previous home Nurturing Justice next
We have been seeking to promote Christian political thinking, encouraging readers to explore the principles that should guide us in responsible Christian citizenship. We have consistently raised objections to the concerted push, particularly by the Greens, for a change in the legal definition of marriage. That we will continue to do. There will be those who read Nurturing Justice's opposition to "gay marriage" as a reaction, perhaps as an obsession with sex and sexuality, even as an inborn inability to be progressive.
But regressive and reactionary policies are not the sole preserve of one or other political party. If we have learnt anything from "progressive" political movements in the 20th century, it has been that the party calling itself "progressive" has all too often been the leading advocate of reactionary policies and State absolutism. And the temptation to "political reaction" comes just as strongly to advocates as to opponents of "gay marriage". To evaluate the view that "gay marriage" legislation is progressive requires us to identify the advocate's view of progress? What is meant by "progress" in the push for "gay marriage"?
In this edition I outline a view which, if read and taken seriously by the advocates of "gay marriage", will provoke them to explain why this ongoing push to change the legal definition of marriage is not a reactionary political viewpoint. The push for "gay marriage" implies State absolutism, even if that is an unintended consequence of the policy proposal. Certainly, advocates of this change to the legal definition of marriage are going to find it difficult to explain how State absolutism with respect to the marriage institution is in any way progressive. In fact, State absolutism is an approach to government involvement in social life which is reactionary and regressive.
Still, we should be also concerned about the prevailing dogmatic reaction to this legislative demand, particularly when its opponents (e.g PM Julia Gillard) fail to provide a comprehensive political view that explains how marriage qua institution relates positively to the political order. Sadly, in our polity there is little by way of positive political argument to justify the legal definition of marriage as a permanent, exclusive, life-long bond between a man and a woman. At least not much that gets into the media mainstream and political debate. What we usually encounter in Federal politics is a dogmatic "no", or a pragmatic "no" that has its eye on the electorate's reaction, or the highly ambiguous fob-off that says that it is not the time to consider the issue and it will be revisited when most of our citizens have got used to the idea. That is a view that simply replaces the need for responsible Government policy with the political ambiguity of weasel words!
As we have pointed out previously, attempts to deal with this issue by "conscience votes" simply endorse the cumulative failures of the major political parties to promote genuine public political debate about marriage and other vital issues of "body politics".
The Australian Greens party wants the electorate to know that it has made up its mind on this issue - that is why its elected representatives continue to push it at every opportunity, But have the Greens promoted the genuine political debate about marriage that needs to be debated nation-wide before putting their demands on this issue to the Parliament? No they haven't. They too avoid the debate as it needs to be developed nation-wide. Instead they presume that by tabling proposed legislation they have done what is needed to generate public debate! This is a serious mistake and one that puts unnecessary strains upon the relationship of accountability between elected representatives and their electors, particularly if the Greens are successful in gaining acceptance of their allied demand of a "conscience vote" on this issue. A "conscience vote" on this issue simply avoids the need for open public political debate, and instead attempts to ram the "Vox populi, Vox Dei" dogma down the throats of every Australian citizen. It should be resisted. But how?
In repeatedly pushing this issue without having first promoted the necessary debate, and generated the much needed exchange of views, assessing the issues in terms of the demands of public justice for all, the Greens join Labor, Liberal and National parties in failing the Australian electorate on an issue that needs to be given proper airing and due respect.
But there is a real problem here for developing a Christian political response to this issue, not least because, as Christians, we have failed to develop a viable Christian political option. Christians should not shout too loud in criticism of the Greens for at least they have developed their political agenda, when we have been so slow to develop even the broad outlines of a distinctive approach. But now that matters have become cumulative and many sense the seriousness of the "post-Christian" situation. In this context the years of Christian neglect in developing a distinctive approach to politics and jurisprudence cannot be overcome by mere opposition to populist demands by launching yet another populist appeal to conservative sentiment! That, as we have discovered, again and again, does not give us a coherent political response. A dogmatic rejection of the "gay marriage" demand is simply an inadequate political response. And an inadequate political response on this matter cannot move forward with a constructive view; rather, in political terms, all it can do is to stand in the same place waiting for the opposing view to gather sufficient momentum to push it aside. Such a stand, despite any good intentions to the contrary, capitulates to the radical secularisation in all of life. A coherent Christian political response that reckons with the character of marriage as an institution with a vital public dimension, is what is needed.
In recent decades we have discovered how the law can be reformed and developed to give us a legal system that allows legally for the development of life styles that do not, as matter of law, require those engaged in living and promoting such life-styles to adhere to a hetero-sexual monogamous view of sexual relations. The fabric of our laws, including laws which have hitherto assumed that marriage is "a permanent, exclusive, life-long bond between a woman and a man", has nevertheless enabled our elected members of parliament and lawmakers to form laws and public regulations that are broadly tolerant of a variety of life-styles, living together arrangements and this also includes laws which have a bearing upon the way sexuality and sexual relations function in public life.
But the demand - and that is what it amounts to - for a change in the legal definition of marriage, seems to ignore the way the law works, and the way reform to the law has worked. To begin with, the demand is so insistent upon this change on the basis of a claim to the "right of equality for all citizens", that it has not actually explained why marriage should be viewed as a civil right. That is the nub of the issue here. And if you have to read this paragraph again - and again - it will be because this insight is not so easily understood by us in its political meaning in this political context. There are probably good reasons why the advocates of "gay marriage" do not even try to explain marriage as a civil right. The major reason is that by this demand they are in fact wanting legislation that will henceforth require marriage to be viewed as a civil right.
Again you may well have to read that last paragraph and last sentence again, and again, to get its import. It is not just a change in the legal definition of marriage that is being demanded here. It is that but it also a change that implies a change in how the law works with respect to marriage! It would involve the view that Parliament, in passing this proposed legislation, should take charge and change the institution of marriage itself. In other words, the demand that legislation be passed in the Federal or State legislatures to include "homosexual relations" within the legal definition of marriage is not simply a matter of "gay rights", but a matter of changing the fabric of our laws which means that henceforth it will be the State that creates marriage according to an abstract "right of equality" demanded for all citizens. What advocates of gay marriage in the Australian Federal and State Parliaments need to explain is why they are seeking this extension of State power over the institution of marriage. Why, in other words, are they so committed to State absolutism when it comes to the marriage institution?
Meanwhile, those of us who do not support the change to the legal definition of marriage to include "gay marriage", and who are opposed to State absolutism, should be eager to develop a just view of the way we should be governed in our complex, differentiated society. And so we have our work cut out for us. We may not actively support the homosexual life-style but we will be eager to advocate public justice for all citizens, whatever their chosen lifestyles. How are we going to develop a positive political perspective on the vital contribution played by the institution of marriage in building a just and healthy society? How is our view of marriage an integral part of a political vision of fairness for all citizens? Why, after all, does the law need to recognise marriage as the life-long permanent and exclusive bond between a woman and a man? What just consequences should positively flow from such a viewpoint? These, clearly, are some of the questions that such a Christian political option and its policies will have to address and then put forward with a coherent political answer. There are other matters in relation to this "push" that have to be aired as well. We shall have more to say in later editions of Nurturing Justice. In the meantime we have a lot of serious research, analysis and reflection to do.
_______________________________________________________________
Nurturing Justice is written by Bruce Wearne, Point Lonsdale, to encourage a sustained Christian political contribution by seeking justice in the gentle and merciful rule of Jesus Christ, the ruler over all of the earth's political regimes.
September 2010 © The contents of this email are copyright.
Documents may be photocopied or retransmitted in their entirety but not
otherwise reprinted or transmitted without permission. "Nurturing
Justice" is a project to encourage Christian political reflection based
upon wise and loving civic participation. Comments are welcome and should be
sent to bcwearne@ozemail.com.au
Gladly connected to peakdirectory.com