"On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman."
If I told you that was a quote from Cory Bernardi, Lyle Shelton or worse, that oft condemned unreconstructed traditionalist Tony Abbott, would you consider it just more evidence of their homophobia? Many commentators would. It seems right now no one can make any statement in favour of marriage without being condemned for being a "hater" or "bigot".
More National News Videos
- Video duration
- 03:42
Same-sex marriage: the facts
Same-sex marriage: the facts
What exactly would change for same-sex couples if they could marry?
Up Next
Ian Thorpe joins marriage equality campaign
- Video duration
- 00:38
- Video duration
- 00:38
Ian Thorpe joins marriage equality ...
Ian Thorpe joins marriage equality campaign
Our most successful Olympian appeared at the City2Surf run encouraging all australians who aren't already enrolled to vote in the postal plebiscite on same sex marriage to do so.
Up Next
Emotional memorial for Justine Damond
- Video duration
- 01:57
- Video duration
- 01:57
Emotional memorial for Justine Damond
Emotional memorial for Justine Damond
Loved ones of the Australian woman who was shot dead by a Minneapolis police officer gathered on Friday, one week before what would have been her wedding day.
Up Next
'Safe Schools is teaching your children anal sex'
- Video duration
- 01:50
- Video duration
- 01:50
'Safe Schools is teaching your children ...
'Safe Schools is teaching your children anal sex'
A parent's social media plea to fight the Safe Schools program has gone viral, but she fails to mention she's a Liberal Party member.
Up Next
Abbott begins his plebiscite campaign
- Video duration
- 01:00
- Video duration
- 01:00
Abbott begins his plebiscite campaign
Abbott begins his plebiscite campaign
The former PM will vote against same sex marriage and has offered up reasons for people to do the same.
Up Next
100,000 underused homes in Sydney and Melbourne
- Video duration
- 01:48
- Video duration
- 01:48
100,000 underused homes in Sydney and ...
100,000 underused homes in Sydney and Melbourne
As young Australians battle with housing affordability, Eryk Bagshaw reports on the inefficiency of our housing stock.
Up Next
PM urges North Korea to stop 'provocative conduct'
- Video duration
- 01:26
- Video duration
- 01:26
PM urges North Korea to stop 'provocative ...
PM urges North Korea to stop 'provocative conduct'
Any North Korean attack on the United States will be met by aid and support from Australia, says Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Up Next
Art of Science moving image finalists
- Video duration
- 01:14
- Video duration
- 01:14
Art of Science moving image finalists
Art of Science moving image finalists
Watch the top three submissions to the competition, which showcases images and movies used to understand, prevent and treat disease. Video courtesy Walter and Eliza Hall Institute.
Same-sex marriage: the facts
What exactly would change for same-sex couples if they could marry?
However, the statement doesn't come from Mr Bernardi, but from that other strong-minded senator from South Australia, Penny Wong. Senator Wong articulated the traditional view of marriage in an interview on the Sunday program on network TEN in 2010. She spoke it in that calm, emphatic metre which has made her so formidable in our parliament.
It's a bold statement, sure. But it's also a fair and reasonable summary of how many Australians feel about marriage. And given that Senator Wong is a woman in a committed lesbian partnership, no one could say the statement was homophobic. I accept of course that she was speaking in support of her party's position while working hard to change it. But do not miss her deeper point – the traditional position deserved respect. She acknowledged that many Australians have traditional views on marriage formed by culture, religion, and history. That is still true.
Senator Wong wasn't homophobic then, and she's certainly not homophobic now. However she has changed her view on whether the traditional view is one worthy of respect and can be spoken. I won't take issue with her argument for redefining marriage here. We disagree, no doubt, but I would strongly defend her right to express her beliefs. However, everyone who is passionate about our democracy should take issue with her argument against a plebiscite.
Senator Wong has in her Senate speech this week put the strongest possible case against the plebiscite that can be made. She argued that a plebiscite, by allowing people with a traditional view to speak up, will unleash hatred and division and expose the children of same-sex couples to harm. Silencing of conservative voices is therefore necessary to protect children, and the entire LGBTI community.
This is an argument from injury. It says that we can't allow a debate to even be had in public because people will be hurt. Because children will be hurt. Who could speak against that? For anyone who has a heart, it's a powerful argument. The Senator has a strong point, this isn't an abstract argument for her, and for thousands of others, it's deeply personal. Amongst social conservatives, especially Christians, no one is interested in hurting others, just so there can be a debate.
But as Senator Wong herself showed in 2010, it's perfectly possible to make a statement supporting traditional marriage without being homophobic. Certainly as our organisation argues for the protection and promotion of religious freedoms, we want to do that in ways that are never driven by prejudice, fear or hate. Some supporters of same-sex marriage share our concerns about the potential for same sex marriage to erode religious freedom – clearly they are not coming from a place of hate or homophobia.
For anyone who loves liberal democracy, which depends on free speech and the ability of all citizens to make a case for what they believe, the idea of restricting what we can discuss is abhorrent. We believe in protecting the fundamental freedoms that permit civil debate. Which is why we would encourage people to vote in a plebiscite. Let's have a great conversation. And let's have it with the tone set by her in 2010. To make our case, without dehumanising our opponents. For us, we'll be making a positive case. We'll argue for the right of people to say what they believe marriage should be.
Australians must be allowed to make the case that this thing called marriage, when it has actually been practiced, has brought fantastic good to the wider society. People shouldn't be ashamed to speak up for the classical vision of it. Many are not persuaded that a legal or cultural rearrangement of marriage will bring good. Most importantly, we believe in the freedom to speak and express those beliefs.
And with the example set by Senator Wong in 2010, all sides should be able to make their case in a way that lets us disagree, without being disagreeable.
Michael Kellahan is the executive director of Christian think tank Freedom for Faith and the Sydney Anglican Archbishop's advisor on religious freedom.
753 comments
Comment are now closed