In terms of education and general measures of success, the literature isn’t <em>entirely</em> unanimous. However, <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556565?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">most studies</a> have found that on these metrics there is <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S11150-013-9220-Y">no difference</a> between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents. </p>
<p>In 2005, the American Psychological Association <a href="https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf">released a brief</a> reviewing research on same-sex parenting. It unambiguously summed up its stance on the issue of whether or not same-sex parenting negatively impacts children:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/same-sex-couples-and-their-children-what-does-the-evidence-tell-us-55565">Same-sex couples and their children: what does the evidence tell us?</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Drawing conclusions</h2>
<p>Same-sex marriage has already been legalised in <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/06/01/factbox-same-sex-marriage-around-world">23 countries around the world</a>, inhabited by more than 760 million people.</p>
<p>Despite the above studies positively linking marriage with wellbeing, it may be premature to definitively assert <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com.elibrary.jcu.edu.au/doi/full/10.1177/1039856216663735">causality</a>. </p>
<p>But overall, the evidence is fairly clear. Same-sex marriage leads to a host of social and even public health benefits, including a range of advantages for mental health and wellbeing. The benefits accrue to society as a whole, whether you are in a same-sex relationship or not. </p>
<p>As the body of research in support of same-sex marriage continues to grow, the case in favour of it becomes stronger.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82428/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ryan Anderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The majority of academic research is either non-committal or in favour of the benefits afforded by legalising same-sex marriage.Ryan Anderson, PhD Candidate, School of Arts and Social Sciences, James Cook UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/824502017-08-18T09:06:49Z2017-08-18T09:06:49ZNational poll vs sample survey: how to know what we really think on marriage equality<p>The plan to use the Australian Bureau of Statistics <a href="http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media-release/2017/08/09/next-steps-national-plebiscite-same-sex-marriage">to conduct</a> the federal government’s postal plebiscite on <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-08/same-sex-marriage-pm-moves-to-hold-postal-plebiscite-vote/8784822">marriage reform</a> raises an interesting question: wouldn’t it be easier, and just as accurate, to ask the ABS to poll a representative sample of the Australian population rather than everyone? </p>
<p>Given that the vote is voluntary and non-binding, its sole purpose appears to be to find out what Australians actually think of the idea. On the face of it, conducting a sample survey sounds like an easy and cost-effective alternative to the A$122 million postal vote. Or is it? </p>
<h2>A margin of error</h2>
<p>Survey sampling experts use mathematical formulae to compute a margin of error for their polls. This reflects the variability due to the fact that we are dealing with a statistical sample, not the whole population.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-same-sex-marriage-not-all-views-deserve-respect-82433">When it comes to same-sex marriage, not all views deserve respect</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For example, suppose we find that 63 of a simple random sample of 100 people say they believe in marriage reform. Skipping over a few technical nuances for ease of discussion, your statistician friend might help you to compute an associated margin of error.</p>
<p>There is a simple way to approximate what that margin of error is, by using the following formula:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182505/original/file-20170818-28151-1qhejvh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182505/original/file-20170818-28151-1qhejvh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182505/original/file-20170818-28151-1qhejvh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182505/original/file-20170818-28151-1qhejvh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182505/original/file-20170818-28151-1qhejvh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182505/original/file-20170818-28151-1qhejvh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182505/original/file-20170818-28151-1qhejvh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182505/original/file-20170818-28151-1qhejvh.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Where p is the percentage who report the outcome of interest and n is the sample size.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So in our case <em>p</em> is 63% (or 0.63) and <em>n</em> is 100. Entering this into the formula gives us:</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182506/original/file-20170818-28123-wz0jfj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182506/original/file-20170818-28123-wz0jfj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182506/original/file-20170818-28123-wz0jfj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182506/original/file-20170818-28123-wz0jfj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182506/original/file-20170818-28123-wz0jfj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=139&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182506/original/file-20170818-28123-wz0jfj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182506/original/file-20170818-28123-wz0jfj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182506/original/file-20170818-28123-wz0jfj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=175&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Entering the numbers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Crunching the numbers and rounding up gives us a margin of error in this case of about +/-10%.</p>
<p>So you could then say something like “we are 95% confident that between 53% and 73% of the Australian population believes in marriage reform”. Clearly that’s a large margin of error and a larger sample would allow us to report a tighter range.</p>
<p>If our survey were based on 1,000 people then the margin of error would reduce to +/-3%, which is what you get in many political opinion polls reported in the media.</p>
<p>Such a margin of error would be ok if your sample survey result shows something like a 63%/37% split on the issue, because in this case the 3% margin of error would not alter the result. But what if the result was 52% to 48%?</p>
<p>So conducting a reliable survey is simply a matter of ensuring a large enough sample size to guarantee a suitably small margin of error. Easy, right? Unfortunately, there is much more to the story. </p>
<h2>Selecting a sample</h2>
<p>Another fundamental thing to consider is how you actually go about recruiting the people in your survey. </p>
<p>You could just post your survey on the internet and then sit back and wait for people to respond. The problem is that you don’t know who is going to respond.</p>
<p>You could get a listing of telephone numbers, randomly select people from that, then call them and ask the question. But most people I know don’t even have a landline, and I know how most of us respond when we get one of those annoying computerised calls on the mobile asking us to “please participate in a short survey”.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-history/article/president-landon-and-the-1936-literary-digest-poll/E360C38884D77AA8D71555E7AB6B822C">spectacular failure of the Literary Digest</a> weekly journal to predict the outcome of the 1936 US presidential election illustrates the danger of relying on telephone listings to identify potential survey participants. </p>
<p>Even though it used a <a href="https://www.math.upenn.edu/%7Edeturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.html">sample size of about 2.4 million people</a>, a fundamental problem was that back in 1936, telephones were still new and very much a luxury item, particularly in the wake of the Great Depression. </p>
<p>So a sample drawn from telephone listings was biased towards wealthier members of the population, who had different voting habits to the poor and disenfranchised, who were underrepresented in the phone poll.</p>
<p>Drawing their sample from a listing of people who owned a telephone thus broke the cardinal law of sampling, which is to ensure that the sample is representative of the population of interest. </p>
<h2>Getting the right sample</h2>
<p>A much better strategy is to draw your survey from a listing that is guaranteed to include pretty much everybody, such as the electoral roll. A survey-sampling expert would advise you not to do a simple random sample from the listing, but rather to use some clever strategies to improve your chances of getting a representative sample.</p>
<p>So-called stratified sampling targets survey participants according to characteristics such as age and gender. Multistage sampling strategies might first select from a listing of possible geographical areas, and then sample individuals who live in those selected areas. </p>
<p>While it is a bit more complicated to compute the associated margin of error with such strategies, you can be more confident that your final sample is truly representative of the population. </p>
<h2>The problem of no-shows</h2>
<p>Once you are confident of your survey design, your next challenge is to take account of the fact that some people will inevitably fail to respond. Unlike a compulsory census or election where people are required to respond by law, sample surveys are notorious for the <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/">problem of non-response</a>. </p>
<p>Some people may be on holiday and never even see your survey request. Others might see your request, but are uninterested. Others may be interested but too busy or distracted to take part. </p>
<p>Some may be well-intentioned and even fill out the survey you sent them, but lose the envelope before managing to get it to a mailbox. Depending on how diligent you are in chasing up people who don’t respond to your survey, you could easily end up with a scenario in which only 10% of those you were targeting actually respond to your survey. </p>
<p>As long as the chances of non-response are the same for everyone, this is not necessarily a disaster. You can, for example, reflect the reduced sample size in your margin of error calculation. </p>
<p>If you took your statistician friend’s advice, you would probably have even boosted your initial survey target number in anticipation of non-response. In practice, however, non-response rates tend to vary a lot from person to person. </p>
<p>If the same factors also influence how people vote, then you are in a situation where the results of your survey can be seriously biased. </p>
<p>For example, suppose that older Australians are more likely to respond to the survey than younger Australians. Older Australians might also be more likely to vote against marriage reform than younger Australians. This means that the overall survey results will be biased towards the opinions of the older Australians and consequently underestimate the overall proportion of Australians who are in favour of marriage reform. </p>
<h2>Weighting your result</h2>
<p>There are some clever <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/samesex-marriage-there-is-one-good-thing-about-the-postal-plebiscite-20170816-gxxcdj.html">sample reweighting strategies</a> that can be used to account for non-response rates that vary according to age, sex and other measurable characteristics. </p>
<p>A more insidious problem occurs when a person’s opinion on the question of interest influences their decision on whether or not to respond to the survey. This so called “informative non-response” tends to be a high risk in settings where emotionally charged questions are being asked.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/using-the-abs-to-conduct-a-same-sex-marriage-poll-is-legally-shaky-and-lacks-legitimacy-82245">Using the ABS to conduct a same-sex marriage poll is legally shaky and lacks legitimacy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>So using sampling survey methodology to determine the proportion of Australians who believe in same-sex marriage would be a challenge fraught with many of these issues.</p>
<p>That leaves us back with the ABS and the voluntary, non-binding postal survey of everyone on the electoral roll.</p>
<p>The ABS will be able to adjust for some of the inevitable challenges associated with non-response, as long as it also collects relevant demographics such as age, gender, area of residence and so on.</p>
<p>But in a scenario where the results are close to the 50/50 line, I feel it will be a daunting task to deduce how the country really feels about this important question.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82450/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Until earlier this year, Professor Ryan was a member of the Methodology Advisory Committee for the Australian Bureau of Statistics. She receives funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Australian Research Council, the Australian Red Cross and the Sax Institute. She is also an Adjunct Professor of Biostatistics at Harvard University in the USA. </span></em></p>Australians will be asked to complete a voluntary, non-binding postal vote on marriage reform. Wouldn’t it be easier - and cheaper - to do a sample survey instead?Louise Ryan, Distinguished Professor of Statistics, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/825062017-08-17T20:20:54Z2017-08-17T20:20:54ZFinding balance on marriage equality debate a particular challenge for the media<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182363/original/file-20170817-16211-tq67ce.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cory Bernardi's views on same-sex marriage may be crude and ignorant, but the media are nonetheless obligated to report how he uses his power.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Covering the same-sex marriage debate presents the media with an acute ethical dilemma: how to give effect to people’s right of free speech while taking into account truth-telling, offensiveness, and the risk of doing harm.</p>
<p>While this is a balance that conscientious journalists always have to strike, it is obvious from the nature of the debate so far that the same-sex marriage issue is capable of generating unusually pernicious and potentially harmful material. This marks it out as a case requiring especial vigilance.</p>
<p>The starting point is to separate the two basic questions that arise from the government’s decision to hold a <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-with-no-free-vote-for-now-where-next-for-marriage-equality-82156">voluntary postal plebiscite</a>.</p>
<p>One of these is a question of opinion: should same-sex marriage be supported or opposed? It is in relation to this that the ethical dilemmas arise.</p>
<p>The other is a question of fact: is the voluntary postal plebiscite methodologically defensible as a way to <a href="https://theconversation.com/using-the-abs-to-conduct-a-same-sex-marriage-poll-is-legally-shaky-and-lacks-legitimacy-82245">obtain the opinion</a> of the voting public?</p>
<p>This can be disposed of swiftly. The fact is that while the plebiscite might be politically useful, it is scientifically worthless. It is what researchers call a SLOP – a <a href="http://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n524.xml">self-selecting opinion poll</a>.</p>
<p>It is no better than a dial-in survey about some piece of football trivia – should Toby Greene be suspended for kicking an opponent’s face – dial X for yes and Y for no.</p>
<p>There’s only one kind of poll that’s worse – <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/upshot/push-polls-defined.html?mcubz=3">push polling</a>. This happens where the question is asked in such a way as to push the respondent toward a particular answer.</p>
<p>The one thing we will be able to say at the end of the plebiscite is that it shows the opinions of those who chose to take part. It will tell us nothing statistically valid about the opinions of the voting population as a whole.</p>
<p>Scientifically speaking, the government would be better off asking a reputable polling outfit such as Newspoll to do a stratified random survey of 2,000 voters for about A$122,000, rather than the $122 million the postal vote is going to cost.</p>
<p>However, the ethical issues are complex and not so easily disposed of.</p>
<p>First, the issue of harm minimisation. We know from people like former High Court justice Michael Kirby, who is homosexual, and from <a href="https://www.beyondblue.org.au/docs/default-source/default-document-library/bw0258-lgbti-mental-health-and-suicide-2013-2nd-edition.pdf?sfvrsn=2">a lot of research</a>, just how vulnerable adolescent boys and girls are when they discover they are attracted to people of the same sex.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1007/BF00942151/full">research article</a> published in the American Journal of Community Psychology as far back as 1993 found that first awareness of sexual orientation typically occurred at the age of ten. Yet typically, the young person didn’t tell anyone until they were about 16. That’s six years of private struggle. Suicide attempts were acknowledged by 42% of the sample.</p>
<p>Broadly speaking, these vulnerabilities are a matter of common knowledge. It follows that there is a risk of foreseeable and avoidable harm associated with public debate on this topic.</p>
<p>This imposes on journalists an ethical obligation to identify foreseeable risks of harm arising from this debate and, where possible, avoid them.</p>
<p>Avoidance is not always possible. If someone like senator Cory Bernardi <a href="https://theconversation.com/bernardi-slips-down-the-political-slope-with-bestial-comments-on-marriage-9685">likens homosexuality to bestiality</a>, journalists have no choice but to publish it, because although what he says is crude and ignorant, he is a public figure and needs to be held to account for how he uses his power.</p>
<p>Minimising harm dictates that harmful statements like this be repudiated by a voice of at least equal authority.</p>
<p>But if something similar just goes viral on social media and comes from no public or authoritative source, are journalists justified in ventilating it further?</p>
<p>Often it will come down to a choice between exploiting some sensationalist remark or exercising responsible restraint.</p>
<p>Similarly, statements such as that by the Australian Christian Lobby saying children of gay couples <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/senator-wong-condemns-christian-lobbys-stolen-generations-comment-20130521-2jyn3.html">were a stolen generation</a> need to be published because they come from a major participant in the debate.</p>
<p>But when people base their arguments on false facts, journalists have a duty to put the true facts into the story. For example, some people say that the children of homosexual couples have poorer life outcomes than children of heterosexual couples. That simply isn’t true.</p>
<p>A <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract">meta-analysis</a> of 33 studies worldwide, including a study by Jennifer Power of La Trobe University, found that while there are methodological limitations to all studies in this area, it seems clear that children raised by homosexual couples do <a href="https://theconversation.com/same-sex-couples-and-their-children-what-does-the-evidence-tell-us-55565">at least as well</a> as children raised by heterosexual couples.</p>
<p>How journalists report and comment on the debate will affect its quality. That applies whether they work in commercial media or public-sector broadcasting.</p>
<p>The Guardian Australia <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/12/we-wont-be-giving-equal-time-to-spurious-arguments-against-marriage-equality">has already declared</a> that it will simply not publish what it regards as spurious arguments against same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>The ABC does not have this luxury. It is obliged to give both sides a fair go, but that doesn’t mean the ABC is obliged to republish known untruths or offensive or harmful material.</p>
<p>Its editorial policies require its journalists to be impartial. The elements of impartiality include factual accuracy, fairness and balance. Balance requires that the main voices in a debate be heard, but it also requires that journalists follow the weight of evidence.</p>
<p>For instance, in the vaccination debate, the weight of evidence is clearly on the side of the science that says vaccination is safe. To <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2017/08/16/one-nation-says-abc-should-air-anti-vaxxers.html">give equal weight</a> to the anti-vax movement is false balance.</p>
<p>It follows that ABC journalists and ethical journalists everywhere have plenty of scope to decide whether and how to publish material that carries a risk of doing harm, or that is offensive or misleading, while at the same time giving effect to people’s right to free speech.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82506/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Denis Muller does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In the marriage equality debate as in any other, media outlets must balance the right to freedom of speech with the balance of evidence.Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow in the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/826612017-08-17T13:42:18Z2017-08-17T13:42:18ZGrattan on Friday: Malcolm Turnbull’s government has finally defied fiction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182433/original/file-20170817-28151-1bx73jn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With the eligibility of the Nationals' leadership under question, Malcolm Turnbull has had a nightmarish week.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mick Tsikas/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a week belonging more appropriately to Shaun Micallef comedy than parliamentary reality, it’s arguable Pauline Hanson’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/unrepentant-hanson-hopes-burqa-stunt-will-create-debate-82652?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton">burqa stunt</a> wasn’t the most extraordinary thing that happened in Canberra.</p>
<p>Hanson has extreme beliefs and therefore it mightn’t be so surprising – though it is appalling – that she’s willing to use the parliament as a stage for extremely bad behaviour.</p>
<p>In donning the burqa purchased on eBay and entering the Senate chamber, she was as attention-seeking as the streaker who races naked across the football ground, though her motive was darker. Let’s call out her action, but not play into her cynical pursuit of mega publicity.</p>
<p>Entirely beyond imagination was the week being bookended by the Nationals leader, <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-claims-barnaby-joyce-as-one-of-its-own-in-new-dramatic-citizenship-turmoil-82463">Barnaby Joyce</a>, and his deputy, senator <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-shock-rocks-government-nationals-deputy-fiona-nash-a-dual-british-citizen-82656">Fiona Nash</a>, standing up in their respective houses to announce they were dual citizens (he a Kiwi, she a Brit).</p>
<p>Joyce and Nash are remaining in cabinet – unlike their Nationals colleague <a href="https://theconversation.com/nationals-matt-canavan-quits-as-resources-minister-in-latest-citizenship-blow-81570">Matt Canavan</a> – and in their leadership roles while the High Court determines the fate of all three, among the batch of cases involving dual citizenship. At issue is their eligibility under the Constitution’s Section 44, which bans dual nationals standing for parliament.</p>
<p>Australian Conservatives’ senator Cory Bernardi, formerly a Liberal, <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bernardi-calls-for-parliament-to-be-suspended-as-citizenship-scandal-deepens-20170816-gxy0ae.html">suggested on Thursday</a> that parliament should be <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2016/March/Proroguing_Parliament">prorogued</a> – that is, suspended – until citizenship questions and any subsequent byelections are sorted.</p>
<p>But suspending parliament would disrupt the normal course of government business, delaying legislation and, crucially in political terms, signalling panic.</p>
<p>Joyce continues to participate in parliamentary votes, so the government retains its one-seat majority in the House of Representatives. By its own lights, what credible story could it advance to put parliament on hold? It would look the ultimate in desperation.</p>
<p>There is no doubt the Joyce affair presented the government with a crisis. It then became a matter of management and this was seriously bungled.</p>
<p>Once it took the decision to keep Joyce in cabinet and in the deputy prime ministership, the government was always destined to be vulnerable to a ferocious Labor attack.</p>
<p>But its shock and awe response, with the absurd notion of a “treacherous” Bill Shorten and a Labor <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-it-wasnt-a-conspiracy-that-caused-barnabys-problem-it-was-himself-82525">conspiracy across the Tasman</a> with New Zealand Labour, was deluded from the start.</p>
<p>First, it was a try-on. Both Labor here and Labour in NZ were somewhat apologetic for their roles in the affair, understandable at least for NZ Labour which is facing an election. But what exactly was the wrongdoing by Labor here? Is there anything inherently “treacherous” about a Labor staffer using contacts to check in NZ who is eligible to be a citizen of that country?</p>
<p>Second the tactic, played in stereo, opened the government to ridicule. In particular, her exaggerated performance raised questions about the judgement of the usually astute Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, just days after a <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/capable-and-hardworking-dont-discount-julie-bishops-leadership-potential-20170811-gxugzp.html">laudatory article</a> had asked why she wasn’t mentioned more often as a possible future leader.</p>
<p>Although the circumstances are different, the hyperbolic accusation of “treachery” carries a remote echo from Turnbull’s book The Spy Catcher Trial, about the British government’s attempt to stop the Australian publication of a book by a former UK intelligence officer.</p>
<p>Turnbull, whose successful appearance in the high profile case gave an early boost to his reputation, wrote that then UK opposition leader Neil Kinnock – whom he pressed to “humiliate” the UK attorney-general in the British parliament – “was vigorously attacked in the House of Commons for ‘treacherous’ conduct”, in discussing the case with him.</p>
<p>If Turnbull were prone to bad dreams, his nightmares for the next few months would go something like this.</p>
<p>The government would lose the High Court case challenging the postal ballot on same-sex marriage, or win it and the ballot would return a “no” result.</p>
<p>It would lose Joyce’s citizenship case – and Nash and Canavan would be knocked out as well.</p>
<p>It would then lose the byelection in Joyce’s New England seat, with goodness knows what consequences in the resulting hung parliament.</p>
<p>Oh, and there would be a bruising battle within the government over energy policy, resulting in a much-criticised, wishy-washy outcome that gave no certainty for future investment.</p>
<p>But Turnbull is an optimist, or so he always tells us, and he’ll be looking at how things could all work out for the best in the best of worlds.</p>
<p>He’s predicted in the most unequivocal terms that Joyce will be vindicated in the High Court.</p>
<p>If things went well, the postal vote would sail through the legal challenge, and return a yes vote by a convincing margin with a substantial turnout, making the ballot beyond reasonable reproach, whatever the gripes of the losers. That would lead to parliament changing the law to deliver same-sex marriage by Christmas.</p>
<p>Energy policy would be hard fought within the government’s ranks, but the resulting compromise would be one that was seen as credible and welcomed by business.</p>
<p>The optimistic scenario – we might as well include in it at least one 50-50 Newspoll – would leave the government with a hope of regrouping, after an end-of-year ministerial reshuffle.</p>
<p>Which scenario, or what mixture of them, will come to pass is unforeseeable. But given how life goes for this government, some might regard the prospects for anything like the optimistic one as being in near-miracle territory. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, things are presently so grim they recall vividly some of the blackest times of the Gillard government.</p>
<p>Monday’s Joyce bombshell drove the same-sex marriage battle somewhat into the background, while both sides gear up for intense campaigns and questions remain about the postal ballot.</p>
<p>One of these is, I think, particularly interesting – that is, the argument that the result won’t be a true one because young people especially will be under-represented. The young are, collectively, more in favour of same-sex marriage than older people but less likely to be on the roll, to have a fixed address, or to be familiar with the post.</p>
<p>While this is a problem, I will be a bit contrarian. I think this both demeans the young and lets them off too lightly. They are supposed to enrol for elections anyway; if they have a view on the marriage issue there is both the incentive and opportunity to do so for this ballot. </p>
<p>A week is left – the rolls close August 24. The mobility challenge applies for general elections – it’s a hassle, but not insurmountable.</p>
<p>As for not using the post – well, that is like saying older people weren’t brought up with computers. Sorry, but one has to move with the times – even if, in this case, it’s moving backwards. </p>
<p>Young people are highly savvy with technology – I just don’t accept they can’t come to grips with posting a letter. If in doubt, they can always ask their grandmothers.</p>
<p>The nation is considering an important social issue – young Australians should <a href="https://check.aec.gov.au/">get on the roll</a> and vote.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/8ppnw-6fcd65?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82661/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Malcolm Turnbull is an optimist, or so he always tells us, and he’ll be looking at how things could all work out for the best in the best of worlds.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823692017-08-13T21:13:47Z2017-08-13T21:13:47ZHow to engineer a plebiscite disaster: lessons from the Tasmanian dams vote<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181757/original/file-20170811-1170-1p7tg3d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Like its Tasmanian predecessor, the marriage plebiscite has been engineered by the leader’s intransigent opponents.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Lukas Coch</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is an <a href="http://bigthink.com/the-proverbial-skeptic/those-who-do-not-learn-history-doomed-to-repeat-it-really">old saying</a> that those who don’t learn from history’s mistakes are bound to repeat them. One wonders if Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull recalls the name of <a href="http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/history/tasparl/lowed583.htm">Doug Lowe</a>, for Turnbull’s marriage equality postal plebiscite is on the cusp of recreating the mistakes of Lowe’s Tasmanian dams plebiscite.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/using-the-abs-to-conduct-a-same-sex-marriage-poll-is-legally-shaky-and-lacks-legitimacy-82245">Using the ABS to conduct a same-sex marriage poll is legally shaky and lacks legitimacy</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>What happened in Tasmania?</h2>
<p>Lowe was the Labor premier of Tasmania between 1979 and 1981. These were the years when Tasmanians were split over the issue of hydroelectricity schemes – a split that was replicated at every level of Lowe’s political party.</p>
<p>At stake was the future of the Franklin and Gordon rivers located in the state’s southwest. About half of the community wanted the rivers dammed as part of a hydroelectricity scheme; about 10% wanted some other rivers impounded and the Franklin saved; and about 35% expressed no official position.</p>
<p>We know these figures because, in a bid to circumvent a decision-making paralysis in his government and his party, Lowe opted in 1981 to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_power_referendum,_1981">hold a statewide plebiscite</a>. He was hoping to use public opinion to force his party colleagues to make a decision.</p>
<p>The figures just cited are based on the result, although the plebiscite and its outcome was – for a time – almost as contentious as the land-use dispute itself.</p>
<p>The plebiscite offered only two options: the Franklin Dam, or an alternative dam on another nearby river. The alternative scheme received a vote of 7.94%, and the Franklin 47.17%. But a large number of ballots – 44.89% – were initially rendered informal.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Graeme_Orr/publication/29454591_The_Conduct_of_Referenda_and_plebiscites_in_Australia_A_legal_perspective/links/53db0c2c0cf2a19eee8b43ff/The-Conduct-of-Referenda-and-plebiscites-in-Australia-A-legal-perspective.pdf">major controversy</a> arose when it was revealed that a number of voters had used ticks or crosses to indicate their choice. Others wrote in “No Dams”. Under Tasmanian electoral law, the ballots with ticks and crosses were initially counted as “informal”. On legal advice, these were later included.</p>
<p>So, with 23,839 ballots now included in the count, the official result was a 9.78% vote for the alternative scheme, 54.72% for the Franklin dam, and 35.5% informal.</p>
<p>Clearly, this technical failure deprived the plebiscite of any legitimacy it might otherwise have had. </p>
<p>But a case could be made that the exercise was doomed from the start. The alternative hydro scheme had been Lowe’s idea as a way of brokering a compromise between a handful of Labor MPs who would support nothing but the Franklin scheme, another small group who wanted to save the Franklin, and a third group who just wanted some sort of decision so the government could get back to work on something else.</p>
<h2>Lessons for Turnbull</h2>
<p>The dynamics behind Tasmania’s dam plebiscite and Turnbull’s management of the marriage equality debate are eerily similar. This is even more the case when it is remembered that Lowe actually wanted to save the Franklin, just as everyone knows that Turnbull <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-25/turnbull-says-australia-odd-one-out-on-same-sex-marriage/6495432">supports the idea of marriage equality</a>.</p>
<p>As part of his strategy to use community opinion to help him get his government out of a mess of its own making, Lowe had wanted a “No Dams” option included in the plebiscite. But every level of the Labor Party organisation rebuffed him, so the option was not included.</p>
<p>This defeat led to Lowe’s resignation as premier, before the vote was even held. But his opponents’ tactic led to a much more surprising and enduring legacy. </p>
<p>Faced with a plebiscite that excluded their core demand, Tasmanian conservationists urged supporters and sympathisers not to vote for either scheme, but instead to write “No Dams” on their ballot. Scrutineers reported that 33.4% of ballots cast in the plebiscite had been adorned with the slogan. </p>
<p>For Lowe, Labor (which was to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_state_election,_1982">lose the state election</a> months later) and the proponents of the Franklin dam, the plebiscite was an unmitigated disaster.</p>
<p>Like its Tasmanian predecessor, the marriage plebiscite has been engineered by the leader’s intransigent opponents. The risk of the ballot being marred by technical flaws is enormous given the <a href="https://theconversation.com/using-the-abs-to-conduct-a-same-sex-marriage-poll-is-legally-shaky-and-lacks-legitimacy-82245">bypassing of the Australian Electoral Commission</a> as the authority to manage the vote. </p>
<p>The replication of history will be complete if, at the end of the count, a huge number of blank ballots are lodged – many adorned instead with a slogan. “Free Vote” is one such slogan that comes to mind.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82369/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Economou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Malcolm Turnbull’s postal plebiscite on marriage equality is on the cusp of recreating the mistakes of Doug Lowe’s Tasmanian dams plebiscite.Nick Economou, Senior Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry, Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823792017-08-11T04:31:06Z2017-08-11T04:31:06ZVIDEO: Michelle Grattan on same-sex marriage going postal<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181750/original/file-20170811-1165-k6w7zg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e5WUl8M2C14?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Michelle Grattan discusses the week in politics with the University of Canberra’s deputy vice-chancellor, Nicholas Klomp.</p>
<p>Topics of discussion include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>the postal ballot to change the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriages;</p></li>
<li><p>the differences in Malcolm Turnbull’s and Bill Shorten’s “yes” campaigns;</p></li>
<li><p>the implications for Turnbull if the vote is “no”;</p></li>
<li><p>Tony Abbott’s “no” campaign;</p></li>
<li><p>the High Court challenge against the postal vote; and</p></li>
<li><p>the impact on the Senate of senators’ eligibility issues.</p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82379/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Michelle Grattan and Nicholas Klomp discuss the week in politics.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraNicholas Klomp, Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Education, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/823412017-08-10T13:14:19Z2017-08-10T13:14:19ZGrattan on Friday: Shorten’s campaigning in postal ballot might help protect a vulnerable Turnbull<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181666/original/file-20170810-27691-3rhgh7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bill Shorten has promised an all-out effort to promote a yes vote, while continuing to attack the ballot.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The risk of armed conflict between North Korea and the US has moved a scary step closer in the last few days, with Donald Trump’s belligerent threat of “fire and fury” against Pyongyang and its counter-threat of a missile strike near Guam.</p>
<p>The world – and our region in particular – is at a new and very high level of anxiety.</p>
<p>But despite the escalating seriousness of the situation, which if worse comes to worst could see Australia embroiled, it didn’t rate nearly as much attention in federal politics this week as the battle over same-sex marriage. Such is the often surreal character of Canberra these days.</p>
<p>On the trivial front, that atmosphere of unreality saw Acting Special Minister of State Mathias Cormann on Twitter very late Wednesday night dealing with queries – and personal abuse – about the postal ballot to be held on whether to change the marriage law.</p>
<p>London-based journalist Latika Bourke, thanking Cormann for clarifying a point about expats voting, tweeted an obvious question: “But shouldn’t you be asleep right now?”</p>
<p>“We never stop”, replied the tireless Cormann, who’ll be flat out for weeks overseeing the organisation of a controversial and difficult operation that is the offspring of political exigencies and flies in the face of sound process.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"895273468224299008"}"></div></p>
<p>Cormann and Immigration Minister Peter Dutton, two Liberal conservatives whose support is essential to the embattled Malcolm Turnbull’s survival, are both known to want the marriage issue cleared away.</p>
<p>Dutton was an early advocate of a postal vote, when the Senate wouldn’t pass legislation for a plebiscite. Cormann, who brought the submission to cabinet, crafted the postal scheme, which will be under the auspices of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and is <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/ABS+Media+Statements+-+Australian+Marriage+Law+Postal+Survey">officially called</a> a “voluntary survey”, to the delight of sarcastic Labor critics.</p>
<p>Incidentally, both these cabinet ministers will be voting no, as will Treasurer Scott Morrison, notably at odds with their leader.</p>
<p>It’s long been clear that, in the coming months, Turnbull will be struggling to land a credible energy policy, with the Finkel recommendation for a clean energy target producing some sharp fractures in the ranks. </p>
<p>But then he was blindsided by a backbench revolt calling for a quick parliamentary vote on same-sex marriage, that’s perversely led to this course involving – if the ballot <a href="https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2017/8/10/marriage-equality-campaign-launches-high-court-challenge">survives the High Court</a> – a long, acrimonious campaign.</p>
<p>So Turnbull, who this week saw his government behind in the 17th consecutive Newspoll, has two deeply divisive issues to manage simultaneously and no political capital to draw on.</p>
<p>Regardless of many polls showing high public support for marriage reform, the campaign starts with its outcome unpredictable.</p>
<p>The “no” side, with Tony Abbott striding out waving its flag on Wednesday, will be highly motivated and organised. In contrast, many “yes” supporters are conflicted, because of widespread scepticism about the ballot, and anger in sections of the gay community.</p>
<p>The government is handing one advantage to the “no” campaigners by proposing not to release a draft bill that would be introduced if the vote is carried.</p>
<p>It says it would facilitate a private member’s bill; as a starter, some in the government point to the bill Dean Smith, one of the rebels, has produced. The Smith bill has good protections for those with religious objections, though they don’t satisfy the hardliners.</p>
<p>But the absence of detail on the extent of protections that would be legislated under the government’s auspices makes it easy for the “no” side to scaremonger.</p>
<p>The ballot has injected a further element of danger for Turnbull as he moves towards the year’s end, which is a potential killing season for a struggling leader.</p>
<p>If a “no” win were announced on November 15, meaning the issue was officially dead as far as the government was concerned, what would then happen? Would the pro-reform Liberal rebels fire up again and actually cross the floor, rather than retreating under party pressure, as they did early this week? How would the right-wing Liberals then react?</p>
<p>Late on Thursday Bill Shorten promised an all-out effort to promote a yes vote, while continuing to attack the ballot.</p>
<p>In a fired-up <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/a6c65346-da53-4608-aff3-32246f6cdf73/&sid=0000">parliamentary performance</a>, Shorten said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The strongest supporters of this survey have always been the most vocal opponents of marriage equality …The opponents of marriage equality have set this process up to fail.</p>
<p>But we cannot let illegitimate tactics deter us, we cannot sit on the sidelines.</p>
<p>I understand the sense of frustration and betrayal by the parliament for LGBTI Australians. But the most powerful act of resistance and defiance is to vote yes to equality.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He told business leaders, sporting clubs, unions and community groups that “it is time now to get involved”, and declared: “I will be campaigning for a yes vote”.</p>
<p>Despite the rather messy mixed message that the process is bad but people should still vote yes and campaign, Labor reckons it is in a no-lose situation politically.</p>
<p>Shorten, it seems, will be putting a lot more effort into the campaign than Turnbull, who has already signalled it won’t be a major priority for him. Turnbull wants to limit his investment in case the result comes out negative.</p>
<p>If the ballot backs reform, Labor will claim the credit. And it will be able to do this, because Shorten will have been very visible.</p>
<p>Labor could walk away from a negative outcome relatively easily, blaming process and a divided government, and saying the result was out of kilter with widely measured community views. Shorten is sticking by his pledge that if the reform isn’t made this term, a Labor government would legislate same-sex marriage in its first 100 days.</p>
<p>And if the vote went down, Shorten would stand to benefit from what would be serious fallout for Turnbull.</p>
<p>But while Shorten has little at risk, his campaigning could come to Turnbull’s aid. Shorten is good on the stump, and if he puts his back into the task, he could potentially mobilise a lot of yes votes.</p>
<p>If Shorten helps get a positive vote over the line, that would bring some protection for Turnbull. </p>
<p>Just another touch of the surreal.</p>
<iframe src="https://www.podbean.com/media/player/hu9ay-6f0803?from=site&skin=1&share=1&fonts=Helvetica&auto=0&download=0" height="100" width="100%" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" data-name="pb-iframe-player"></iframe><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82341/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>While Bill Shorten has little at risk, his campaigning on same-sex marriage could come to Malcolm Turnbull’s aid.Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/822452017-08-10T04:42:22Z2017-08-10T04:42:22ZUsing the ABS to conduct a same-sex marriage poll is legally shaky and lacks legitimacy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181617/original/file-20170810-32211-1jglvcd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For the ABS, even the basic task of sending out ballot papers will not be straightforward.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Alan Porritt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media-release/2017/08/08/commitment-national-plebiscite-same-sex-marriage">Turnbull government’s decision</a> to put the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) in charge of a voluntary postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage has left many scratching their heads. It was expected the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) would run the vote, not the body responsible for the five-yearly census.</p>
<p>By giving the job to the ABS, the government has <a href="http://theconversation.com/explainer-with-no-free-vote-for-now-where-next-for-marriage-equality-82156">sidestepped questions</a> about its constitutional authority to pay for an AEC-run plebiscite. But it has opened up new avenues of legal challenge and established a process that lacks legitimacy.</p>
<hr>
<p><em><strong>Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-with-no-free-vote-for-now-where-next-for-marriage-equality-82156">Explainer: with no free vote for now, where next for marriage equality?</a></strong></em></p>
<hr>
<h2>Legal questions</h2>
<p>On Wednesday, Treasurer Scott Morrison <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L01006">directed</a> the Australian Statistician to ask the ABS to collect statistical information about the proportion of electors who are for or against the law being changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. This information is to be requested on a voluntary basis.</p>
<p>The same day, independent MP Andrew Wilkie and two others <a href="http://andrewwilkie.org/high-court-challenge-marriage-equality-postal-vote/">announced</a> they would launch a High Court challenge against the ABS poll. It <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/09/marriage-equality-postal-vote-to-be-challenged-in-high-court-by-andrew-wilkie-and-advocates">is likely</a> that at least two grounds of challenge will be put.</p>
<p>The first concerns the power of the ABS to run the plebiscite. Under the Census and Statistics Act, the Australian Statistician <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/casa1905241/s9.html">can</a>, if directed by the minister, collect “statistical information” on a range of <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_reg/casr2016201600706348/s13.html">prescribed matters</a>, including “births, deaths, marriages and divorces”, “law”, and “population and the social, economic and demographic characteristics of the population”. </p>
<p>Separately, the Australian Bureau of Statistics Act provides that <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/abosa1975337/s6.html">one of the functions</a> of the ABS is “to collect, compile, analyse and disseminate statistics and related information”.</p>
<p>The key question is whether information about Australians’ opinions on same-sex marriage is “statistical information”.</p>
<p>Surveying people on their views about marriage is very different from collecting factual data about, say, the numbers of marriages taking place in Australia.</p>
<p>And given the postal ballot will be voluntary, the views of some social groups (like those more likely to use postal services) will feature <a href="http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/postal-plebiscite-australias-biggest.html">more heavily</a> than others. Arguably, such an “unweighted” data set falls short of the rigorous standards of “statistical information”.</p>
<p>More broadly, if opinions about marriage law are considered “statistical information”, it is hard to think of what sorts of information do not fall into that category. Is it the case that any collection of data is a statistical exercise? If so, the ABS’s powers are very broad.</p>
<p>The second legal question concerns the government’s authority to spend money on an ABS-run postal vote. Finance Minister Mathias Cormann acted quickly <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L01005">to source</a> the A$122 million required from a little-used “advance” <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2017A00060">appropriated</a> by parliament in this year’s budget.</p>
<p>However, the minister’s advance fund is reserved for “urgent” and “unforeseen” expenditure. It is doubtful that spending on a postal plebiscite falls into either of these categories. </p>
<p>By way of comparison, in 2016 the government gave the AEC $101 million in “advance” funds to help it implement major changes to Senate voting in time for the July federal election.</p>
<p>There is no similar urgency in a vote on same-sex marriage. And, if anything, the need to spend money on same-sex marriage poll was entirely predictable. The government’s <a href="http://www.budget.gov.au/2017-18/content/bp1/html/">budget papers</a> anticipated spending $170 million for this purpose.</p>
<h2>The ABS is poorly equipped</h2>
<p>Legal questions aside, the ABS is poorly equipped to run a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. </p>
<p>It has significant expertise in collecting factual information on the economy, housing, crime and many other matters that is of immense value to governments and researchers. But it has never run a poll of this kind.</p>
<p>The closest precedent occurred more than 40 years ago. In 1974, the ABS conducted a telephone survey of 60,000 Australians, asking for their preferences on the national anthem. But that is altogether different from the massive logistical exercise of administering a postal ballot for 15 million voters on a contentious social issue. </p>
<p>The stakes are higher and the risk of mistakes is greater. And there will be little tolerance for error.</p>
<p>For the ABS, even the basic task of sending out ballot papers will not be straightforward. Unlike the AEC, it does not have direct access to the electoral roll. </p>
<p>The Commonwealth Electoral Act <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s90b.html">sets down rules</a> about who can access the electoral roll and for what purpose. Under <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/earr2016309/sch1.html">regulations</a>, the AEC “may” provide the ABS with information on the roll for the purpose of “collecting, compiling, analysing and disseminating statistics and related information”. It would therefore be open to the AEC to refuse the ABS access to the roll, including on the basis that a poll on marriage is not about “collecting statistics”.</p>
<p>Assuming that the ABS gains access to the roll, it is unclear whether it will be able to send ballot papers to all registered voters. The position of silent electors is particularly uncertain. </p>
<p>The addresses of <a href="http://www.aec.gov.au/Enrolling_to_vote/Special_Category/Silent_Electors.htm">silent electors</a> are not displayed on the roll: to do so would put their safety, or the safety of their family, at risk. Also, the AEC is <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cea1918233/s90b.html">not permitted</a> to provide information about silent electors to agencies such as the ABS. As a result, silent electors may wonder if they will be able to participate in the poll.</p>
<p>The addresses of eligible overseas voters also do not appear on the roll. However, Cormann has said they will receive ballot papers provided they have “registered as an overseas voter and provided their overseas address”.</p>
<p>More generally, the ABS lacks the AEC’s institutional capacity when it comes to conducting nationwide votes. These are highly complex exercises, which involve distributing, collecting and transporting ballot papers, and then counting them quickly and securely. </p>
<p>Cormann has said AEC officers <a href="http://www.financeminister.gov.au/media-release/2017/08/08/commitment-national-plebiscite-same-sex-marriage">will be seconded</a> to the ABS to “assist” the process.</p>
<h2>Other problems</h2>
<p>ABS involvement in the plebiscite raises particular problems, but the shortcomings of a voluntary postal vote go well beyond who is administering it. </p>
<p>Even if turnout is high, we cannot be confident that the result is representative of community opinion. For example:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Young people move address more frequently than the rest of the population and are less likely to receive the ballot papers. </p></li>
<li><p>Homeless electors and grey nomads may also find it hard to participate. </p></li>
<li><p>Communities with limited access to reliable postal services (including Indigenous people living in more remote parts of Australia) may be disadvantaged.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Also worrying is that the postal vote will take place without the <a href="http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/2016/11/29/public-law-review-update-december-2016/">usual protections</a> of election law. Campaigners will be able to circulate unauthorised material – including posters and pamphlets with harmful messages about same-sex couples and their families – without fear of legal consequences.</p>
<p>And, if the result is close, there will be no clear process for resolving claims about the formality of votes and other contentious administration issues.</p>
<h2>It should be abandoned</h2>
<p>The voluntary postal vote on same-sex marriage should be abandoned. Not only does it rest on shaky legal foundations, it risks damaging the standing of two of our most trusted national institutions. </p>
<p>The absence of standard legal protections is worrying, and the polling method is so flawed that neither side can have confidence in the outcome.</p>
<p>And, at the end of it all, the result is non-binding. The federal parliament is the only institution that can resolve the issue of same-sex marriage definitively. It should do so now, without resorting to such a flawed and expensive venture.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82245/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Kildea has previously received funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>The key question in a legal challenge to the ‘postal plebiscite’ is whether information about Australians’ opinions on same-sex marriage constitutes ‘statistical information’.Paul Kildea, Senior Lecturer, UNSW Law School; Director, Referendums Project, Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/822232017-08-08T10:53:00Z2017-08-08T10:53:00ZMarriage equality lobby and Labor must decide how to handle postal ballot<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181358/original/file-20170808-22933-9173jh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Malcolm Turnbull has bought himself immediate relief from the backbench revolt.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lukas Coch/AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>When it comes to the Liberals and same-sex marriage, each “solution” seems to lead to a new problem.</p>
<p>Tony Abbott’s plebiscite became bad news for Malcolm Turnbull; now Turnbull’s postal vote – to ask people “Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?” – is mired in controversy even before it is formally launched.</p>
<p>The cost will be hefty – up to A$122 million. To be able to conduct the ballot without Senate approval the government is reaching back to a <a href="https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/08/03/australias-last-divisive-plebiscite/">partial precedent</a> from the Whitlam days, when a telephone poll of about 60,000 tested opinion on a national anthem.</p>
<p>The postal ballot will be run under the auspices of the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which will have Australian Electoral Commission officers seconded to it. The money will come from the Finance Minister’s Advance.</p>
<p>Fairfax’s <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/it-it-gets-up-the-samesex-marriage-postal-plebiscite-could-break-the-abs-20170808-gxrmml.html">Peter Martin writes</a>: “At a cost of $122 million, the postal plebiscite would become the second-biggest project [the ABS has] ever undertaken, after the $350 million census.” In light of the shambles of the last census, there would be a good deal of breath-holding.</p>
<p>The postal ballot has all the hallmarks of being tied together with bureaucratic and legal hayband, but the government insists it will withstand legal challenge.</p>
<p>Whether it will withstand the political challenges is another matter.</p>
<p>An <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2017/aug/08/the-guardian-essential-report-8-august-results">Essential poll</a> taken before the announcement and published on Tuesday shows a postal vote has reasonable though not majority public support. When people were asked whether they approved or disapproved of holding “a voluntary postal plebiscite followed by a vote in parliament”, 43% were in favour and 38% against.</p>
<p>Turnbull has bought himself immediate relief from the backbench revolt. At Tuesday’s Coalition parties meeting, all five rebels indicated they were backing off action in parliament.</p>
<p>But senator Dean Smith, one of the five, continues to make the case against a postal vote in the media. “I do think the history books will look back on this as not the brightest moment in this government’s history. Not the brightest moment in our democratic practice,” he <a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/federal/2017/08/08/liberal-senator-to-delay-gay-marriage-bill.html">told Sky</a>. </p>
<p>“Plebiscites are a bad idea. But I have to accept that my colleagues – my great bulk of colleagues – don’t agree with me on that.”</p>
<p>The government is setting a timetable that’s both fast and slow. Legislation for a plebiscite, as distinct from a postal ballot, on November 25, will be voted on (and, we presume, defeated) in the Senate, probably this week. Then the postal vote would run from September 12, when the letters start getting posted, to November 7, with the outcome announced on November 15. </p>
<p>In the event of a “yes” vote, there would be two parliamentary weeks left to get a bill through before Christmas.</p>
<p>The slow part of this timetable is the nearly two months for the postal vote. It hard to judge which side, if either, that long period would favour.</p>
<p>In its conduct, this campaign would be out of the ordinary.</p>
<p>No public money would be allocated for campaigning. Turnbull has made it clear that while he’d be urging a yes vote he has lots of other things to do and wouldn’t be giving too much time to this issue.</p>
<p>Many other politicians would likely take a low-key attitude, though outspoken Liberal senator Eric Abetz was quick to say: “I look forward to engaging with Australians and advocating why marriage should remain as it is”.</p>
<p>The postal vote provides an opportunity for the burgeoning Australian Conservatives. Their leader, senator Cory Bernardi, says: “The Australian Conservatives are the only party that has a policy to maintain marriage in its current form. We’ll be campaigning very hard to win a no vote.”</p>
<p>The pro- and anti-change activists outside parliament would be doing most of the heavy lifting.</p>
<p>Important – indeed, possibly crucial – to the result would be what stand the marriage equality lobby adopted.</p>
<p>Advocates are presently reserving their position. Alex Greenwich, co-chair of Australian Marriage Equality, said on Tuesday the group was “not ruling anything in or out”.</p>
<p>Views are likely to vary in the lobby – from those who feel it’s best to seize even a bad opportunity to hardliners inclined to boycott.</p>
<p>The attitude of the lobby will be central to Labor, once again. The opposition of the gay community was a decisive consideration in Labor’s voting against the plebiscite legislation when it was in parliament initially.</p>
<p>The ALP has a tricky line to walk – it is attacking the process but would it really want to lay itself open to some blame for a negative outcome?</p>
<p>Turnbull defends the postal ballot, which he privately would believe is the least desirable way of dealing with this issue, as fulfilling his election pledge to give the people the say.</p>
<p>Asked at his news conference, “Isn’t a postal plebiscite just a way to have the parliament follow? Why aren’t you leading?”, Turnbull replied: “Strong leaders carry out their promises. Weak leaders break them. I’m a strong leader.”</p>
<p>It was an unconvincing “Me Tarzan” moment.</p>
<p><em>Update</em>
The Senate on Wednesday morning rejected the government’s attempt to bring its bill for a November 25 plebiscite on for debate, thus killing the plebiscite. The vote was 31-31 - a tied vote is a loss.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82223/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
When it comes to the Liberals and same-sex marriage, each “solution” seems to lead to a new problem. Tony Abbott’s plebiscite became bad news for Malcolm Turnbull; now Turnbull’s postal vote – to ask people…Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.