Catholic Church must stop vilifying same-sex marriage advocates

It does not advance the important debate about the future of marriage equality in Australia and the protection of “religious freedom” by conflating the two issues and trying to characterise them as the opposite sides of the same coin (“Threat to religious freedom from same-sex debate”, Inquirer, November 28). They are not.

The matter before the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission is not about marriage equality, it is about vilification and hate speech — something outlawed in most Australian anti-­discrimination statutes.

In its formal teaching about homosexuality and about same-sex relationships the Catholic Church uses the most appalling and vilifying language.

In its official teachings, intimate homosexual relations are described as “a grave depravity” and homosexual people are described as “intrinsically disordered” with a “strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil” according to Rome’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the Catholic Bishops of Australia pastoral letter on same-sex marriage, gay couples are characterised as less than whole. Even more egregiously, at a time when the whole nation is shocked and scandalised by the revelations of widespread child abuse (especially in the churches themselves), supporters of marriage equality are accused by the bishops of “messing with kids”.

When a person or group of people is described in official publications as being seriously depraved, intrinsically disordered, less than whole and messing with kids, they are entitled to take offence, and to the extent they feel they have been vilified and subjected to hate speech they should of course seek to avail themselves of the protection against such calumnies as have been provided for by the various legislatures around ­Australia. It is simply wrong to say that such proceedings are an attempt to deny the Catholic Church the right to ventilate its views about traditional marriage.

We know the teachings of that church and many others in relation to this question — it is not the views but the offensive manner in which they are advanced and the vilification of marriage equality supporters that are at issue. That is what is at stake in these current proceedings — it has nothing to do with attempts to restrict so-called “religious freedom”.

In fact, it is well to remember that anti-discrimination laws give the churches explicit permission to discriminate, especially against homosexuals in areas such as employment, social welfare services or adoption, and that all proposals for legislated marriage equality have been framed to protect the ongoing right of the churches to continue to discriminate.

In regards to the debate about marriage equality, no one wants to prevent robust and frank debate. Like many others, I am prepared to engage with church and religious leaders and argue the toss for marriage equality — and, like many, I think I can find comfort and support in the same scriptures they read.

I am encouraged that many churches around the world have come to accept marriage equality and that many committed Christians have declared their support for it — most recently former Queensland attorney-general Jarrod Bleijie. People of faith can debate and argue with each other without resort to the sort of name-calling and vilification that has prompted this latest complaint.

Because of a complete failure on the part of the federal parliament to discharge its proper responsibilities to determine this matter, we are to be subjected to an unnecessary, unjustified and exceptionally costly ($158 million according to the Australian Electoral Commission) plebiscite.

West Australian Premier Colin Barnett has described this situation as potentially “divisive and destructive”.

Speaking in the parliament Malcolm Turnbull (who in his heart must know this is a woeful approach to take) has called for any debate accompanying the plebiscite to be conducted with civility, respect and a sense of “general humanity”.

Supporters of marriage equality have consistently done this. We have not been provoked into outrageous suggestions or vilification of those who disagree with us, although we might have been tempted from time to time, to remind the churches that when they were not burning us at the stake they certainly were doing everything in their considerable power to ensure that legislation to recognise us as equal members of the community were vigorously opposed.

It is not we who assail our opponents as seriously depraved, objectively disordered, less than whole or seeking to “mess with kids”. In this instance it is certain church leaders and representatives who, in exercising their religious freedom, have so conspicuously failed the “Turnbull test” when it comes to the quality and nature of their contribution to the public debate.

Chris Puplick is a former Liberal senator for NSW and former president of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board.