So far the Coalition’s policy has produced exactly what opponents to same-sex marriage want: delay, complication and splits

Divisions have emerged between marriage equality advocates over tactics on whether to throw weight behind a plebiscite campaign or consider delaying calls for same-sex marriage to avoid a popular vote at all costs.

Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays have launched a survey to gauge whether the LGBTI community would prefer to delay marriage equality, in what would amount to a major rethink of tactics.

On Friday, PFLAG national spokeswoman, Shelley Argent, told ABC’s Lateline that some LGBTI people were so fearful of a plebiscite campaign they may prefer to wait for same-sex marriage.



Marriage equality plebiscite not as popular as Turnbull claims, poll shows Read more

“Somebody said to me, it’s better to wait than to be walking over bodies as you walk down the aisle, and I think that’s very true,” she said.

But Australian Marriage Equality (AME) has rejected the call, saying it would be irresponsible not to prepare for a plebiscite even if gay and lesbian people would prefer a parliamentary vote on same-sex marriage.

The survey asks whether a plebiscite or “waiting until marriage equality can be voted on in parliament” would be preferable in a number of circumstances, including “if the chances of a plebiscite returning a positive vote for marriage equality were uncertain”.

The results, expected next week, may endorse the approach taken by AME to fight for a parliamentary vote while preparing for a plebiscite or may reject the plebiscite so emphatically that it validates Argent’s call to delay a parliamentary vote instead.

Argent told Guardian Australia PFLAG had decided to undertake the survey to make sure it “wasn’t doing things for people they don’t want”.

“We need to know if we should keep insisting on a free vote in parliament or if people are satisfied with a plebiscite ... if we should keep fighting for a free vote or gear up for the plebiscite campaign.”

Asked about AME’s approach, Argent said: “I don’t see them doing anything for a free vote”.

“I think they are just working towards the plebiscite now.”

AME has repeatedly called for a free vote, including campaigning for one before the 2 July election. Its director, Rodney Croome, argued in an opinion piece for Guardian Australia that since the election marriage equality had the numbers in parliament to pass without a plebiscite.

Marriage equality advocates, most notably Labor frontbencher Penny Wong, have warned a plebiscite would be divisive and “licence hate speech”.

They view it as a chance to delay reform, to introduce complications such as the application of anti-discrimination law, or to give conservative MPs cover to use their electorates’ votes to continue to oppose same-sex marriage.

A marriage equality plebiscite is not inevitable any more. We have the numbers for a free vote | Rodney Croome Read more

To this can now be added the potential it has to divide LGBTI people who are prepared to live with an imperfect plebiscite to achieve the social reform, and those that think equality should never be subject to a popular vote.

Although AME has noted marriage equality has majority support in parliament after the election, the Coalition’s win means it can now claim a mandate to proceed with the popular vote.

AME chairman Alex Greenwich told Guardian Australia it had led the campaign for equality for more than a decade and continued to build a coalition to achieve it through the parliament.

“We believe equality can be achieved by a vote in the parliament, but we would be failing in our duty to gay and lesbian people right across Australia if we didn’t prepare for a possible plebiscite,” he said.

AME had committed to this course of action after consultation last year, Greenwich said.

“We didn’t ask for a plebiscite but the government put it forward as an election commitment so its important we are ready if one if is imposed on us.

“Failing to be prepared would be a massive disservice to the LGBTI community.”

Greenwich urged supporters of marriage equality to work together regardless of whether same-sex marriage was achieve through a parliamentary vote or “an unnecessary plebiscite”.

PFLAG also commissioned a Galaxy poll, released on Thursday, that showed that 48% of Australians support a plebiscite, less than the “overwhelming majority” claimed by Malcolm Turnbull and other senior government figures.

On Tuesday special minister of state, Scott Ryan, said the Australian Electoral Commission needs to focus on concluding the federal election and not be pressured to juggle that responsibility with the marriage equality plebiscite.

The attorney general, George Brandis, has said the cabinet will decide on the design of the plebiscite in coming weeks, but confirmed it will include electorate by electorate reporting of results.

In a letter to Turnbull on Monday, the Victorian premier, Daniel Andrews, called on him to ditch plans for a “harmful public vote” on same-sex marriage.

Andrews warned the prime minister history would only remember him for breaking the nation’s heart if he “fumbled at this crucial moment”, echoing Turnbull’s own words after the botched republic referendum of 1999.

Daniel Andrews (@DanielAndrewsMP) I wrote a letter to the PM, because his plebiscite on marriage equality will hurt people. pic.twitter.com/yQp5XTdVxE

Turnbull may be right that advocates of marriage equality won’t be disappointed by the result of a plebiscite, and legislation for same-sex marriage will then sail through the parliament.

But in the mean time the Coalition’s policy for a plebiscite has produced exactly what opponents to same-sex marriage would want: delay, complication and the potential to divide even those who agree on the end goal of equality.