Playing politics with humanity
THE 1999 campaign for a Yes vote in the Australian republic referendum was a classic example of how poor campaigning turned a proposal with majority support into an unsellable dog’s breakfast.
Fuelled in part by trademark craftiness from the monarchist John Howard, the Yes camp descended into factionalism over the nature of the republican model.
It also ran a campaign that failed to speak to suburban Australia.
There is a real risk the gay marriage proposal is heading down a similar path.
It too has been undermined by political brawling, with Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten, in agreement on the need for change, trading confected potshots over how we get there.
The campaign to win hearts and minds in suburbia has been marred by irritating gesture politics, with councils that should be focused on basic service delivery wasting time and money on debates over flying the rainbow flag, or using ratepayers’ money on poncy and meaningless rainbow murals.
And just as wavering voters were dismissed as colonial forelock-tuggers during the republican debate, anyone with qualms about the impliCulture cations of gay marriage, however cautiously expressed, runs the risk of being labelled a bigot or a homophobe in these censorious times.
There has also been elitist mistrust over the ability of average people to engage in a civilised conversation.
Although I’m a republican, I lose no sleep over the result of that referendum.
We had our chance and we blew it, and I don’t see how life would have changed that much if the Yes vote got up, save for eliminating the irritation of one of the great non-meritocracies providing our head of state.
The gay marriage debate is different as, when you sweep the politics aside, it involves real people and is ultimately about human happiness and human cruelty.
can do a better job than politics in framing an issue. Over the past few weeks, I have found myself in the weird position of becoming addicted to the late-night program Bride and Prejudice.
Each story involves a couple whose relationship, for different reasons, is the subject of disapproval by their family. But one case provides the purest form of tragedy I have seen on TV in a while.
It involves a warm-hearted, decent bloke called Chris, who is in love with another guy, an equally pleasant American named Grant.
The pair are about to get married in Florida.
When they break the news to Grant’s parents, they’re the very picture of love and support. Grant’s father may have still been awkward about the whole thing, but love for his son meant he’d do nothing other than extend his blessing. I hope I’d do the same. The reaction of Chris’s family in Queensland was the opposite.
His mum is a conservative Christian who views homosexuality as a sin. His dad is a simple, old-fashioned man who isn’t religious but simply regards being gay as a kind of sickness.
The program documents the harrowing repeated attempts by Chris to visit his parents to get some acceptance from them.
His dream is for them to attend the wedding. What follows is a form of torture.
When Chris explains that he is going to get married, his dad sniggers and his mum says there is no way she would endorse or attend such a wedding.
It is difficult to see how two parents can inflict such wilful emotional cruelty on their child.
I am sure a lot of people watching the show hate them, but I’d say they are to be pitied, as through a combination of religious dogma and oldfashioned masculine bullshit, these parents are trapped in a world that denies them happiness, too. It is truly horrible to watch. How the hell can you do that to your own child?
It is a question we should ask ourselves as a society, because until gay marriage is legal, we are doing the exact same thing to every gay person who just wants to have their love recognised.
Shows like this remind us of that human dimension.
It’s a pity politics gets in the way.