Marriage is people’s institution, so they should decide its future, by Andrew Hastie, a member of the Australian Parliament.

This parliament is not like the last. Federal politics now has an audible anger to it: transactional, toxic and highly partisan. …

This coming apart, this slow but visible dissolution of consensus, is most clearly seen in the controversy and parliamentary impasse over the question of same-sex marriage. …

The nature of marriage:

Of all the institutions, the most basic and foundational is marriage. It existed before the commonwealth government and will do so likely long after we all pass away.

Throughout history, marriage has had objective characteristics that have not depended on the preferences of individuals or cultures. Simply put: its historical character is that of a male and female union defined by a commitment of permanence and exclusivity, and invariably, although not always, producing children through sexual union. …

Even more basically, marriage is an economic deal in which the woman can forgo economic activity in order to bear and raise the couple’s children, while the man supports her economically and helps bring up the children. It’s essence is procreation … so the notion of same sex marriage is absurd, more an artifact of the bureaucratic and welfare state and of activist politics than anything real.

Why a plebiscite?

The question of same-sex marriage is extraordinarily profound. We are proposing to redefine an institution with a long and rich history. Changes do not come without consequences. Redefining marriage will potentially limit the nature and scope of religious liberty in this country. …

Marriage is the people’s institution. The people themselves should have their say on exactly what it means. This is why the Coalition is proposing to give the Australian people a vote. We recognise the significance of the change being proposed, and we don’t presume to know the hearts of every voter.