On August 31 2011, former Australian judge Michael Kirby (pictured left, admiring a picture of himself) argued in The Australian (“A union to make believers of us all”) that gay marriage is innocuous, and just something that civilised people do. Instead of proving his case, as one might expect from a mind as precise as Kirby’s, the argument was presented in away that tried to press emotional buttons. (I often find this to be the case in the way that the gay lobby prefers to argue for their rights: either push hard and furiously to intimidate and browbeat; or to appeal to the heart-strings and make fluffy statements about ‘love’ that have fundamentally weak grounding. This all goes to show that there is little internal and philosophical integrity in arguing in favour of gay marriage rights; it is asserted, not self-evident.) I want to comment on this article because it illustrates well the subtle and not-too-subtle arguments with which gay marriage arguments are made and how they do not stand up to scrutiny. Here I want to take parts of Kirby’s article and interrogate it:
1) “…millions of people worldwide are now adjusting to the fact that “marriage” is a legal status of long-term human relationships available equally to homosexual and heterosexual couples alike. [Australian senator] Barnaby Joyce may think the notion [of gay marriage] an oxymoron, as he declared recently, but this is simply not true in many civilised parts of the world” – Which parts of the world here is Justice Kirby refering to? Which ‘millions’? Many, in fact, are appalled at it. Last week Herald columnist Gerard Henderson was quoted as saying that many Hindus and Muslims in Australia and worldwide are profoundly troubled by shifts towards gay marriage. Which empirical or anecdotal evidence proves this point? Assuming that what he says is true, does that mean that anyone who disagrees with gay marriage rights is therefore an uncivilised barbarian?
2) In the next sentence, he says, “Yet, sometimes a personal story can make things seem somehow clearer when all the theoretical meanderings of the mind and of words leave the resolution still up in the air”. Kirby seems to assume that people who want to think seriously about marriage, instead of simply changing the definition of it nilly-willy are merely thinking in the abstract. Marriage is not concrete, this seems to suggest, because it’s at the whim and mercy of mere word games. In a way, this is a condescending sleight against those who disagree with him, but in a perverse way it unravels his own position: if marriage is simply just a matter of ‘theoretical’ constructs and semantic abstraction, then why is he so determined to change it? If the most fundamentally basic brick of human society is just something in our heads, then on what grounds should gay people be entitled to marriage?
3) Kirby then shares a ‘gilded lilly’ story about two elderly men who want to be married: the implication here is ‘Look at these men! They’ve managed to live in a gay relationship well past their 80s since the 1970s! So it IS possible to live like this!’ This argument is very often used. However, Kirby leaves out much of the story. Given the flaky nature of gay relationships- which has been thorouhgly documented and proven over the last 20-30 years- how is it that these men have been together for so long? That kind of thing is nothing short of a miracle; those men should be museum exhibits! The founder of Liberty Chrisitian Ministries, Christopher Keane, in his testimony ‘Choices’, has said that
in the many years that he lived the gay lifestyle, truly monogamous gay relationships are all but impossible, and that those relationships which he encountered that had a semblance of monogamy were very often a facade. Many in those relationships were sleeping around behind their partners’ backs; or there was an arrangement where both partners agreed to stay together while ‘permitting’ the other partner to have sex on the side.
Ultimately, monogamous gay relationships are a misnomer, and gay men and women who are blessed with long lives are exceptionally rare. Few people live in gay relationships beyond the age of 40 because they either die of illnesses, or because of suicide and other causes (see the Appendices in the book ‘What Some of You Were’ by Dr. Trevor and Tony Payne or go to NARTH).
4) “Who are the fellow citizens who would deny marriage to Beaumont and Townsend, to [my gay partner] and me and to other citizens and human beings who may think it very important to take this step and to take these vows? Surely they are not religious people, infused with the central message of love for one another. And if they are, should they not keep their religion to themselves and respect the equal rights of others of a different view, living in a secular community?” – There are so many false assumptions and assertions here, it is truly staggering, but they reveal a scoffing attitude towards those who dissent. All religious people are ‘loving’ only according to his definition of it, which is strictly in line with his own biased, narrow view of it. It is a view of love which merely seeks to justify ends. Yet I wonder how he can say that simply because someone calls themselves religious that they are, per se, loving. Has the former judge seen or heard media reports of the violence in the ‘holy land’ of the Middle East or the bitter arguments against religion on these grounds by people such as Christopher Hitchens? Are all religions based on the notion of love? For instance, the central tenet of Buddhism is not love of others, but self-focus and withdrawal. So I’m not quite sure where he is getting his information from. In Islam, homosexuals are stoned and killed. Would the former justice go to Iran and proclaim this message? And what about non-religious people: are they not loving for dissenting from his view?
It is very very revealing that Kirby is such a staunch advocate of gay marriage, so much so that he tells other people- Christians convicted of Biblical truth, the implication is- to keep their mouths shut and not oppose gay marriage because it is ‘disrepectful’. Yet Kirby can hardly be called objective on this given his own interest in all of this. By telling others to be quiet, he is doing the very same thing that he is criticising others for: he is an evangelist for a different cause, but a messenger he is nonetheless. And who is he to say that? It is inconsistent with his own rules.
5) Not every homosexual person wants or feels the need for marriage. But if they urgently do, it requires a pretty strong reason of principle to deny it and to withhold it and to refuse it. – Yes, the gay community is quite divided on this issue, much more than Kirby gives credit. The gay lobby likes to keep this dissent quiet, because they don’t want their argument weakened by honest confession that not everyone is on the same page as them. Many people object to gay marriage because they rightly know that it conflicts with their ‘no-obligations’ lifestyle and hate it because it is a Christian/religious institution.
6) We will get through this marriage debate in Australia, like so many others before it. In the end, justice, equality and basic kindness to each other will prevail. But it will require fresh thinking; and leadership; and a reformist attitude: not one locked into the formalism and uncaring attitudes of the past – On what basis does Kirby appeal to ‘kindness’? Like beauty, ‘justice’ and ‘kindness’ are all in the eye of the beholder. Societal attitudes can change in a heartbeat, and as such the law and public morality can change: what we call kindness today can tomorrow be construed in an entirely different way. Kirby gives no basis for what he asserts to be these things. He wants justice without truth, a justice based on what the heart feels to be true. Yet this diverges with what we know of the heart: it is whimsical, sick, fickle and prone to go anywhere (Jeremiah 17:9, Ecclesiastes 9:3). Why should reform be for the sake of reform? Just sticking the label ‘progress’ on something does not make it true or worthwhile: in fact, in can be horrendously regressive.
7) True leadership requires the gift of prophecy. To see the future and the way it goes. Mind and heart must be in harmony. Our world is not only about economics and votes. It is about justice. And mutual human respect. And love. And kindness. And the rights of others- Kirby’s narcissim becomes more obvious here, as he positions himself as a ‘religious prophet’. It seems consistent with what he has argued about for a long time: I’m a judge, so what I say must be true. Yet he gives a picture of justice with no truth, only a vague pitch to ‘kindness’. But the argument is slippery. To whom is it ‘kind’? For anyone who is loud enough and is willing to scream long enough, sign enough petitions, fundraise, and berate until it gets what it wants? This is a very telling way to argue for something: “Look, just give us what we want. Look at lovely we can all be to each other! If you don’t you’re an uncivilised, unkind, unthinking, heartless bigot who hates justice”. It is not an intelligent, well-articulated argument, but conviction through name-calling. It is, as one reader put it in today’s edition of the Australian:
ONE would have expected that Michael Kirby (“A union to make believers of all”, 31/8) would have the sense to know that opposition to gay marriage is not about discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which is abhorrent in any civilised society.
It’s about defending the institution of marriage and the benefits and considerations granted to them to promote a stable and enduring environment for the children born to them. At some stage in the judge’s piece, I think he could have considered the impact on society of changing the definition of motherhood and fatherhood.
Margaret O’Hagan, Applecross, WA