‘Marriage is sacred’: The religious right's arguments against ‘gay marriage’ in Australia

Abstract

In 2004, the Australian government legislated to prohibit ‘gay marriage’; the religious right had lobbied vigorously for passage of this legislation. Drawing on Durkheim's theory of sacred and profane, this paper examines the argument proffered by right‐wing Christians that allowing legalised unions between lesbians and between gay men would seriously undermine the institution of marriage and the family. Claims about the spectre of gays and lesbians marrying reveal a deeper unease about the status of heterosexual marriage and the nuclear family. These concerns, in turn, house a deeper unease about the nature and place of masculinity in contemporary Australian society. This disquiet about masculinity and masculine authority is isomorphic with concerns about challenges to the notion of an objective epistemological order. Marriage and nature are both sacred in Durkheimian terms because they must be radically separated from matters profane. By locating heterosexual marriage within the domain of nature, it is protected from contact with things that threaten its sacred status. However, Durkheim's theory of the sacred is simultaneously an account of the exercise of ideological power. Attempts to cast heterosexual marriage as sacred and, therefore, as inviolate are inextricably linked with attempts to protect an epistemological order linked to masculine authority.

Résumé

En 2004, le gouvernement australien a légiféré pour interdire le «mariage gay»; la droite religieuse avait exercé un lobbying énergique pour que cette loi soit votée. En faisant appel à la théorie de Durkheim sur le sacré et le profane, cet article examine l'argument avancé par les chrétiens de droite, selon lequel légaliser les unions entre lesbiennes et entre hommes gay pourrait sérieusement saper l'institution du mariage et la famille. Les affirmations sur le spectre de gays et de lesbiennes pouvant se marier révèlent un malaise plus profond qui se rapporte au statut du mariage hétérosexuel et de la famille nucléaire. A leur tour, ces préoccupations englobent un malaise plus profond quant à la nature et à la place de la masculinité dans la société australienne contemporaine. Cette inquiétude à propos de la masculinité et de l'autorité masculine est isomorphe, avec des préoccupations relatives aux défis de la notion d'un ordre épistémologique objectif. Selon Durkheim, le mariage et la nature sont tous les deux sacrés parce qu'ils doivent être radicalement séparés des choses profanes. Positionner le mariage hétérosexuel dans le domaine de la nature le protège de tout contact avec ce qui menace son statut sacré. Cependant, la théorie du sacré de Durkheim est simultanément une illustration de l'exercice du pouvoir idéologique. Les tentatives de représentation du mariage hétérosexuel en tant que sacré et de ce fait, en tant qu'inviolable, sont inextricablement liées aux tentatives de protection d'un ordre épistémologique lié à l'autorité masculine.

Resumen

En 2004, el gobierno australiano prohibió legalmente los ‘matrimonios entre homosexuales’. El lobby del derecho religioso luchó enérgicamente para que se aprobara esta ley. Basándonos en la teoría de Durkheim sobre lo sagrado y lo profano, en este ensayo examinamos el argumento defendido por la derecha cristiana que sostiene que si se legalizasen las uniones entre lesbianas y gays se socavaría gravemente la institución del matrimonio y de la familia. Las argumentaciones sobre la amenaza de los matrimonios de gays y lesbianas ponen de manifiesto un malestar más arraigado sobre el estatus del matrimonio heterosexual y la familia nuclear. Estas preocupaciones a su vez albergan un malestar más profundo sobre la naturaleza y el lugar de la masculinidad en la sociedad australiana contemporánea. Esta inquietud sobre la masculinidad y la autoridad masculina es isomorfa a las preocupaciones sobre los retos de la noción de un orden epistemológico objetivo. El matrimonio y la naturaleza son ambos sagrados en términos durkheimianos porque deben separarse radicalmente de los asuntos profanos. Al ubicar el matrimonio heterosexual en el dominio de lo natural, se protege del contacto con cosas que amenazan el estado sagrado. Sin embargo, la teoría de Durkheim sobre lo sagrado también ilustra cómo se ejerce el poder ideológico. Intentar situar el matrimonio heterosexual en la esfera sagrada y, por ende, como algo inviolable, tiene una relación inseparable con los intentos de proteger un orden epistemológico vinculado a la autoridad masculina.

Keywords:

• Australia
• gays
• lesbians
• marriage
• Durkheim
• epistemology

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Evelyn Blackwood for her feedback on this paper. My thanks also go to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and criticisms.

Notes

1. The phrase ‘Religious Right’ is part of the lingua franca of contemporary political discourse in Australia and North America. I define it as a social movement fuelled by a particular interpretation of Christian dogma, stressing the absolute authority of the Bible. Moreover, the movement tends to be fundamentalist in that it interprets the Bible literally and accepts that its dictums are immutable, iron‐clad edicts for behaviour. The Christian right is also a political movement in that it is well organized, mobilized and is increasingly seeking and gaining power. In addition to its more strictly theological tenets, it shares many of the values of the political right, particularly hostility to multiculturalism, feminism, environmentalism, while resoundingly endorsing the notion of ‘small government’. The Australian lobby is in some respects merely a franchise of the North American movement. Many of the documents on the website of the Australian Family Association, and circulated by them as part of its lobbing, have their origins in the US and have simply been transplanted to Australia.

2. The contextual factors shaping the rise of the religious right are an important domain of inquiry but are beyond the scope of this paper, which examines the content of the materials used by the NMC as part of its lobbying. The NMC collated and disseminated information lauding the social benefits it claims are conferred by legalised heterosexual unions and fulminating about the menace it suggests is posed by legalised gay marriage. Allowing legalised same‐sex unions will, it contends, fatally undermine the concept of marriage itself.

3. It should be noted that the version of nature advocated by this politico‐religious stance omits the extensive and still accumulating evidence of same‐sex activity and long term coupling among many animal species. See Roughgarden (2004) for a review of the evidence on this issue.

4. The refrain that marriage is good for men's well‐being has been a constant one in social science research since Durkheim's (1975) Suicide. Muehlenberg (2003a) cites a raft of studies ostensibly proving that legal marriage provides men with a range of psycho‐social and health benefits. Other evidence suggests that de‐facto cohabitation, not merely legal marriage, has positive outcomes for men; see Lund et al (2002).

5. Five years of legalised non‐heterosexual marriage in the Netherlands has not heralded the demise of heterosexual matrimony in line with the Jeremiad predictions of the religious right.