On the primacy of conscience
Seeking the best cases for and against same-sex marriage

In his book “Acting on Conscience” prominent Australian priest and human rights lawyer Frank Brennan writes:
The formed and informed individual conscience is the primary means for the believing community arriving at the truth in novel and uncertain circumstances. History is replete with religious authorities mistaking the moral good in time of change and uncertainty. A living tradition is the fruit of inter-generational affirmation of the primacy of conscience.
Regarding the upcoming Australian postal plebiscite on same-sex marriage, Brennan’s insight is a view affirmed by the Anglican Primate Dr Philip Freier, who has upheld the rights of parishioners to vote according to their conscience.
Here is my summary of the best arguments for both positions, as I see them. I have tried to phrase these arguments in a way that is comprehensible to the thoughtful secular person, without any unnecessary religious jargon:
An informed conscience vote for “No”
An informed conscience vote for “No” could be built on the following case: Nature’s deep structure has favoured an ingrained bio-psycho-social complementarity that is built into the sexes. Relationships which may involve acts which dishonour the body and don’t constitute proper function are not the best pattern for human flourishing. So they ought not to be promoted by the state. Children ideally should be raised with the opportunity to form deep nurturing bonds with caregivers from both sexes rather than be insulated from one sex. Children have a right to know and readily access their genetic heritage. An institution that arose organically before the rise of the nation-state ought to be respected.
Finally, an individual could argue that their particular religious text and tradition honours marriage as a unique bond separate to all others. Nowhere in their religious texts or traditions are same-sex marriage-like relationships positively affirmed.
An informed conscience vote for “Yes”
An informed conscience vote for “Yes” could be built on the following case: Neither the state nor a religion should prevent consenting adults from flourishing together in lifelong relationship, if they choose to do so. Reputable evidence shows that same-sex parenting does not harm children nor diminish the common good. Promoting stability and permanence in relationships is an inherent social good. In a flourishing civil society, liberty of conscience is paramount on this and other complicated, contested issues.
Finally, they could argue that the injunctions of their particular religious texts and traditions against same-sex acts are referring to historically exploitative or coerced behaviour such as master-slave domination or adult-youth relationships. They could suggest this is a permissible, even compelling interpretation based on robust scholarship. Hence, no religious ethical impediment exists to recognising contemporary consensual adult same-sex relations.
My personal judgement
Of these perspectives, my personal judgement is that the “Yes” case is more compelling and internally consistent; from a moral, logical and biblical perspective. This is the conclusion also reached by the late bishop of Gippsland, John McIntyre. That said, if I have represented the “No” case fairly above, one can still affirm marriage as a special relationship between a man and a woman without being a bigot. And a “No” voter can still respect, love and seek the good for those who live in same-sex partnerships, including upholding their civil rights regarding next of kin, inheritance and so forth.
May we all live up to Augustine’s timeless advice:
“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

