16.1 C
Byron Shire
April 16, 2021

Conservatives should embrace same-sex marriage

Latest News

Sally Flannery discovers dark side of ‘Lovemore’

Since declaring her interest in running for Lismore Council, local woman Sally Flannery has been subjected to sustained attacks, both online and upon her property.

Other News

Councillors move to create alternative housing market

Byron Council is aiming to make 10 per cent of local housing genuinely affordable within the space of a decade, under a brave and ambitious plan to implement a Community Land Trust (CLT) model across the Shire.  

Francis Cloake in running for National Portrait Prize

Byron Bay's Francis Cloake is one of two Northern Rivers photographers named as a finalist in the prestigious Living Memory: National Photographic Portrait Prize.

SCU celebrates alumni achievements with awards

A group of Southern Cross University graduates who have made extraordinary global achievements in research, community building, healthcare and environmental issues have been acknowledged with the 2020 Alumni Impact Awards.

Disguised junk mail

A Sinclair, Mullumbimby Does anyone know who is responsible for the thinly disguised bundles of junk mail that are now...

Sprout lovers

Sprouts can sometimes be overlooked on the weekly grocery list… except for those in the know, of course!

The return of the prodigal son

Gallery DownTown, the annexe of Tweed Regional Gallery, is presenting a new exhibition by regional artists.

A crowd gathers outside of City Hall in San Francisco as mayor Ed Lee speaks at a news conference on June 26 after the US Supreme Court ruled that  same-sex couples have the right to marry nationwide. Photo: AP Photo/Jeff Chiu
A crowd gathers outside of City Hall in San Francisco as mayor Ed Lee speaks at a news conference on June 26 after the US Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry nationwide. Photo: AP Photo/Jeff Chiu

Russell Blackford, The Conversation

In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, decided on 26 June 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled by a 5-4 majority in favour of same-sex marriage. The majority judges have held that state governments must license same-sex marriages and recognize same-sex marriages lawfully licensed and performed elsewhere.

The SCOTUS decision

The ‘opinion of the Court’ – i.e. the opinion commanding a majority of judges – was delivered by Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Chief Justice Roberts dissented, along with Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

Although I have not yet digested the entire 100 pages of the judges’ opinions, it is clear that the case turned on the court’s interpretation of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, which, most relevantly, requires as follows: ‘No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’

The legal issue, then, was whether the refusal by numerous states of the union to license, register, and recognize same-sex marriages amounted to a breach of the Equal Protection Clause, i.e. a denial of the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, soon after the American Civil War, and the obvious intention of the Equal Protection Clause was to forbid discrimination in the American legal systems of the time on racial grounds – particularly, it was to forbid discrimination against emancipated black slaves. The wording is, however, sweeping, and there is nothing to prevent its interpretation as forbidding discrimination by the law on the ground of sexual orientation.

Still, it’s obvious enough that, simply as a matter of black letter legal interpretation and established precedent, the case of same-sex marriage could be argued either way. After all, four of the nine judges dissented in this case, and a court with only a slightly different composition could have ruled the other way. Nor is it clear from what I’ve read so far that the dissenters reasoned in a merely contrived manner: they argue, with much exasperation but some plausibility, that it is the majority who have stretched the historical and legal intention of the words.

At the same time, it is also obvious enough how the words, broadly and generously construed, can be used to strike down state laws that allow opposite-sex couples to marry – with all that that entails socially and legally – while not allowing same-sex couples to do so.

My own support for the provision of same-sex marriages is already on the public record, so it’s not surprising that I welcome the outcome, and I am pleased for the same-sex couples who will benefit from it. (I examine the issues in some detail in my 2012 book, Freedom of Religion and the Secular State.) There is much euphoria, and I extend my congratulations to all the gay men and lesbians who will now have what was denied them: the ability to marry partners whom they love.

Conservatives should move on

There is also room for some dispassionate reflection on what this judgment really signifies in historical perspective. One point that has been missed by many commentators is that this legal victory for gay couples, the result of many years of activism, is not entirely a social defeat for conservatives; and, although they are not my political tribe, I urge them to embrace the outcome as reflecting a social compromise that they can live with and even take some comfort from.

For an earlier generation of left-wing activists, marriage was an outmoded, patriarchal, and oppressive institution aimed largely at reining in the sexuality of women. Prior to the 1980s, it had little attraction (or perceived relevance) to the gay and lesbian community, and many sexual radicals sought its destruction as a key social and legal institution.

For now, that viewpoint – one for which I retain some residual sympathy – has lost out. This happened in the context of a grand social compromise, whereby the nature of marriage was considerably, and increasingly, transformed. In earlier centuries, within European Christendom and its colonial extensions, the purposes of marriage tended to be patriarchal and disadvantageous to women, often less than romantic, and largely concerned with economic ends. The ideal of an equal union involving love, intimacy, and companionship gradually became the dominant understanding of marriage only during past two centuries or so, and marriage’s rejection as a means of sexual control – as a narrow circle within which sexual experience would be legally and socially acceptable – is even more recent.

Australia, is increasingly an outlier among Western liberal democracies in not providing for same-sex marriage. Resistance to the idea has become absurd and unnecessary. It looks mean-spirited and out of touch.

The institution of marriage has survived the sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. It continues to maintain social prestige, and it retains deep emotional significance for most citizens, including very many gay men and lesbians. Once they shed their aversion to homosexuality itself – as, to their credit, many have – social conservatives should take heart that marriage is something that so many gay men and lesbians actually want, and that it remains, admittedly much transformed, a treasured and idealised institution.

Social conservatism likewise needs to transform itself: conservatives should accept the legal outcome in this case, understand the continuing social importance of marriage as in many ways a victory for their viewpoint, and move on. There are many other issues around which they can continue to define themselves. This should no longer be one of them. The contemporary conception of marriage is one that conservatives can find the resources to accept and value, but it is a conception of marriage from which gays can no longer rationally be excluded.

For the foreseeable future, at any rate, marriage is not going away as a crucial, widely endorsed and admired, social institution. The campaign leading up to the latest result in the US is evidence of that, and the Supreme Court victory may well consolidate, rather than diminish, the institution’s ongoing relevance.

The social meaning of marriage has altered dramatically over the past half-century – for the better, in my opinion – but note that Obergefell v. Hodges is the culmination of changes that had already taken place during that time. This social, and now legal, result confirms that marriage is a different, a kinder, more companionate, less patriarchal, institution from what it was in the eighteenth century or even, say, the 1950s. The provision of same-sex marriage makes sense only in that context: but again, the increasing availability of same-sex marriage is a result, not the cause, of the changing nature of marriage itself.

What about Australia?

My own country, Australia, is increasingly an outlier among Western liberal democracies in not providing for same-sex marriage. At this point, resistance to the idea has become absurd and unnecessary (even, I submit, from the viewpoint of realistic conservatives). It looks mean-spirited and out of touch.

Australian politicians need to understand that the popular mood has changed. Marriage itself has changed, along with its social meaning. It’s about time to accept that.

Russell Blackford is conjoint lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Newcastle.

This article first appeared in The Conversation.

 


Support The Echo

Keeping the community together and the community voice loud and clear is what The Echo is about. More than ever we need your help to keep this voice alive and thriving in the community.

Like all businesses we are struggling to keep food on the table of all our local and hard working journalists, artists, sales, delivery and drudges who keep the news coming out to you both in the newspaper and online. If you can spare a few dollars a week – or maybe more – we would appreciate all the support you are able to give to keep the voice of independent, local journalism alive.

1 COMMENT

  1. hey Prof!
    Australian politicians need to understand that the popular mood has changed. Marriage itself has changed, along with its social meaning. It’s about time to accept that.
    Australian politicians can accept all they like about your, so-called, ‘same sex marriage’, but to change the laws, in Australia, we must have a referendum!!
    with a DD election, before Christmas, I can’t see any referendum, on the subject of changing the marriage act, in Australia, for another 5 or 6 years.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

SCU named as partner in two national drought hubs

Southern Cross University has been announced as playing a crucial partnership role in two new Drought Resilience Adoption and Innovation Hubs.

ALP puts war power reform on the agenda

The Australian Labor Party will hold a public inquiry into how Australia goes to war if elected to government next year.

Help from Red Cross for flood-affected communities in NSW

With disasters coming thick and fast as the climate emergency worsens, Australian Red Cross this morning launched financial help for flood-affected communities in NSW.

Rocky Creek Field Day coming in July

As part of the Rural Landholder Initiative, rural landholders in the Rocky Creek area are invited to an Off-stream Watering and Riparian Habitat Field Day.