Opinion: ​Hypocrisy on both sides of the same-sex debate

SOUND AND FURY: The marriage equality debate has been hijacked by those who are for and against.
SOUND AND FURY: The marriage equality debate has been hijacked by those who are for and against.

The same-sex marriage debate, like all public debates, is messy. However, more than most, it has become a proxy for something else. It has become a culture war, ugly and unproductive. 

This debate should separate two existential questions. First, how can we ensure equality of intimate partnerships for all, with appropriate cultural, political and legal recognition? Second, how can we maintain respect for customary and traditional rites?

Even if simply posed, existential questions do not lend themselves to simple answers. They require careful negotiation between social relations, private decisions, and public law. 

Hyperbole, hypocrisy and half-truths abound. Rites are confused for rights, appropriation is asserted in the name of recognition, and proponents on both sides pull out whatever facts they can find to make their case.

Labor senator Penny Wong, for example, is guilty of using out-of-context debating points. Responding recently to the Australian Christian Lobby calling the adopted children of gay couples a "stolen generation", she replied with a non sequitur: we "love our children".

More seriously, her reference took the equation out of context. It came from a blog post made more than four years ago in reference to Kevin's Rudd's apology to the Stolen Generations speech.

On the other side, the Australian Christian Lobby continue to be a master of half-truths, post-truths and misdirection. Its website claims that "Redefining marriage will threaten your freedom of speech; Redefining marriage can take away your religious freedom", and so on.

Hyperbole abounds on both sides, as does hypocrisy. Many of the gay lobby who once derided marriage as bourgeois now advocate for it.

The same good people who have for years sensitively respected the rights of Aboriginal peoples, including to exclude others from their sacred sites, now treat the religious rites of Christians as available sites for political appropriation.

Alternatively, many of those on the Christian side who argue that marriage is sacred have hypocritically allowed priests, clergy and ministers to marry non-Christians for years without public controversy.

In a parallel process, there has been no public controversy raised by the churches over the fact that the number of marriages performed in Australia each year by civil celebrants has been more than 70 per cent since 2010. 

Marriage is not an automatic right for anyone. Having intimate committed relations with others is a social question, and the nature of those relations is subject to an ethics of care.

Except for registering relationships, the state and the law needs to intervene only when that ethics of care has been breached in precisely defined ways. 

Lesbian, gay, and transsexual people want equal recognition of same-sex partnerships (a modern rights claim). This is possible in law without entering into questions of what it means to be a procreating being and/or to adopt children. 

People of particular sacred orientations want the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman to be upheld (a traditional cosmological claim). This should be possible, so long as it is not claimed as the overriding social norm for all.

Both can be handled, but not by the claiming the right to marriage nor by seeking exclusive legal protection of a religious rite.

When the premises of a debate cross different existential understandings, we should allow the possibility of accepting two apparently opposing principles at the same time. Reconciliation requires going back to basics. In this case, the two premises may be in fundamental tension, but they are not legally contradictory.

  • Professor Paul James, Director of the Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University​