Same-Sex Marriage

In Australia at present, the topic of same-sex marriage (SSM) has been much on the agenda, partly because we have a plebiscite on the way, but also because it has been a cri de cœur of the virtue signalling left in most of the rest of the world. We here in Australia will not be left behind when it comes to signalling our virtue.


My own view on this is very simple. Consenting adults should be able to do whatever the hell they like. I frankly don’t see why government needs to be involved in marriage at all and if I have an objection to SSM at all, it’s that it’s yet another government involvement in the personal lives of people that don’t actually need it.

There are, of course, sincerely held views on both sides of the argument, but if you read the news in Australia, you will probably have a view that this debate is between the freedom loving, tolerant and virtuous on the one side and nazi troglodytes on the other. I’ll note here that it is possible to disagree with an argument but admire the people that make it and it is equally possible to agree with an argument and find the people that make it insufferable, holier-than-thou prats.

Anyway, I plan to outline here what I see as the main arguments from the ‘no’ campaign and why I disagree with them.

When I google “"backing the no campaign" australia SSM” I get exactly one response, which somehow links to an article about the iPhoneX. The yes campaign however is overwhelmed with support, especially from companies, professional associations and sporting clubs, all falling over themselves to hold themselves out as progressive and virtuous. I doubt that many of them consulted their shareholders of members before proselytising for the gay fraternity (or indeed the lesbian sorority) but that’s another point. I notice too that Telstra in a rare display of common sense, has withdrawn their overt support for the ‘yes’ campaign. What on earth are businesses doing taking sides in a political debate?

The strongest and most coherent objection to SSM is the potential for infringement on religious freedoms and, as a devout atheist, you might think that this does not appeal to me as an argument, but you would be wrong. Well, sort of wrong.

There are and have been a few cases recently, notably in the US, where business owners have been prosecuted for discrimination against gay couples. Perhaps the two most famous ones are the florist case, where a florist refused to cater for a gay wedding and a bakery, where a baker refused to cater for a gay wedding. [1] In both cases the refusal was based on sincerely held religious beliefs. I don’t much care about which particular sky fairy you really believe is the one true sky fairy, but I do believe that as a private business owner that you have the right to decide who you’re going to do business with.

There is little doubt that the operation of Australia’s vast and arcane set of ant-discrimination laws will move swiftly to include same-sex couples as a discriminated minority. An idea that should be laughable given the enormous influence wielded by the same-sex lobby groups. Nonetheless, the Human Rights commission and various other rent-seeking virtue-signallers will soon be wringing their hands over perceived slights to same-sex couples.

Now maybe I am missing a point here, but it seems to me that there is no shortage of florists or bakeries. It does seem to me that the person most harmed in the case of refusal of service is the business owner. Adam and Steve, if they are sensible, will shrug their shoulders, adopt a slightly bemused attitude at the baker’s disdain and walk down the road to another baker. The score would be one point to Adam and Steve and zero points to the god-bothering holy baker.

Why the government needs to be involved in this is anybody’s guess.

This above is largely the argument put forward by John Howard, Tony Abbott and various others. Corey Bernardi’s view involve a great deal more godliness and Pauline Hanson’s view is anybody’s guess. As far as I can tell, she has placed herself in the uncomfortable position of siding with fundamentalist Muslims in deciding that marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. That will be an interesting meeting.

In fact the one area where there is likely to be religious protection is the one area where there shouldn’t be and that is in the area of religious ceremonies. Many on the ‘no’ side of the argument are concerned that churches or religious groups might be forced to conduct services for same-sex couples. I think it unlikely, although I would pay good money to see Imam Shaykh Yahya Safi conducting a same sex marriage ceremony at Lakemba Mosque.

I don’t think religions should be protected at all.

The fact is that religions in Australia exist and profit largely because they are supported by the government. They pay no tax and receive obscene amounts of money for their ‘good works’. For as long as they are taking government money, they should follow government orders.

So in terms of religious freedoms, I certainly have a great deal of sympathy for the ’no’ campaign and I suspect their fears that private businesses will be forced to act in a specific way by governments is entirely justified. I am in fact deeply concerned about that. I don’t discount that concern, but rather feel that it is secondary to the fundamental freedom of people to do whatever they damn well please as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights to do whatever they damn well please. It's kind of a Libertarian thing.

Another point that the no campaign argues on is the rights of children. Here again I have sympathy with their views while ultimately rejecting them. There is a wealth of scientific data suggesting that children have better outcomes if both a mother and father are involved in their early life especially. While this might be true, it’s also true that children have better outcomes if both parents are terribly wealthy. Sadly, not all children have this advantage.

Still, it’s a fair argument that children should be given every advantage possible in their lives and if being raised by a mother and a father is something that the “no campaign” is really arguing for then they should probably be arguing with adoption or in vitro fertilisation laws. As far as I am aware, it’s not actually possible for a same sex couple to have children without the involvement of a third party.

So again, while I have some sympathy with the argument, ultimately I reject it as not being worthy of the removal of liberties from a large section of society.

I won’t trouble you with the ‘thin end of the wedge’ arguments, for I am hopeful that if you read this far into my blog posts, you are able to figure that out for yourself. I also won’t bother with the argument that one particular sky-fairy or another feels that it’s wrong for blokes to get it on with each other or for the ladies to do whatever it is they do. I’ll pay attention to your sky-fairy when you show me his opinion on iPads.

One final argument against same-sex marriage and, for me at least, the one that carries the most weight is a legal, or more properly a constitutional one. The Australian Constitution, a remarkably short document, has this to say about marriage [51(xxi)];

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to […] marriage.

That’s it.

Now you might find this fairly straightforward, but you need to keep in mind what the definition of the word marriage was at the time the constitution was drafted. It was unarguably a marriage between a man and a woman. Now you might say that definitions change and I would agree with you there, but the constitution does not say “marriage, and other like institutions” whereas it does say “postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services”

I happen to believe that it’s a good thing that the constitution is so difficult to change and I think that it’s acted as a brake on radical governments and their proposals of all stripes over the years. In this case, I think it would have been better to make a change through the constitution rather than through legislation, but I am very conservative in these matters. For me, the more brakes on government the better. Nonetheless, the High Court has determined, during a hearing challenging same-sex legislation in the A.C.T., that the word “marriage” is a “topic of juristic classification”, which is to say that the original meaning of the word has no bearing.

So reluctantly. Very reluctantly, I accept that the parliament has the right to make laws with respect to marriage as a topic of juristic classification, rather than as a specific institution. Annoying that.

So I will be voting yes and will be doing so despite being annoyed with most of the ‘yes’ campaigners.

Finally, now that I have got the more serious matters of the argument out of the way, I encourage you to check on the views expressed by Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard, Penny Wong, Wayne Swan and so many others expressed while they actually had the power to do something about it.



[1] Easiest way to find more about these is from the wiki pages: Arlene's Flowers and Masterpiece Cakeshop. Masterpiece is not yet resolved, but Arlene's has been. There is a similar case Sweet Cakes by Melissa. On the wiki pages you'll find links to the actual decisions and other articles.


Photo courtesy Guy of taipei (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons