A few days after the “yes” vote won the day in the same sex marriage survey I read a story about Western Australian MP Andrew Hastie.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
A Liberal MP, Hastie was very much in the “No” camp – because, you know, religion and stuff (even though marriage is regulated by the state, not churches).
But the voters in his federal seat of Canning went the other way – with a majority voting “Yes”.
Despite Hastie’s primary obligation as a representative of his electorate is, you know, to represent the wishes of his electorate, he’s chosen to abstain from any vote in parliament.
Why? Because he wouldn’t feel comfortable voting “Yes” – so he’s chosen to do what makes him feel good rather than his electorate.
As a “yes” voter myself, that stance really angered me.
The people who voted him in told Hastie what they wanted him to do – because, you know, democracy – but he’s going to ignore them out of self-interest.
And I remained angry for a while.
Until I thought about the other side of the fence; like those Labor MPs in western Sydney who are in favour of gay marriage but their electorate returned a “No” vote.
Do they have to go against their own beliefs and vote the way their electorate did? Do they have to vote “No” when their heart absolutely says “Yes”?
As unappealing as it may seem, I think they do.
This whole marriage survey thing was the idea of politicians – more those on the “No” side of the fence. It was them who put us through this.
For them to then dismiss our responses and go their own way just makes the whole process seem even more pointless than it already is.
If they did that, some people might remember and vote “no” to their re-election.