When it comes to the same-sex marriage plebiscite the Christian churches are making a mistake of biblical proportions.
Before the 2 July election many Christian churches urged their voters to support a plebiscite by voting for the Coalition.
Sydney Catholic Archbishop Anthony Fisher didn’t tell his parishioners how to vote, but he did write that “we could all benefit from the kind of national conversation a plebiscite should occasion”. Fisher and I don’t agree on how marriage should be defined, but there was a time I largely agreed with him on that sentiment. But I’ve changed my mind.
Last week the Anglican Bishop of Wangaratta, John Parkes, said the plebiscite would be “divisive and cause unnecessary harm to members of the Australian community”. I reckon other Christian leaders ought to consider his contribution, and reconsider theirs.
First of all, church leaders ought to think about all the other complex issues parliamentarians could outsource to a populist vote.
Voluntary euthanasia? Apparently 70% of the Australian public supports it. Sure, it’s an issue that presents complex moral and legal challenges, but hey, let’s put it to a national vote. I’m sure the churches won’t mind, given their support of a same-sex marriage plebiscite.
Decriminalising abortion? We don’t have a nationally consistent legal view on abortion in Australia. I’m sure the churches would be happy to hold a national plebiscite to resolve the differences between the states and territories.
And what about state funding for non-government schools? We live in fiscally constrained times. I’m pretty confident the 65% of Australian parents who choose public schools for their children would like very much to have a say on whether Catholic, Christian and other non-government schools should keep receiving scarce taxpayer dollars. How could the churches object?
Secondly, it seems that Coalition MPs and their allies in the Christian churches overlook the difficulty of conducting a national debate in Australia that draws out religious and moral convictions.
We don’t do those debates very well in Australia. We never have.
For example, the last time Australia relied on plebiscites to resolve a contentious matter – conscription – it inflamed sectarian animosity between Catholics and Protestants.
Our Catholic prime ministers Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott should know this history well.
Marriage equality advocates raise concerns that a plebiscite will prompt a debate that will be harmful to the health and mental wellbeing of LGBTI people, especially young people and children in LGBTI families. I’ve no doubt that this concern is warranted.
But the LGBTI community is not the only one at risk as people will be asked to campaign, argue, and contest publicly with their neighbours, friends and work colleagues about the nature and definition of marriage.
I’ve written previously about the suspicion that often attaches to people of faith engaging in political debate.
I’ve no doubt that in a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, people who believe in God and are members of a church – no matter their views on marriage equality – will face anti-religious sentiment and insults. I do believe the risk to LGBTI people and families is greater, but a debate that gives a legitimate platform to bigotry of any kind is unwise, and particularly so when the debate is utterly unnecessary in our democratic system.
Lastly, many church leaders are motivated in the same-sex marriage debate by what they perceive as threats to religious freedom. They have a right to be concerned about this. Marriage equality advocates are also concerned.
The plebiscite legislation is completely silent on how religious freedom would be maintained should the laws defining marriage change. How are churches or marriage equality advocates, or any of us, able to determine what might follow in terms of religious freedoms and restrictions if a yes vote succeeds at the plebiscite?
If we had an actual legislative amendment being considered and debated by our parliamentarians, refined and amended and contested in the parliament, we would all – the public, our MPs, the churches and marriage equality advocates – be better informed on how religious freedom would be preserved and how the right of two persons of the same gender to marry would be protected.
The reality is Australian representative democracy functions very well when it comes to dealing with complex moral and legal matters. In New South Wales we approved same-sex adoption in the parliament. We dealt carefully with issues of religious freedom. We managed a civil, respectful and thorough debate. Labor and Liberal MPs exercised a free vote in the parliament. The outcome was accepted by the public. The matter is done. No one today is trying to overturn the law.
The same would be true of a parliamentary vote on marriage equality.
The churches cheer Abbott and Turnbull to a same-sex marriage plebiscite at their peril. The next time a prime minister wants to resolve a contentious issue by a popular vote, there will be no turning back for Australia’s religious leaders.
If they tried, they just might find their arguments have turned into pillars of salt.
