Orlando and Australia's Marriage Equality Plebiscite

Matt Glover - used with permission

The slaughter of the innocents in Florida has touched us all. With Orlando searing into our minds; the merciless death, the unspeakable horror, the unnecessary loss of beautiful lives and remarkable futures, the unutterable anguish of those left behind, the deep trauma to a community, and an LGBT community world-wide feeling once again set upon, Australia’s LGBT community stands in solidarity and profound grief with our brothers and sisters in Orlando as we know only too well that it could have been one of our loved ones had circumstances been just a little different. Circumstances were different when we lost one of our own from the Lindt café siege. Gay hate knows no national boundaries.

But this heinous action has come for Australia in the middle of a marriage equality debate; the next logical step in the long road to freedom of LGBT people in this country. By far, the most important and hotly argued topic of this issue is the Tony Abbott plebiscite that was designed to forestall a vote in the Parliament. We all know that that Malcolm ‘I haven’t changed one iota’ Turnbull has agreed with the conservatives of his party on this issue and acquiesced to their demands in order to obtain the Prime Ministership. A deal was done. Even one of their own, John Hewson, admitted that. A sordid deal was done. We all know that Malcolm Turnbull spruiks the need for democracy, for giving the people a voice, whenever he is asked about this issue. That is his serpentine excuse for putting the country through this demeaning plebiscite. I note that never once have I heard him advocate for marriage equality or prosecute its merits. He simply declares that he agrees with it but then says or does nothing about it. To use a powerful Australianism – it is a piss-poor response from a Prime Minister who could wield immense influence but chooses not to. His agreement with marriage equality is frankly worthless if that is all there is to it. Legislation could pass the Parliament today without his vote.

While Malcolm Turnbull declares disingenuously that it will be an ordered respectful affair, those of us on the receiving end of such debates know better. America is already reeling with the tweet of the Texas Lt. Governor quoting the “God will not be mocked” scripture implying that gay people dancing and enjoying a night club is a mocking of God. Then you get the religious nutters like Westboro Baptist congratulating the shooter, and the pastor who advocates that, though he would never take the law into his own hands, gay people should be legally executed by the Government. That guy is happy the shooter murdered these people so that the world will have “50 less paedophiles”. But don’t for a minute think that this kind of thing is only done in the mad Bible belt of America. Not so.

Only a few weeks ago, the president of the Australian Christian Lobby, Lyle Shelton, likened the advent of marriage equality here to the rise of Nazi Germany in the 1930s saying, “The cowardice and weakness of Australia's 'gatekeepers' is causing unthinkable things to happen, just as unthinkable things happened in Germany in the 1930s” (my italics). Christian fundamentalists here never tire of telling us all that being gay is unnatural, against the order of nature, an intrinsic disorder, an inclination toward moral evil, an abomination, a rejection of God, a profanity, a sin, and worthy of eternal punishment. Why, only three days ago, I endured a pentecostal pastor on a Facebook post about asylum seeker policy, and read by many LGBT people, declare, “gay marriage – Abomination – black and white opposed to God”.

All the arguments that marriage equality will destroy marriage and harm children and hurt the nation are all just so much hot air and have been thoroughly and convincingly debunked by facts and sound logic for a long time now. 

There are bigoted reasons why Australians should reject marriage equality, 

but there are no good reasons.

We are a non-discriminatory pluralist secular nation that is not a theocracy and that is not governed by popular plebiscite.

But the Abbott plebiscite will allow every antagonist, every opponent, every religious fundamentalist, every bigot, every homophobe, every hate-filled rogue element, a tax-payer funded free kick to say whatever they like and do so with virtual impunity. The plebiscite debate will demean gay relationships by preparing the ground for ‘a frank and firm public evaluation of our relationships’ and creating a context for hate-speech and calumny of every description. It will be argued strongly that our relationships are not of the quality that should be attached to the word ‘marriage’ and every nasty trick in the book will be brought out by some who do not mind getting down into the gutter. How utterly demeaning! While we’re at it, just to be fair, should we not throw Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull’s as well as Tony and Margy Abbott’s relationships into the plebiscite for public evaluation too?

Orlando is the polar end of the spectrum. Hatred, violence and murder. The actions of this lone gunman have been shaped by historical forces that prepared the ground for his murderous rage and found voice and took shape in either his neurosis or his ideological affiliation. At the other end of the spectrum are the little question marks over the morality of gay people that the pentecostal minister might ask, or the speculation about paedophilia made by the conservative politician, ever so politely, linking it with gay people, or the declaration of God’s judgement on our land made by a Fred Nile or a Lyle Shelton quoting 2 Chronicles 7: 14 and equating gay people with the “wicked ways” that God will heal us from if only we would repent. 

Orlando does not happen in a vacuum. Orlando does not happen free from powerful social and psychological forces that should have been challenged. Gay hate, prejudice, bigotry and homophobia do not happen in a vacuum. They happen in a social context, where push-back against change occurs out of fear and ignorance and goes unchallenged.

In this context, it is wrong to push ahead in Australia with a marriage plebiscite.

It should be abandoned - totally, utterly and unequivocally.

Let the opponents of marriage equality jump up and down and scream blue murder all they like, but this invitation to public bigotry should be abandoned. It is unnecessary, harmful, costly, and very unwise, given that it has the potential to fuel the rage of the deranged or the dogma of the religionist. Turnbull’s ‘what could be more democratic than giving people a say’? is disingenuous and dangerous. The numbers are already there in the Parliament to pass proposed marriage equality legislation and with over two thirds of the population backing it in support, this is a no-brainer.

We have seen public racism get a foot-hold in this country with hooded bands of racist thugs marching in our streets equating their perverted ideology with love of country. The modern version of this started by allowing Pauline Hanson’s words to go unchallenged in the 1990s. The genie was let out of the bottle. The same mistake cannot be allowed to be made with homophobia and gay-hate. It must be challenged at every turn and certainly not given a respectable platform in the guise of a national plebiscite. Conservative and religious voices overstep the mark when they start playing with this kind of rhetorical fire. Good people get burned. You only have to look at Orlando.

The plebiscite is immoral and demeaning. It is wrong to pursue it. It must be abandoned.

Bigots and Homophobes: Name-calling or Calling Out Prejudice?

The Australian Senate has recently held hearings from various parties on the subject of marriage equality as a forerunner to a public vote (or plebiscite) on the issue. This plebiscite is unnecessary, costly, divisive, and the result of a strategy by Tony Abbott to delay its adoption. One particular presentation is of particular interest here from Australia's most powerful conservative Christian group, the Australian Christian Lobby (the ACL). This group does not represent Australia's Christian population but they market themselves as such and have strong connections in Canberra. I watched their presentation recently in which they suggested that the real barrier to progress in the debate over gay rights is the fact that people keep 'name-calling' each other with the putative insults 'bigot' and 'homophobe'. According to the ACL, these words are unnecessary and are holding the debate back. One of my former Church colleagues recently promoted the ACL's speech on social media with the endorsement: “here here, don’t like the name-calling”.

So I want to ask this question: 

When is it okay to use the word bigot or homophobe or their derivatives?

Or are these words off limits?

Is using these words really the same thing as ‘name-calling’?

I think I will know what most LGBTI people will say. Almost all LGBTI people have suffered the effects of homophobia: rejection, humiliation, intimidation, harassment, threats of violence, and in many cases, actual violence. We also suffer micro-aggressions on a daily basis such as being made fun of, the butt of jokes, the whispered message behind the hand, the giggle after we pass by. The word 'gay' is still used as an insult and a derogatory term. Youth suicide in the LGBTI population is six times higher than in the general population for the same age-group. Further, most LGBTI people will know that the ACL believes our lives to be lives of sin, a rejection of God, against nature, decadent, self-centred, and that our relationships do not have the same existential equivalence as heterosexual relationships. They also know that the ACL and people of their ilk will do anything and everything they can to stop us from being able to legally marry our partners.

But I also wonder why it is that the ACL wants these two words to be inadmissible in the marriage equality debate. One of the things we know is that prejudiced people are supremely uncomfortable in owning up to their prejudice. They will turn mental and linguistic gymnastics to remove themselves from the idea they might be prejudiced in some way. "I'm not racist but - - - -" is the classic example. Following on from such a statement is invariably a racist statement. So with homophobia. "I'm not homophobic but - - - -". And thence follows a homophobic statement. It seems that even when people are being overtly prejudiced, they want to cover it over or hide it in some way. The last thing they want, is to be exposed. I would suggest that this is the very reason the ACL wants the words bigot and homophobe expunged from the Australian psyche while the marriage equality debate progresses its murky way up to Abbott's plebiscite. This way, they can say what they want and not have to answer the charge of bigotry and homophobia. They want total freedom to hurl insulting and offensive social comments and theological teachings at the gay community with total impunity; pure as the driven snow are they. And should we dare attempt to call them out on it, well then, aren't we a nasty and uncaring and insensitive group of irreligious people bent on wrecking society.

So, a couple of dictionary definitions suggest that this word 'bigot' is not as offensive as what the ACL would like us all to believe. 

A bigot is:

“a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance” Merriam-Webster Online

“a person who has very strong, unreasonable beliefs or opinions about race, religion or politics and who will not listen to or accept the opinions of anyone who disagrees” Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Online.

Now Western society has generally moved on from the ACL/fundamentalist view of gay sexuality. And frankly, so have many people of faith. The Christian Church in many quarters has begun the journey of re-visiting its centuries old traditional teachings on human sexuality as I urged in my book Being Gay Being Christian. This shift in society is why so many countries have already legislated against discriminating against gay and lesbian people and celebrating the wonderful binding feeling that equality brings. Marriage has been extended to gay and lesbian couples and the devastation and mayhem predicted by the opponents has not come to pass.

So for me, there is an absolute. It is not okay, and by that I mean totally unacceptable, to not ever, not anywhere, not by anyone, no exception, by priest, prelate, prince, or pauper to denigrate, put down, discriminate or derogate LGBTI people, any more than it is okay to the same to women, people with non-white skin, non-Anglo ethnicities, the disabled, the indigenous or the poor. Such prejudice is bigotry. If you hear it, you will recognise it. And you will feel its ugliness.

If you do this on the basis of skin colour or ethnicity, you are racist. Calling someone out for racism is not the same as name-calling. I care more for the victim’s sensitivities than I do for the perpetrator’s. If a racist is offended by our calling them out, then bad luck. Wear the shame.

If you do this on the basis of opposition to gay and lesbian people, you are homophobic. Calling someone out for homophobia is not the same thing as name-calling. I care more for the victim’s sensitivities than I do for the perpetrator’s. If a homophobe is offended by our calling them out, then bad luck. Wear the shame.

Now attacking gay and lesbian people the way the Australian Christian Lobby does is bigotry, plain and simple. They tell untruths, they fear-monger, they predict the destruction of society, they predict the desolation of families, they predict devastation to children. And they do all this just because we are gay. They do not do this to single mums or single dads or divorced people marrying a second time, or the older generation marrying late in life after a life-spouse has passed away and love is rediscovered, or to the disabled who marry, or even young couples who choose not to have children; no. They only do it to gay people.

Sometimes they use social rationales; all bogus. Sometimes they use theological rationales; all weak, conservative and out-dated. They are evangelical and pentecostal fundamentalists who control this group and they promulgate the platform that gay sexuality is a choice, a sin and, for many of their adherents, a psychological sickness or caused by demonic oppression. They all believe that our relationships are inferior.

So I don’t really care how many Bible verses they quote.  And I don’t really care how softly spoken they are in Senate hearings and how utterly reasonable they sound when they suggest that name-calling should have no part in this debate. It is bigotry and it is homophobia. And it is not name-calling to call them out.

Name-calling is for kids. It’s juvenile behaviour. It’s to be found in the playground. The ACL’s pronouncements and the money they intend to spend on militant advocacy against marriage equality needs to be met with the same strength as they themselves put forth.

There is some resonance for me today as I listened to Anote Tong, the President of Kirabati, in answering Tony Abbott with regard to Pacific islands being inundated by the sea due to climate change and Australia’s refusal to have greater emissions targets thus effecting those same islands, where Abbott stated that Australia had to protect its economy. President Tong shaking his head said, ‘this is not our economy we are protecting; this is an existential threat, we have to protect our future’. Marriage equality is up for grabs in Australia at the moment. We are the last of the major developed countries in the world to legislate for this. We have a Prime Minister implacably opposed and who is working behind the scenes to ensure this never happens. The ACL is there right beside him, resolved to use fair means or foul, including bigoted and homophobic declarations. For gay and lesbian people, this is not about a nasty Christian fundamentalist group whom most sensible people ignore anyway, but an existential threat to our place in Australian society as equals.

Bigotry and homophobia both exist and they are equally ugly no matter whose mouth they come from.

PS. I have written three articles on homophobia in my BGBC Blog if you are interested: 

IDAHO Day 2012    http://beinggaybeingchristian.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/idaho-day-2012.html     

IDAHO Day 2013    http://beinggaybeingchristian.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/idaho-day-2013.html      

IDAHOT Day 2014  http://beinggaybeingchristian.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/idahot-day-2014.html