No short cuts to gay marriage

WARNING: The following column may upset readers on both sides of the gay marriage debate. It contains words that suggest a redefinition of marriage is most likely on the way. It also rejects conceited claims that supporting gay marriage is a measure of moral superiority.

Over the weekend two of Tony Abbott's daughters, Frances and Bridget, spoke publicly of their support for gay marriage.

Last week the US Supreme Court heard two cases that may determine the future of gay marriage in America. A month earlier Republican senator Rob Portman, a Midwest conservative, revealed his carefully considered change of heart about gay marriage after learning, two years ago, that his son is gay.

In Britain Prime Minister David Cameron is supporting gay marriage as a way to modernise the Tory party. In Paris last week, hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the city streets with banners saying: "we want work not gay marriage" in response to gay marriage laws introduced by socialist President Francois Hollande. Each of these vignettes offers clues about the right and wrong way to redefine the institution of marriage.

First, the Liberal Party's policy about traditional marriage being between a man and a woman will, in the long run, likely prove to be on the wrong side of history.

That does not mean that the position is wrong. On the contrary, there are many legitimate reasons for regarding marriage as a bedrock institution between a man and woman to raise children. But the reality is that there are also many people, especially younger people like Abbott's two daughters, who support changing that definition. The next generation of politicians will likely take a different view, reflecting a fundamental change within society towards marriage.

The question for gay marriage proponents is how best to change a social institution that has existed for a few thousand years. Too many activists want to take a short cut.

Last week, for example, activists asked the US Supreme Court to effectively entrench a right to gay marriage in the US constitution.

It is premature to guess how the Supreme Court will decide Hollingsworth v Perry (a case concerning the Proposition 8 initiative in California that banned gay marriage) and US v Windsor (a case about the constitutional validity of the 1996 federal Defence of Marriage Act). That said, history tells us there is a wrong way to effect social change.

The wrong way is to do what Americans call an end run around democracy. If nine unelected judges of the nation's highest court impose dramatic social change when the US constitution is far from clear, they will be snubbing their judicial noses at the people's right to decide the big social issues.

This will not settle the issue. When judges decide political, not legal, questions, they inflame tensions. The Supreme Court's still controversial 1972 decision in Roe v Wade did not settle abortion. Instead of leaving abortion to state legislatures, the court socially engineered nationwide change. That's why abortion in the US remains highly contentious.

The right way to redefine marriage is to allow the democratic process to unfold in sync with changing attitudes. But even here, there is a right and a wrong way.

The wrong way is for elites to hijack the agenda for their own dishonest reasons. For example, in Britain and the US, groups ranging from political parties to investment banks use support for gay marriage to establish their hip credentials.

It has become a form of public absolution for sins, ranging from bankers' greed to a politician's fuddy-duddiness. As Brendan O'Neill said, the British PM is using gay marriage to rebrand the Tories from the "old fart party" to cool conservatives. His Same Sex Couples Bill passed the House of Commons this year with a large majority but the issue is far from settled.

Recent polls suggest a majority (55 per cent) of Brits support gay marriage but most people (78 per cent) do not regard gay marriage as a parliamentary priority. More a case of a yawn than a yes.

Last week, Geoffrey Dear, an independent in the House of Lords, sent a letter to more than 400 peers attacking the "very one-sided" Commons committee process and the "wholly inadequate" scrutiny given to the bill. A former chief constable of the West Midlands, he wrote that after taking soundings, the concern among peers was that there was "a lot of arm-twisting going on".

Arm-twisting takes many forms. It sees gay marriage activists misrepresent their cause as the civil rights crusade of the 21st century when the reality is there is no grassroots groundswell.

By contrast, the biggest protests in Paris have been against redefining marriage.

Gay marriage is not akin to securing the vote for women or ending apartheid. After all, civil unions are commonplace. Gay couples enjoy the same substantive rights as heterosexual couples. If they don't they should. But the political battle to claim the word "marriage" for homosexuals is an elite agenda of the political classes for reasons not always honest.

Take the disingenuous claim that traditional marriage is an evil form of discrimination against gays. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in Hollingsworth last week, "when the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn't get around and say let's have this institution, but let's keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn't include homosexual couples."

Yet, those who oppose gay marriage for legitimate reasons are too often treated as morally inferior, out-of-date, and worse, bigoted.

Whether it's a snooty editorial from The New York Times ridiculing the "incoherence" of opposing gay marriage in Hollingsworth or mocking grumbles from the audience on ABC1's Q&A, too many gay marriage advocates have chosen the wrong way to advance their cause.

Redefining marriage in a way that promotes social cohesion means winning people over with reasoned arguments rather than trying to guilt them into agreeing.