Marriage Equality 2: How to mishandle an issue
Featuring Tony Abbott and the Australian Christian Lobby
I've written
about the intellectual poverty of the arguments against Marriage Equality elsewhere, but the issue continues to amaze
me. This week’s antics by Tony Abbott, made me wonder is anyone actually
advising him at the moment with an eye to public perception.
Aside from alienating members of his own party with his staunch refusal to allow a conscience vote and his insistence that National Party MPs be included in the party room vote to bolster his numbers, Abbott also comes out again looking like a liar. Only a few months ago, after Ireland’s successful referendum, he was asked if he would consider a similar referendum in Australia and replied that under the constitution parliament was the proper forum to debate any change to the Marriage Act. Now, seeing that he does not have the support in parliament, he has turned back towards a referendum.
It paints the PM as someone who can’t be trusted by either his own party of the Australian people- an invidious position for any politician. Abbott will try to hold the line that he thinks it is now an issue for the Australian people to decide, but this will be a difficult line to sell to voters when his political opponents can simply repeat his earlier line. It makes it hard to see the suggested referendum strategy as anything other than a last-ditch strategy to thwart Marriage Equality in the same way that John Howard neutered the Republican movement.
What I really don't understand is how he thinks this must look to the people he represents and how he wouldn’t think this is hurting his party. Polling seems to indicate Australians support Marriage Equality (although statistics are often fairly easily manipulated), while the Australian Media also seems strongly on side with the issue, which is usually a good barometer that politicians pay close attention to.
No doubt the Prime Minister has strong religious convictions that have guided his policy decisions on a number of occasions (except for when the he recently ignored the Pope asking all world leaders to do more about climate change). In his previous capacity as Health Minister, he drew criticism for his unsuccessful opposition to lifting the ban on the abortion drug RU486. But right now he is flying directly against media and public sentiment and has increasingly few friends on the issue outside of the homophobes of the Australian Christian Lobby.
I don't think he would lose many votes over the issue if he gave in to what seems popular sentiment. If he were to allow a vote but continue to strongly state his personal opposition to it, the Australian Christian Lobby are not going to change their vote to Labor or Green. He might lose a few votes to the far right, but losing a few bigots might be worth it to eliminate this as an election issue. It didn’t cost David Cameron’s conservative party government when they legalised Marriage Equality in the UK.
Allowing a conscience vote, especially one that was successful, would remove the issue as a point of differentiation for the government. As such, it would give them a chance to temporarily take control of the national dialogue to start to actually win some support with some policies, or more likely attack the opposition (cough cough, Trade Union Royal Commission).
Politics is a funny business and the government may still find a way to turn things around before the next election, especially on the back of the pork-barrelling in the next budget and inevitable pre-election scare campaign about terrorism, asylum seekers and the ‘budget crisis.’ But right now, Tony Abbott seems to be digging himself quite a hole to climb out of.
The Australian Christian Lobby
Then there are the Christian lobbyists on the subject. Much like Tony Abbott, they really have not thought out their public stance well. To me this is a PR disaster for the church because it is providing plenty of fodder for passionate atheists to highlight inconsistency in religious teachings and its continued systemic failure to deal responsibly with child sexual abuse within the institution. The Christian Church could really use some good PR that made it appear a tolerant and positive contributor to society, which it is in many ways. Unfortunately Christian advocates’ dogged opposition to Marriage Equality, relying on some very weak arguments which do not withstand scrutiny, is generating ill-feeling among moderates like myself. The exploitative strategy of sending home campaign leaflets to all students in catholic schools was a particularly unfortunate choice that was widely criticised, even by Christian parents.
I wrote a previous article that tried to objectively analyse the arguments against Marriage Equality without getting angry or depressed. It wasn’t that easy.
I didn’t spend much time considering Christian arguments because our constitution explicitly states that laws should not be made based on religious beliefs (Something Tony Abbott needs to re-familiarise himself with) and I thought that was pretty much enough argument that Christian lobbyists had no business campaigning for or against anything in such a capacity.
But with the continued loud lobbying of groups like the Australian Christian Lobby and former bishop Harrower, who I have lost a lot of respect for (I respect people’s rights to hold a belief but when you back it up with disingenuous and selective arguments I withdraw that respect), I thought I would look a little further at the arguments being put forward from a Christian perspective (although I believe a number of Christians do not actually share such a perspective).
I did a bit of rather depressing trawling through a number of websites and facebook pages belonging to groups like the Australian Christian Lobby and Marriage Alliance. There was plenty of the expected statements that traditional marriage is God’s will and homosexuality is the work of Satan. The page administrators don’t even seem to bother to try to explain to people that these types of posts reduce the whole organisation’s credibility to speak about secular marriage.
There is also a lot of repetition about the timeless importance of traditional marriage as a loving union of a woman and man so that they could procreate. John Harrower’s recent opinion piece in Australian is replete with this sentiment again, suggesting marriage has always been this way and never used as part of a business arrangement or to seal alliances between families and nations. He also makes no mention of the history of polygamous marriage and is as brief as possible discussing the terrible rate of divorce for traditional marriage.
The argument that a child deserves a mother and a father is also regularly trotted out on these sites too, but no attempt is ever made to address its counter-arguments, which are many. While I feel it is a little unfair of people to use assertions about children’s rights as an excuse to go on the attack about child sexual abuse in the Church, that doesn’t mean this won’t happen. Considering how completely false and disingenuous the rights of the child argument is shown to be, it seems injudicious to be inviting attention in this area (This goes doubly for Scott Morrison speaking about children’s rights too).
Another argument that seems to have been given surprising credence by opponents of Marriage Equality is that the effect on heterosexual marriages is not being considered in the debate. If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, this will change the meaning of marriage for heterosexual couples. I kind of get this. I remember when I got my first bike. It was red and it went fast. It was really special. Then a bit later by little brother, who I considered less important than me at the time (sorry bro, it’s true- but I was seven years old) got one too and my bike felt less special. Actually, I would only get this argument, if I was still seven years old, but as an adult I can understand this is utter crap! As a married heterosexual, I can confidently state that my marriage will be completely unaffected by Marriage Equality (Sorry, I know I said I would try not to get angry. I’ll take a few deep breaths before I keep going).
A public face of this argument were the Jensens, who claimed that Marriage Equality would force them to divorce because it would change the meaning of marriage to something they did not believe in. They were rightly laughed at and derided for their stance, but also a little unfairly subjected to abuse and personal attacks. I will say plainly here that I am very uncomfortable with the level of blanket aggression that is subjected towards Christianity from some sections of the public as part of this debate. The arguments for Marriage Equality are strong enough that they do not need to rely on attacking everything about Christianity with hateful language- it’s not a good way to preach tolerance and open-mindedness.
There are a group of people being caught in the middle here. They are the tolerant Christians who do understand their beliefs have constitutionally no bearing on our laws and that the rights of homosexual couples to marry will have no impact on their own marriages. These people are unfortunately being tarred with the same brush as the fanatics and are copping the backlash. The more the Australian Christian Lobby pushes itself into the public arena, the more oxygen they give to those who enjoy highlighting inconsistencies of the Christian faith. A case in point is that each time a Christian spokesman makes a statement about the welfare of children, opponents reply with questions about the protection of paedophiles within the Church.
The Australian Christian Lobby and other organisations would be wise to step back and consider their actions. From an outsider, it would seem their public campaigning is damaging their brand. I can’t see them gaining many new followers with this strategy, as most people who oppose Marriage Equality on religious grounds are already convinced, but they would have to be losing potential ones. Each time I hear a spokesman say something stupid, I have to remind myself they do not actually represent all Christians and then I deliberately put aside any building disdain for the religion as a whole, but not everyone does this. An increasing number of people I have spoken to have expressed unfavourable opinions of the Church as a whole (not the Australian Christian Lobby’s position) as this issue has progressed. I suspect this issue will cost the Church many potential followers, particularly in the younger generations.
Sometimes the cost of winning is greater than the cost of losing; sometimes it takes more strength to lose than to win
Tony Abbott and the Australian Christian Lobby have made their positions clear on the matter of Marriage Equality, but it seems that all they are achieving now is prolonging a fight that will not go away. And this resistance comes at a price. Their continued intransigence is doing political damage to both of them and costing them public goodwill. An oft-quoted prayer attributed to many historical figures is the Serenity Prayer:
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
I would suggest the PM and the Australian Christian Lobby are only managing one third of this prayer, but not being a religious man myself, I would hate to be accused of hypocrisy for quoting prayers. Instead I will turn to another noted philosopher, Mr Kenny Rogers, who basically paraphrased this prayer (probably without paying royalties either) when he wrote:
"You got to know when to hold ‘em; know when to fold ‘em.
Know when to walk away; know when to run."
It is time for Tony Abbott to fold on this one (something he has proved quite effective at in other policy areas) or he may be asked to walk away.
Aside from alienating members of his own party with his staunch refusal to allow a conscience vote and his insistence that National Party MPs be included in the party room vote to bolster his numbers, Abbott also comes out again looking like a liar. Only a few months ago, after Ireland’s successful referendum, he was asked if he would consider a similar referendum in Australia and replied that under the constitution parliament was the proper forum to debate any change to the Marriage Act. Now, seeing that he does not have the support in parliament, he has turned back towards a referendum.
It paints the PM as someone who can’t be trusted by either his own party of the Australian people- an invidious position for any politician. Abbott will try to hold the line that he thinks it is now an issue for the Australian people to decide, but this will be a difficult line to sell to voters when his political opponents can simply repeat his earlier line. It makes it hard to see the suggested referendum strategy as anything other than a last-ditch strategy to thwart Marriage Equality in the same way that John Howard neutered the Republican movement.
What I really don't understand is how he thinks this must look to the people he represents and how he wouldn’t think this is hurting his party. Polling seems to indicate Australians support Marriage Equality (although statistics are often fairly easily manipulated), while the Australian Media also seems strongly on side with the issue, which is usually a good barometer that politicians pay close attention to.
No doubt the Prime Minister has strong religious convictions that have guided his policy decisions on a number of occasions (except for when the he recently ignored the Pope asking all world leaders to do more about climate change). In his previous capacity as Health Minister, he drew criticism for his unsuccessful opposition to lifting the ban on the abortion drug RU486. But right now he is flying directly against media and public sentiment and has increasingly few friends on the issue outside of the homophobes of the Australian Christian Lobby.
I don't think he would lose many votes over the issue if he gave in to what seems popular sentiment. If he were to allow a vote but continue to strongly state his personal opposition to it, the Australian Christian Lobby are not going to change their vote to Labor or Green. He might lose a few votes to the far right, but losing a few bigots might be worth it to eliminate this as an election issue. It didn’t cost David Cameron’s conservative party government when they legalised Marriage Equality in the UK.
Allowing a conscience vote, especially one that was successful, would remove the issue as a point of differentiation for the government. As such, it would give them a chance to temporarily take control of the national dialogue to start to actually win some support with some policies, or more likely attack the opposition (cough cough, Trade Union Royal Commission).
Politics is a funny business and the government may still find a way to turn things around before the next election, especially on the back of the pork-barrelling in the next budget and inevitable pre-election scare campaign about terrorism, asylum seekers and the ‘budget crisis.’ But right now, Tony Abbott seems to be digging himself quite a hole to climb out of.
The Australian Christian Lobby
Then there are the Christian lobbyists on the subject. Much like Tony Abbott, they really have not thought out their public stance well. To me this is a PR disaster for the church because it is providing plenty of fodder for passionate atheists to highlight inconsistency in religious teachings and its continued systemic failure to deal responsibly with child sexual abuse within the institution. The Christian Church could really use some good PR that made it appear a tolerant and positive contributor to society, which it is in many ways. Unfortunately Christian advocates’ dogged opposition to Marriage Equality, relying on some very weak arguments which do not withstand scrutiny, is generating ill-feeling among moderates like myself. The exploitative strategy of sending home campaign leaflets to all students in catholic schools was a particularly unfortunate choice that was widely criticised, even by Christian parents.
I wrote a previous article that tried to objectively analyse the arguments against Marriage Equality without getting angry or depressed. It wasn’t that easy.
I didn’t spend much time considering Christian arguments because our constitution explicitly states that laws should not be made based on religious beliefs (Something Tony Abbott needs to re-familiarise himself with) and I thought that was pretty much enough argument that Christian lobbyists had no business campaigning for or against anything in such a capacity.
But with the continued loud lobbying of groups like the Australian Christian Lobby and former bishop Harrower, who I have lost a lot of respect for (I respect people’s rights to hold a belief but when you back it up with disingenuous and selective arguments I withdraw that respect), I thought I would look a little further at the arguments being put forward from a Christian perspective (although I believe a number of Christians do not actually share such a perspective).
I did a bit of rather depressing trawling through a number of websites and facebook pages belonging to groups like the Australian Christian Lobby and Marriage Alliance. There was plenty of the expected statements that traditional marriage is God’s will and homosexuality is the work of Satan. The page administrators don’t even seem to bother to try to explain to people that these types of posts reduce the whole organisation’s credibility to speak about secular marriage.
There is also a lot of repetition about the timeless importance of traditional marriage as a loving union of a woman and man so that they could procreate. John Harrower’s recent opinion piece in Australian is replete with this sentiment again, suggesting marriage has always been this way and never used as part of a business arrangement or to seal alliances between families and nations. He also makes no mention of the history of polygamous marriage and is as brief as possible discussing the terrible rate of divorce for traditional marriage.
The argument that a child deserves a mother and a father is also regularly trotted out on these sites too, but no attempt is ever made to address its counter-arguments, which are many. While I feel it is a little unfair of people to use assertions about children’s rights as an excuse to go on the attack about child sexual abuse in the Church, that doesn’t mean this won’t happen. Considering how completely false and disingenuous the rights of the child argument is shown to be, it seems injudicious to be inviting attention in this area (This goes doubly for Scott Morrison speaking about children’s rights too).
Another argument that seems to have been given surprising credence by opponents of Marriage Equality is that the effect on heterosexual marriages is not being considered in the debate. If same-sex couples are allowed to marry, this will change the meaning of marriage for heterosexual couples. I kind of get this. I remember when I got my first bike. It was red and it went fast. It was really special. Then a bit later by little brother, who I considered less important than me at the time (sorry bro, it’s true- but I was seven years old) got one too and my bike felt less special. Actually, I would only get this argument, if I was still seven years old, but as an adult I can understand this is utter crap! As a married heterosexual, I can confidently state that my marriage will be completely unaffected by Marriage Equality (Sorry, I know I said I would try not to get angry. I’ll take a few deep breaths before I keep going).
A public face of this argument were the Jensens, who claimed that Marriage Equality would force them to divorce because it would change the meaning of marriage to something they did not believe in. They were rightly laughed at and derided for their stance, but also a little unfairly subjected to abuse and personal attacks. I will say plainly here that I am very uncomfortable with the level of blanket aggression that is subjected towards Christianity from some sections of the public as part of this debate. The arguments for Marriage Equality are strong enough that they do not need to rely on attacking everything about Christianity with hateful language- it’s not a good way to preach tolerance and open-mindedness.
There are a group of people being caught in the middle here. They are the tolerant Christians who do understand their beliefs have constitutionally no bearing on our laws and that the rights of homosexual couples to marry will have no impact on their own marriages. These people are unfortunately being tarred with the same brush as the fanatics and are copping the backlash. The more the Australian Christian Lobby pushes itself into the public arena, the more oxygen they give to those who enjoy highlighting inconsistencies of the Christian faith. A case in point is that each time a Christian spokesman makes a statement about the welfare of children, opponents reply with questions about the protection of paedophiles within the Church.
The Australian Christian Lobby and other organisations would be wise to step back and consider their actions. From an outsider, it would seem their public campaigning is damaging their brand. I can’t see them gaining many new followers with this strategy, as most people who oppose Marriage Equality on religious grounds are already convinced, but they would have to be losing potential ones. Each time I hear a spokesman say something stupid, I have to remind myself they do not actually represent all Christians and then I deliberately put aside any building disdain for the religion as a whole, but not everyone does this. An increasing number of people I have spoken to have expressed unfavourable opinions of the Church as a whole (not the Australian Christian Lobby’s position) as this issue has progressed. I suspect this issue will cost the Church many potential followers, particularly in the younger generations.
Sometimes the cost of winning is greater than the cost of losing; sometimes it takes more strength to lose than to win
Tony Abbott and the Australian Christian Lobby have made their positions clear on the matter of Marriage Equality, but it seems that all they are achieving now is prolonging a fight that will not go away. And this resistance comes at a price. Their continued intransigence is doing political damage to both of them and costing them public goodwill. An oft-quoted prayer attributed to many historical figures is the Serenity Prayer:
Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.
I would suggest the PM and the Australian Christian Lobby are only managing one third of this prayer, but not being a religious man myself, I would hate to be accused of hypocrisy for quoting prayers. Instead I will turn to another noted philosopher, Mr Kenny Rogers, who basically paraphrased this prayer (probably without paying royalties either) when he wrote:
"You got to know when to hold ‘em; know when to fold ‘em.
Know when to walk away; know when to run."
It is time for Tony Abbott to fold on this one (something he has proved quite effective at in other policy areas) or he may be asked to walk away.