The totalitarianism of marriage equality - The Centre for Independent Studies
Donate today!
Your support will help build a better future.
Your Donation at WorkDonate Now

The totalitarianism of marriage equality

same-sex marriageElton John has managed to leap back into the limelight by calling for a boycott of luxury fashion label Dolce and Gabbana. His plea for the trophy wives of the world to unite and ditch their $1000 handbags was prompted by an interview published in the Italian magazine Panorama in which the founders of the brand, Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana, were seen to have questioned gay marriage and criticised same-sex parenting. 

The Italian designers, who are both gay and were formerly in a relationship together, subsequently explained they were only stating their own personal opinions and choices with regards to the traditional family and belief in the need for children to have a mother and a father. But the attempt to defend their democratic right to free thought and expression did not save them from suffering the fate of those who dare to dissent on fashionable social issues, and instead earnned them their very own hashtag (hatetag?) #D&Gboycott.

What does this latest example of burning heretics alive on social media have in common with Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonjhelm’s private members bill to legalise gay, transgender and inter-sex marriage? The censure that was piled onto Dolce and Gabbana by a gaggle of like-minded celebrities is a taste of the kind of hostility members of parliament who vote against marriage equality will also face. Politicians who vote ‘no’  are certain to be singled out as bigots for denying gay and lesbian couples their ‘rights’.

Ironically, these accusations will be made in the name of promoting  tolerance, diversity and acceptance. Yet the underlying authoritarianism is self-evident, as is the virtual political gun being leveled at MPs’ heads: either agree with marriage equality or face an onslaught of name-calling and social ostracism for daring to have a contrary opinion. This is doubly ironic considering that the marriage equality campaign wants federal parliamentarians to be given a free or conscience vote on the issue. Yet marriage equality advocates do not pay their opponents the courtesy of believing their views are motivated by genuine conscientious objections regarding the meaning and purpose of marriage.

Personally, I do not believe marriage equality will undermine the institution of marriage, for a very good reason. That reason is that allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed cannot possibly do any more damage than straight couples have wrought on marriage since the passage of the ‘no fault’ divorce Family Law Act of 1975. But opinions differ on this issue. Organisations such as the Australian Christian Lobby — which copped flak for running TV ads during the Sydney Mardi Gras opposing gay marriage, and saw the ads yanked by SBS — are at least consistent, and oppose all efforts to redefine the meaning of marriage, regardless of whether those efforts are spearheaded by Lionel Murphy or Tim Wilson.

Those who are keen to defend and promote the traditional meaning of marriage as an important social institution have consistently maintained that marriage should be about using the holy rites of the religion and social rituals of the law to underwrite the shared commitment of opposite-sex parents to raising children. They are wary of another push to dilute the meaning and further reduce marriage to simply a vehicle for individual self-fulfilment, especially given the toll family breakdown has on children.

The social science evidence clearly shows marriage is best for children. Children, on average, do best on a range of welfare indicators when their parents are married and stayed married. Marriage is associated with a range of advantages, including: devoting greater financial, emotional and educational resources to child rearing; and, crucially, greater family stability compared to de-facto and sole parent couples. However, this evidence could cut both ways, and could be used constructively by the marriage equality movement to bolster the case for change.

The evidence concerning marriage and children arguably offers a basis for a conservative case for marriage equality. Traditional institutions such as marriage, and much like the common law, should be flexible enough to be adapted and applied to changing circumstances in order to sustain their relevance and prevent them from becoming reactionary.

Because gay and lesbian parenting is increasingly common, there may be sound public policy reasons to extend the right to marriage so that the children in all types of families can also enjoy its benefits. Rather than scream ‘homophobia’, advocates of equality might think of ways to try to enable marriage traditionalists to change their minds about same-sex marriage in good conscience.

This would require demonstrating that the marriage equality movement takes the traditional meaning of marriage ‘til death do us part’ seriously, and that gay and lesbian couples will take their marriage vows seriously and will stay married for the sake of children. However, given the character of the campaign for marriage equality so far, to recast it in a conservative fashion would require the leopard to undergo a considerable change of spots.

Rather than win friends, the marriage equality movement appears to favour obliterating all who would stand in its way. The more likely outcome, I fear, is that the advocates of equality will continue to try to shame and embarrass opponents into swallowing their principles. For as Dolce and Gabbana have learned, all those who question ‘gay rights’ end up being condemned like Fred Nile at the Mardi Gras parade. A straw in the wind as to the kind of ‘debate’ one can expect is Green’s Senator Scott Ludlum’s infamous attack-speech on Tony Abbott (which went viral on YouTube of course), in which the Prime Minister was told that due to this opposition to changing the Marriage Act he would not be welcome in Western Australia if he showed up “waving his homophobia in people’s faces”. 

The marriage equality campaign is a depressing insight into what politics looks like in the 21st century. There is too little real democratic politics done anymore, whereby a reasoned case for change is developed and wins new adherents on the merits of the arguments advanced. In place of rational debate, we have the cheap, easy and shabby politics of perpetual grievance and taking offence against all who dare depart from the ‘party line’. This is underpinned by the nasty threat that only true believer in the cause will be considered fit members of civilised society. This isn’t democracy — it’s the totalitarian tactics of personal intimidation. In a free and democratic country, you should not have to risk social and cultural death by Twitter to express a dissenting opinion.

Dr Jeremy Sammut is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.