Thursday night’s special edition of Q&A saw Fred Nile pitted against an equally devout Christian and established broadcaster Julie McCrossin, the self-described “friendly, suburban face of Australian lesbianism”.
Nile’s anti-equality stance, based on a conservative reading of Christianity, was deflated in the presence of someone as wholesome as McCrossin, who, in a way, personifies progress. There have always been outsiders but only recently have queer people been able to openly identify with the absolute centre of the Australian mainstream; a loud and proud “dag”.
There was therefore less animosity on the panel than many had predicted, but also less satisfaction. What transpired was essentially two conversations happening across each other: one about how far all elements of Australian society have come since the “poofter bashing” of the 1970s, and another about “the sin of buggery” and victimisation of Christians by “homosexual activists”.
This divide of outlooks was most pronounced when an audience member, in a seeming attempt to scandalise, asked whether “the twisting of bodily functions” could ever be seen as “good medicine”, referring to medical transition undertaken by trans people.
It clearly wasn’t what Julia Doulman, a trans woman on the panel, was there to discuss. She simply matched his explicit language and replaced rhetoric with reality: “I’d rather have twisted, mutilated genitals than a bullet through my head.”
Keen to preserve the positive tone set by Between A Frock and A Hard Place, a documentary about Australian queer culture that ran before the debate, host Tom Ballard helped moved the conversation on by asking Doulman to share her story on her own terms.
The debate was measured throughout by the deft moderation and charm of Ballard. At the start, he reminded viewers they could follow the debate on Twitter or, if feeling adventurous, on Grindr. He was successfully channeling that mischievousness that exemplifies Australian queer culture and comedy.
Absolutely smashing it @TomCBallard #qanda
— Claire Quilliam (@C_Quilliam) June 18, 2015
Referred to on social media in the run up to broadcast as QandGay, Ballard was unapologetic in reframing the discussion in more up-to-date terms, as LGBTIQandA. In case anyone was still in doubt about inclusivity or his credentials, he then broke down the acronym – lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, question, asexual and allied – before explaining that he would instead be using the reclaimed catch-all term: queer.
The only other questioner of the night who presumably sympathised with Fred Nile, asked “why homosexuality is being forced upon us” when “acceptance of homosexuality is a minority view” in most religions and many societies.
On the panel, Prof Dennis Altman objected directly to this characterisation, citing recent legislation for equal marriage in Britain and the US. To his right, the founder of the Wear it Purple campaign, Katherine Hudson, asserted that about 80% of people her age supported marriage equality, adding “we’re going to lead the country in the future”.
In response to a question about what could be done to prevent violence towards school students over sexual orientation, Nile said teenagers should not be taught about homosexuality because they were at a sensitive age.
“My observation is that teenagers are going through sexual development and [it] can be quite dangerous, I think, to promote homosexuality in schools to children,” he said.
Most other questions were from young queer people or those from queer families. Like the documentary before it, which reminisced about the camp choas of producing the Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert while at the same time addressing Australia’s recent history of homophobic hate-crimes, the tone of the debate shifted regularly – sometimes jarringly – from defiant humour to poignancy.
A question from a gay man ostracised by his Turkish Muslim family drew personal, often painful, reflection from panelist Paul Capsis, raised strict Catholic, and who had “teachers who couldn’t hide their animosity towards me”. McCrossin, on a more hopeful note, asserted that progress meant people could now make “families of choice” when relatives couldn’t be relied on.
When it came time to address marriage equality, Ballard again diffused the tension by outing it as the main attraction: “Here we go everyone…”
An audience member took the subject on a fresh course, at least for mainstream TV, by asking whether marriage equality, in fact, only supports assimilation and is akin to “seeking a seat at somebody else’s table”.
Not even this curveball, however, could energise the panel on a subject they all agreed on, except Nile of course, who plowed on quietly about homosexuals demanding heterosexual people’s right.
The rest either wanted the right to marry themselves or for it to be a choice open to everyone. Paul Capsis provided a reality check by reminding everyone how quickly the national mood has reached this point. He admitted the marriage debate had hardly dawned on him because “fighting for the right to just be” was still such a fresh memory.
The last official question came from a woman raised by two mothers. Ballard gave Nile another chance to say exactly what everyone knew he would. McCrossin’s misgivings, while not as forthright, seemed to come out of nowhere however.
It was a point at which generational difference, rather than that of sexuality, religion or politics, was shown to matter above all. In admitting that she was not quite reconciled with the idea of a child lacking either a male or female parental figure, McCrossin – unlike Nile – acknowledged the influence upbringing and age could have and said that, when feeling conflicted, she was “guided by the next generation”.
Altman asserted that when it came to parents: “all the research suggests there’s virtually no difference” whether those in question were gay or straight.
But, in fact, as if to tacitly acknowledge the somewhat pointless nature of such debates – a pair of echo chambers failing to even slightly form a Venn diagram – Ballard gave the last word to Mother Inferior of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
As if transported directly from the world of Priscilla, she asked from under her habit whether the ultimate answer to inequality wasn’t simply to hire drag queens as school chaplains? It sounded as if a small majority of the audience agreed with her.
