Leading marriage equality advocate, Rodney Croome, has reached out to opponents of the reform in an effort to set ground rules for debating the issue, especially in the event of a plebiscite.
The move comes in the wake of a complaint before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission, against some statements in a Catholic booklet on the issue.
In an article in the Hobart Mercury (full text included below), Mr Croome, who is national director of Australian Marriage Equality, calls on the Human Rights Commission to set up a meeting between marriage equality stakeholders so they can agree on how to conduct the debate freely and respectfully.
Mr Croome wrote, an agreement between the parties needs “to strike a balance between free speech and social responsibility”.
“All stakeholders must agree to each others freedom to state their case.”
“Stakeholders must also agree to consider the harm their words may cause and speak respectfully.”
“A high quality debate on marriage equality…will show the world that Australia is a mature democracy able to deal with differences of opinion.”
Mr Croome said he will write to the Human Rights Commission and main organisations opposing marriage equality to gauge their interest in a round table discussion.
Mr Croome said a recent joint statement from both parties in the Tasmanian dispute, stressing their shared commitment to freedom and respect, gives him hope a broader national agreement can be reached.
The Turnbull Government is committed to a plebiscite on marriage equality despite concerns about the financial and possible human cost.
The full text of the article is included below. To read the article on the Mercury website, click here
For more information contact Rodney Croome on 0409 010 668.
Author: Rodney Croome
Publication: AME Media Release
Date: 26 December 2016
***
Laying the ground rules for a plebiscite debate on marriage equality
[Bio]
Rodney Croome is the national director of Australian Marriage Equality
[Text]
There is an urgent need for supporters and opponents of same-sex marriages to reach an agreement on a respectful and free debate in the lead up to the proposed plebiscite.
This need is highlighted by two recent events in Tasmania.
The first is an anti-discrimination complaint against the Catholic Church’s “Don’t Mess With Marriage” booklet.
The complainant, Martine Delaney, claims specific comments in the booklet are offensive and harmful to same-sex partners while the Church says its booklet is respectful and it should be free to make its case.
The second was the chalking of a rainbow outside the office of state Labor MP, Madeleine Ogilvie, following her vote against a marriage equality motion.
Ogilvie claims the chalking was a form of bullying which protesters say is an over reaction.
As passions heighten in the lead up to the proposed marriage equality national plebiscite, and/or a free vote in parliament, claims and counterclaims like these are likely to multiply, and spread to other states.
The danger is that they will cloud and even derail debate on the substantive issue of whether same-sex couples should be able to legally marry
The only way to ameliorate this possibility is for the major stakeholders to reach an agreement.
The Human Rights Commission is well placed to arrange for the stakeholders to sit down together given its recent focus on both sexuality rights and religious freedoms.
I won’t pre-empt the details of an agreement that both sides will need to develop, but in broad terms it needs two legs if it is to stand: freedom and respect.
All stakeholders must agree to each others’ freedom to state their case.
If free speech is hampered during a plebiscite campaign the outcome risks being de-legitimised.
Stakeholders must also agree to consider the harm their words may cause and speak respectfully.
The outcome will also be tarnished if ordinary Australians are hurt, harmed and turned off by the debate.
In sum, the task before us is to strike a balance between free speech and social responsibility that both sides can stick to despite the pressures of a national vote.
What gives me hope an agreement of this kind can be reached is that Ms Delaney and the Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, have issued a joint statement following conciliation.
They say they both support open and respectful speech in the marriage equality debate.
There has been no final agreed outcome but this is a positive step towards finding common ground more broadly.
I don’t pretend to hide where I come from in this debate.
I am passionately committed to marriage equality. I agree that some statements in the booklet were unnecessary. I fear Ms Ogilvie did over react.
But I also see there is an over-riding interest in us conducting a high quality debate on marriage equality.
It will show the world that Australia is a mature democracy able to deal with differences of opinion.
We will show ourselves that direct democracy can work and that the Australian people can be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
Most of all, it might just save the lives of those young same-sex attracted and gender diverse people for whom life is already tough enough without a national vote on whether their country accepts them.
I also don’t pretend that my proposal will be immediately accepted by opponents of marriage equality.
Some will naturally be sceptical.
But that doesn’t stop me taking a risk and stretching out my hand to those people of goodwill on the other side; people who want the public to hear why they value marriage as it has traditionally been understood, but also genuinely want to show respect to others.
It is to these people I say, let’s make future generations proud of us by ensuring the marriage equality debate is as free and as respectful as it can be.