http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/david-flint-a-yes-vote-on-samesex-...it’s not urgent. That’s what the proponents of same-sex marriage told the High Court. So why are we being rushed into trusting the politicians, giving them a blank cheque in what is no more than a pretend or fake referendum?
Voters might recall Alan Jones’s advice on the politicians’ republic: “If you don’t know, vote No.”
As to trusting politicians, it’s hard to think of even one of today’s problems which, if it weren’t created by them, they’ve not made significantly worse. From replacing the lowest energy costs in the world with the world’s highest, from declining educational standards to the way the criminal justice system better protects the criminal than the victim, today’s politicians have hardly earned our confidence.
This is because too many of today’s politicians are out of touch, coming from a narrow class of staffers, union and party officials and chosen not on merit but because of their loyalty to some factional boss or lobbyist.
The founders of this country proposed and the people agreed that the new federal Parliament would be authorised to make laws with respect to a limited range of issues. These included marriage.
Although they’d never heard of same-sex marriage, the founders and the people were well aware of other forms of marriage, including polygamy. They certainly weren’t about to give the politicians any power to allow men to have four wives, some underage. The meaning of marriage in the Constitution was — and still is — crystal clear. It means marriage between one man and one woman, nothing more and nothing less.
This meaning should prevail until the Constitution is properly changed.
In any democracy, words in a constitution must mean what a reasonable person at the time it was adopted thought they meant.
And having seen what can happen in other countries, the founders were very careful that the final decision on changing the Constitution should rest with the people. They certainly weren’t going to leave it to the politicians or indeed, to seven judges.
To make sure the people would be properly informed, it was agreed that the only way to change the Constitution would be by a Swiss-style referendum with the precise change and legislation approved both nationally and, to ensure there was widespread support, in a majority of states.
The founders were well aware of the dangers of using plebiscites to change the Constitution. Like opinion polls, plebiscites are just a question. This can too easily be loaded or misleading, as we saw in the 1995 Quebec secession referendum where exit polls revealed that many Yes voters actually believed they were voting to stay in Canada.
The point is that in a plebiscite all the details and especially the consequences of a Yes vote are not known in advance — they’re not on the table. The voters haven’t the foggiest idea what the politicians will get up to if you give them a Yes vote. Just as in the current postal survey or plebiscite.
The founders had seen how plebiscites — fake referendums — can be used to manipulate the voters. They were well aware that Napoleon Bonaparte and his nephew had used them to soften up the French until they agreed to turn them both into emperor-dictators.