You may have misread my flippancy on gay marriage. I’m not anti-gay marriage. I was making the point how damaging the debate can be, aside from the outcome.

As for Phelps. Clearly people’s politics are more than their sexuality. I would not dare to suggest anything but when it comes to the clearly fiercely intelligent and formidable Dr Phelps. But I have a firm, if idealistic, view that the issues that are fundamental to us – any issue – should not be compromised. I believe she endorses party policy by default in joining the party, and it puts Labor in a difficult position in having someone publicly against policy (as we’ve seen with Garrett). It is a personal decision and the individual is the only one it has to sit well with; I just don’t believe in signing up to a platform that you are fundamentally opposed to in some areas.

It’s a great debate – this idea of lobbying from the sidelines OR compromising your views to push for change on the inside – and I have plenty to say on it. But I want this to stand as my bitter disappointment for some of the rhetoric that came out of the gay marriage debate. That’s the point I was making here.

and to answer your comment about Phelps joining Labor, the point is that people’s politics are usually about more than their sexuality. the ALP will eventually come around, but in the meantime people still need to have their other politics issues respected. Just look at the gay conservative movement in the states – they vote with Republicans because tax cuts are more important to them than gay marriage.