Malcolm Turnbull supports a change in the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. But he does not believe in marriage equality.



In the public debate these two concepts have been treated as the same but they are not. Let me explain, using Turnbull’s own speech when he introduced legislation to set up the same-sex marriage plebiscite on Wednesday.

Turnbull said: “My view and that of my wife, Lucy, is that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.” That is a simple restatement of what Australians will be asked if the 11 February plebiscite goes ahead and the prime minister confirmed he would vote “yes”.

Malcolm Turnbull willing to negotiate on marriage equality plebiscite Read more

Turnbull went on: “The real reason, I think, many people oppose the plebiscite is because they believe that, if there were to be a free vote in the parliament, same-sex marriage would be supported, and so they do not want to run the risk of the Australian people giving them the wrong answer.

“For our part, we put our faith in the Australian people and we know that their answer, whether it is yes or no, will be the right answer, because it is theirs.”

And here’s where the distinction emerges. If Turnbull really believes that if the Australian people vote “no” that they have not got the wrong answer then he does not believe that the law as it stands – restricting marriage to a man and a woman – infringes the principle of equality.

Someone who really believed in marriage equality, that marriage between two people regardless of sex is a right, would believe that were the Australian people to vote no in the plebiscite they would have got it wrong.



In the US this is how same-sex marriage was legalised nationwide. In June 2015 the supreme court required all states to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples because to refuse to do so would violate the 14th amendment, which promises equality before the law. Australia has no such rights protection, which is why the law must be changed through a change to the Marriage Act.



There is a word for believing that majorities are never wrong: majoritarianism. It’s known as the tyranny of the majority because it allows the many to override the rights of the few. Majoritarianism is a particularly frightening thing in the context of LGBTI rights because there are so many more people that identify as heterosexual than lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex.

Turnbull also said that he and Lucy: “Do not believe that if same-sex couples are allowed to have their union recognised as marriage that will undermine our relationship of long standing.”

If you extend what Turnbull said in the case of his and Lucy’s marriage to marriage generally – that gay marriage does not diminish other marriages – you start to see the problem of holding the plebiscite. Heterosexual people may refuse the right of others to marry, despite the fact gay marriage does not diminish heterosexual marriage.

Qantas CEO Alan Joyce opposes 'unnecessary' marriage equality plebiscite Read more

Turnbull has now told us that, if the plebiscite returned a no vote, he would accept the will of the voters. Interesting that he didn’t do so after the Republic referendum, when he said the then prime minister, John Howard, had broken the nation’s heart. In that case, he stood for the principle that Australia should have an Australian head of state – in this case he does not stand for the principle of equality but rather majoritarianism.

Arguably, parliament deciding the issue would be majoritarian as well because it’s still up for a majority vote, just this time of our representatives. Maybe so. But parliamentarians have a responsibility to govern for all and are therefore more likely to consider whether same-sex marriage is so great a good for the group it affects (the dignity and equality it confers on LGBTI people) that it justifies some upset from those who feel it detracts from their own (heterosexual) marriage.

So let’s call a spade a spade. Turnbull wants same-sex couples to be able to marry but he does not believe they have a right to. If he believed they had a right to, he would not have said the Australian people cannot get this important decision wrong.