Marriage equality in Ireland: We have fallen behind other nations when it comes to same-sex marriage recognition. Photo: Cathal McNaughton

Today marks nine years to the day since former Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett and I tabled Australia’s first same-sex marriage legislation in the Commonwealth Parliament. Obviously, it was not supported. But despite our disappointment, I considered it a “Pantene moment” – you may recall the shampoo commercial where they promised, “It won’t happen overnight, but it will happen”.

Over the years, my Pantene moments included everything from paid parental leave to genetic privacy and stem cell regulation. But I didn’t bank on progress taking this long with same-sex marriage or that, almost a decade later, we would be having many of the same debates.

Various MPs have breathed life into the bill over the years. Bill Shorten’s recent attempt represents the 14th piece of Commonwealth legislation on the issue and, like most others, emulates the basis of our original bill.

As outlined in the second reading speech, our bill was designed to “reverse the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 by repealing the definition of marriage, which in 2004 changed the definition to that of a union between one man and one woman only; and repealing a section in the Act which prevents same-sex unions solemnised in a foreign country from being recognised in Australia”. It is a simple piece of legislation (a number of lines on a few pages), but it has become one of our most complex political debates.

When we introduced our legislation, support was shaky. Now we have legislation in most jurisdictions and there have been debates and votes (albeit unsuccessful) in the Federal Parliament.

A great sadness is how we have fallen behind other nations when it comes to same-sex marriage recognition. Conservative leaders around the world, including New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and Britain’s David Cameron, have embraced the change. And the recent referendum decision in Ireland not only reignited this political debate in Australia, but it has shamed us so.

In 2006, arguments against the bill included the notion of the sanctity of marriage and religious arguments, as well as the idea that the community, and the Federal Parliament, needed time to catch up and consult. Haven’t we caught up? How much more time do our legislators and leaders need?

A majority of the community is now in favour of same-sex marriage. There are still people with strong views regarding marriage being defined as between a man and a woman only, but poll results are overwhelmingly in support of reform and reveal many Australians are frustrated with the lack of parliamentary action.

In our representative democracy, it is fitting our elected MPs vote on this issue. It does not need to be contracted out to a plebiscite – not because I believe the community won’t welcome the change, but because it is the job of our elected representatives to reflect our views. It is time for MPs to make a decision, to follow their hearts and minds.

More MPs are declaring their views, as they should. An expanding list of representatives have changed their mind. These members highlight growing community momentum on this issue as well as our increasing intolerance of discrimination.

This has never been about making people – gay, lesbian, heterosexual – get married. It is about removing discrimination.

During one Senate speech I made about the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (we must never forget its artistic merits nor its origins as a human rights demonstration), one senator interjected “Are you part of the brown-eyed chorus?” I think we are ready for a more sophisticated debate now.

Some MPs may argue that there are more pressing issues, that the economy is more important, that same sex marriage is not inevitable – but this debate is about human rights delayed and thus denied. I want my country to catch up.

Since 2006, there have been many changes in society, yet some politicians lag behind, fearful, timid. This is the antithesis of leadership.

I do not want us to be a country fearful of ideas, always looking back to the past. Our society is changing and our definition of marriage is part of that.

As Andrew and I said in our second reading speech: “Marriage is not a fixed institution – it changes, evolves and becomes more progressive as times and social attitudes change. It was only three decades ago that we had the arguably flawed system of the ‘fault’ divorce; a system which was recognised to be unfair towards women and which brought into the court system matters that did not belong there. It is only natural that marriage and its governing laws evolve once again.”

Natasha Stott Despoja is a former leader of the Australian Democrats.

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/gay-marriage-what-are-we-waiting-for-20150614-ghmwmv.html