Now that the 2016 federal election is done and dusted, we need to consider what is a responsible, informed position to take on the proposed plebiscite on same sex marriage.
I uphold and continue to proclaim the Catholic Church's teaching on sacramental marriage. To quote The Catechism for convenience: 'The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptised persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.'
We are all citizens of a pluralistic democratic society in which the law does not necessarily reflect my Church's teaching on all matters, including the sacrament of marriage. Most civil marriages contracted in Australia are not sacramental marriages celebrated or even recognised by the Catholic Church. Most marriages nowadays are performed by civil celebrants.
It is essential that any plebiscite or law on the recognition of same sex marriage in no way interfere with the Church's role in performing or defining sacramental marriages. The civil institution of marriage already differs substantially from a sacramental marriage, being terminable on one year's notice by one of the parties, and being available to all citizens regardless of their religion or previous marital status.
I recognise the right of Catholic voters and politicians to vote according to their conscience when deciding whether to expand the definition of civil marriage to include an exclusive commitment by two persons of the same sex.
In The Australian Paul Kelly, writing on the same sex marriage plebiscite, said (23 August 2016): 'Lawyer and priest Frank Brennan, who has always argued the issue should properly be decided by parliament, told this column: "Contrary to Justice Kirby I have urged proponents of same-sex marriage to support legislation for a plebiscite because there is no other way that the matter can be resolved during the life of this parliament with Malcolm Turnbull remaining as Prime Minister."'
I have always thought a plebiscite was a bad idea. There will be complexities in legislation which can only be determined by parliament.
A plebiscite is not the usual Australian way for determining law or social policy. Once Tony Abbott was no longer prime minister, I pointed out to groups such as the Australian Christian Lobby that it made little sense for them to be committed to