Love is Love: Same Sex Marriage and the Postal Ballot in Australia
Some time after September 12 this year, Australians will be given the opportunity to vote yes or no to the legalisation of same-sex marriage in this country. Although the result of the poll will not be binding on the government, it’s virtually certain that if yes prevails, appropriate legislation will be introduced and will pass both Houses of Parliament, and similarly that if the no wins then either the legislation won’t be introduced or it won’t be passed (at least until after the next election). If the high court challenge to prevent the ballot fails, the vote will go ahead and it will have real and lasting consequences for marriage law in Australia.
Despite the fact that polls indicate that there is majority support for a change to the current legislation, a yes victory is not inevitable. Work is required to ensure this opportunity is not lost.
Vote Yes
To win the vote for marriage equality, we must encourage as many people as possible to vote yes. We have just one vote each, and we can choose whether to use it or not. We are unaccustomed in Australia to the vagaries of non-compulsory voting, and to the work required to increase participation in the ballot. The biggest risk to yes prevailing is greater mobilisation of those passionately opposed to change compared to the apathy of those who simply don’t care about the issue. Majority support is irrelevant if the majority don’t vote.
Vote yes, when the time comes. Encourage your like-minded friends to do the same.
Posting passionate pleas, angry rants and comedy on social media may feel like taking action, but it has limited value in regard to winning the vote. At best you might remind a few disengaged or disorganised friends to send their ballot in, but overwhelmingly the people inspired by this kind of post are going to vote yes anyway. It is unlikely to change the mind of a no-voter. At worst, it might entrench opposition and even motivate a backlash, since people tend to dig in and defend themselves when they’re ridiculed or when their worldview is questioned.
Prevent a boycott by supporters
That our government has decided to proceed with this postal ballot is an outrageous travesty. There are many good reasons why it should not be happening. The high-court challenge may succeed and the ballot may be stopped. That would be a just and appropriate outcome. But if the challenge fails and the vote proceeds, we must vote yes. Regardless of the reasons in favor of a boycott, choosing not to participate in the ballot is a mistake for two important reasons:
- It will not diminish the negative consequences of the ballot
- It will substantially increase the risk of no prevailing
Some people are passionately opposed to same-sex marriage. They also would prefer this ballot wasn’t happening. Those people, however, will not be boycotting the ballot. If it’s only potential yes voters who take a stand against the inappropriateness of a postal ballot as a tool for legislative change, the only effective consequence is to increase the power of the other side. This is not a time for righteous protest: pragmatic action is required. Vote yes, even if (as you should be) you’re outraged by the process.
Encourage the apathetic and uncommitted to vote yes
Most people are not affected by this legislation. Most people are heterosexual and have no interest in the private lives of homosexuals. They might be uncomfortable with homosexuality and might prefer not to discuss it, or they might be entirely disinterested. They’re neither bigots nor homophobes; they’re not religious or ideologically passionate. They might have no conviction on the issue either way, and may not vote at all. These people are your work colleagues, your acquaintances, and your extended family members. Take the time to politely and respectfully speak to these people about the issue, and ask them to vote yes. Asking directly can be very powerful.
Encourage those inclined to vote no to vote yes
Each of us has only one vote. For every person considering a boycott and for every apathetic non-voter that you can convince to vote yes instead, you effectively get another vote. But for every no vote that you can change to yes, you effectively get two extra votes: one more for yes and one less for no.
It can be difficult to understand why people are opposed to same-sex marriage. It’s easy to assume that any opposition can only be the product of ignorance and bigotry. While sometimes that’s correct, very often the opposition is instead lightly held, not well thought-through, or is mixed up with other issues. If your immediate assumption when encountering a potential no voter is that they are a homophobic bigot and to point out how ignorant and wrong they are on this issue, you may have missed an opportunity to win support for the cause, to promote acceptance and tolerance, and to win votes in the ballot.
Stephen Covey made a cliche of the phrase “First seek to understand, then to be understood”, but it’s nevertheless a valuable principle to work from. If you cannot understand why someone is opposed to same-sex marriage, you will not be able to convince them to change their mind. Listen to the reasons they’re opposed, ask questions to test your understanding, and only then respectfully counter their arguments and make the case as to why they should change their point of view. Be mindful that for most people, changing their mind on what they consider to be moral issue is disorienting and difficult. Being strident and righteous (despite the importance of the issue, and even though you’re right) will not win another vote for the cause.
In order to win a convert and a yes vote, it’s helpful to be aware of and to have thought through some of the more common reasons for opposition, and to be able to provide a calm, confident, and eloquent rebuttal. Following are some of the main categories of objection, and some suggestions for opposing argument.
Religious prohibition
- There are religious prohibitions on many things that are nevertheless widely accepted: divorce, contraception, working on the Sabbath.
- Jesus preached and demonstrated acceptance and tolerance of people who were otherwise rejected by the mainstream of society.
- Marriage is not necessarily religious and our society is not governed by religious law.
Not fair to children
- The question is whether or not to allow same-sex marriage, not whether same-sex couples can have children. It’s a separate issue.
- Same-sex couples can have children now regardless of whether they’re married or not, and since there is evidence that children of married couples do better on a range of measures that children of non-married couples, children may well be better off if same-sex marriage is legalised.
Tradition & Values
- To the idea that marriage is by definition heterosexual, and that homosexuals could have civil unions but not marriage: the definition of marriage as primarily and intrinsically heterosexual is too narrow and is not respectful of the value and meaning of marriage. Love, respect, caring and devotion are all intrinsic to marriage but transcend sexuality. It’s inappropriate to reduce the meaning of marriage to semantics.
- Marriage will still be traditionally and usually hetrosexual, regardless of whether or not same-sex couples can also marry.
- Many traditions evolve and develop over time. A broader concept of what a marriage can be does not diminish the value and meaning of a traditional heterosexual marriage.
- Marriage traditionally was an exclusively religious ceremony, but today we accept civil marriages.
Some concerns can be harder to argue against. Ideological beliefs and faiths that have been formed independently of facts and evidence are particularly resistant to reasoned argument. If someone believes that tolerance of homosexuality will lead to more homosexuality and to a breakdown of stabilizing, conventional social norms, no amount of asserting that they’re wrong is going to change that view. A better approach might be to agree that marriage is a positive force in society, and to suggest instead that therefore by allowing same-sex marriage, the perceived socially destabilising impact of homosexuality could be moderated.
Similarly, a belief that political correctness has gone too far and is corrupting social standards and eroding free speech, is not going to be changed by simply asserting that the belief is incorrect. Instead, agree that some people do indeed get carried away with the concept of political correctness, and that it can at times be invoked inappropriately, but suggest that the original idea of it was simply to acknowledge respect and tolerance. The legalisation of same-sex marriage would not be a triumph of a liberal ideology, but rather a natural step for a tolerant and fair-minded society.
To those who are concerned about a threat to religious freedom, remind them that marriage for a great many heterosexual couples is already a secular celebration, and has nothing to do with religion. The argument about the extent to which religions can or should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of their conscientious beliefs is independent of the issue of allowing secular marriage for same-sex couples.
Whatever the details of the reasons for voting no, the general principle is to find a point of agreement before pointing out the flaws in their argument, and to respect and tolerance for their opinion, however wrong it is and however much you disagree with it. No-one is going to change their mind on an issue unless they first believe that the person arguing against them understands and appreciates their point of view.
Further inspiration
While it seems more likely than not that same-sex marriage will be legal in Australia sooner rather than later, the broader issue of tolerance and acceptance of people and views different to our own is not something that can be legislated. Our society will be a better, safer place for LGBTI people when homophobia and bigotry fade away, but as important as it is to legalise same-sex marriage, legalisation will not in itself promote tolerance. Moreover, intolerance by the Left and progressives of those who hold right-wing and socially conservative views is counterproductive to the cause of reducing resistance to change by conservatives and bigots — and also therefore to the goal of increased acceptance of LGBTI people in society. Being on the right side of an issue is not a licence to demean and ridicule those who for whatever reason have not yet come to a similar understanding.
In considering these issues, I have been inspired by a black American, Daryl Davis, who has taken it upon himself to talk with members of the KKK, and who has succeeded in convincing several of them to abandon their membership. Read about his story here, or (much better) listen to him tell it in his own words on this excellent podcast.
Finally, I found this article, which makes most of the points I had intended to make when I set out to write this piece, though rather more succinctly than I have done. In particular, it says:
Here’s my plea to all of those whom I agree with on this issue.
If you assume a position of moral superiority, we will lose.
If you refuse to listen to our opponents, we will lose.
If you allow others to define the terms of this debate, we will lose.
And if you equate disagreeing with us to being, as Hillary Clinton infamously put it, “deplorable”, we will lose.
Let’s not lose this. Seek out and speak to those who are considering voting no, and by showing respect and understanding, convince them to vote yes instead.
TJ Millar, August 2017
