By: Felix Marwick | Wednesday, August 15, 2012 6:07 AM

The moment the issue of homosexuality and marriage rights enters the political debate you immediately notice a fair amount of political scuttling.

As time's gone by the country's become a lot more open minded about matters of sexuality. Homosexuality - once derided, condemned, and illegal doesn't evoke the widespread visceral responses that it once did.

However it's still not a comfortable political topic, something that's been made evident by Labour MP Louisa Wall's Marriage Amendment Bill.

There have been a couple of aspects to the discussion that I have found interesting; the MPs who say they will see guidance from their constituents, and New Zealand First's proposal that there be a public referendum on the issue.

Let's start with New Zealand First's idea of a referendum. First of all the public can already have their say on Louisa Wall's Bill. It can be done via a select committee process.

If the Bill passes at its first reading and New Zealand First will get all the public opinion it desires, and probably more, via that avenue.

There's an element that both a referendum and being guided by constituents have in common - they're both cop outs.

Taking those routes allow politicians to hide their own personal views by allowing others to make their decisions for them.

And that's what a conscience vote is supposed to be about. they're a chance for the public to gauge the leanings, preferences, and beliefs of the people that represent them.

With parliamentary politics largely a whipped affair the public rarely gets to see where their MPs truly stand. The demands of caucus discipline and toeing the party line preclude it.

Avoiding a position on the Marriage Amendment bill is, in my view, moral cowardice. MPs, regardless of whether they support or oppose it, should have the courage of their convictions and make their positions clear.

To avoid doing so, or by putting the decision in the hands of others, is simply a way of avoiding the issue in order to avoid controversy, dodgy tricky questions, and be upfront about where they stand on marriage rights.

MPs are elected to make decisions, not avoid them.