Concerns have been raised regarding the wording of the question in the proposed marriage equality plebiscite following reports revealing how the public vote may be phrased.
It is expected that the Government will construct the plebiscite question to read: “Do you approve of a law to permit people of the same sex to marry?”
Spokesperson for marriage equality advocacy group just.equal Brian Greig says phrasing the question in this way opens the door to exclusion and segregation, raising concerns that the wording excludes transgender and intersex people.
“Many transgender and intersex people are not legally or medically recognised as being either male or female,” Greig said, “This is why the federal government allows the use of the ‘X’ category on passports in relation to gender, rather than the ‘M’ or ‘F’ choice.”
“Under the plebiscite question put forward by the government, many Australians, including those in the ‘X’ category, would be denied the right to marry.”
Greig also noted the “sneaky wording” of the question does not make mention of equality for LGBTIQ+ people under the Marriage Act, but rather “permitting a law.”
“This wording is deeply concerning because it suggests that the government wants to create a separate area of marriage law only for same-sex couples, rather than include them in existing laws. That’s not equality, that’s segregation,” Greig said.
just.equal are calling on Attorney General George Brandis to confirm that a two-tiered legislation for marriage is not the case moving forward.
“I call on the Attorney to show the Australian people exactly what marriage legislation will be presented to parliament if the plebiscite is successful. The voters have a right to know exactly what the Bill will look like after a plebiscite so they can make an informed decision as they vote,” Greig said.
“Australians do not want to be duped into voting for what they think is marriage equality, if in fact the government is planning segregated marriage along with excluding transgender and intersex people from future legislation.”
OIP Staff
