Malcolm in the middle

The member for Wentworth realises he's in favour of gay marriage … Nonetheless, he will support Plan B - civil unions - even though he's argued against such an option … Whatever his noble sentiments Malcolm Turnbull won't be deserting Liberal Party ranks … His constituents need him in the shadow cabinet … Turnbull makes a bit of a hash of his gay marriage flourish  

Turnbull: big splash

THAT was a nice little lecture from Malcolm Turnbull.  

"Over time … I have found the arguments against gay marriage less and less convincing."  

Bravo for the Member for Wentworth. 

"Over time …" It wasn't something that occurred to him in a Damascene moment. He needed time. 

Maybe it's because he had to wait for the evolution of an acceptable conservative ideology about gay marriage. 

Fundamentally, this was developed in the United States by Bush era Republican lawyer Theodore Olson, who was one of the lead counsel opposing California's Proposition 8 in the case now known as Perry v Brown. 

Proposition 8, which restricted marriage to opposite sex couples, was held at trial and on appeal to be unconstitutional. 

The case had a sufficiently bipartisan underpinning because Olson developed the successful argument with Democrat lawyer David Boies. They also happened to be the opposing counsel in the notorious Supreme Court case of Bush v Gore. 

The argument was pitched to appeal to conservatives, as far as possible - that marriage is the bedrock of society and civil well being. The sub-text is that a society that is docile and easy to manage depends on people getting hooked. 

Turnbull borrows that in full: 

"Families are the foundation of our society and I am firmly of the view that we would be a stronger society if more people were married … and fewer were divorced." 

British Prime Minister David Cameron is also on board: 

"I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative." 

The other leg of the plaintiff's argument in Perry v Brown was that the state and the church need not be bound by each other's notion of, or requirements for, marriage. 

Again, Turnbull rehashes that: 

"There is a clear distinction already between what constitutes a valid marriage in the eyes of the state and the eyes of the church." 

This is all well trod ground in the same-sex marriage debate. Turnbull gave us nothing new, other than adding a sanctimonious overlay about the importance of "commitment". 

It's fairly safe to assume that the level of commitment among same sex marriages will be roughly in line with the level of commitment experienced by opposite sex marriages. 

It's nonsense to pitch the argument in favour of gay marriage in terms of a general encouragement to "commitment" and to scrabble into the grab bag of Conservative ideology about married couples being the "foundation" of society.  

The case in favour of same sex matrimony, purely and simply, is a human rights one. It is a fundamental human right for people of a certain age and of sound mind to be able to do the very things that everyone else is permitted to do. 

Otherwise, it would be akin to saying that blacks or Calathumpians or, as used to be the case in parts of the United States, blacks and whites, can't marry. 

The fall back proposition of civil unions is little better. It's the equivalent of saying black people can drink in the pub, but only in the little room out the back. 

It's still discriminatory, and an uncivilised violation of human rights. 

Because the current parliament is unlikely to vote to amend the Marriage Act to alter the definition of marriage, Turnbull says the fall-back position should be embraced, even though he expended energy putting the arguments against it. 

First, it condemns same sex unions to second class status. Secondly, he says: 

"There is something disingenuous, if not confused, in giving same sex couples all of the same rights as married people and then saying you can't call the relationship a marriage." 

Now, it seems, he is unconvinced by his own arguments. Confused, is the operative word. 

What ultimately skewered this magnificent piece of flummery was the fact that Turnbull was not sufficiently committed to his view as to break ranks with the dumbed down politics of his own party. 

There is much chest beating about the sacred right of Liberals to cross the floor. Keeping his job in the shadow cabinet and making sure the pathway to the ministry was kept clear, is more important. 

As the MP bumblingly explained to the ABC's QandA audience on July 9, when asked whether he had considered crossing the floor:  

"Well, it’s something I have weighed up, yeah, and the question - I have taken the view that there, you know - there is a greater benefit and, you know, value for my constituents can be served by me staying within the shadow cabinet rather than resigning and, you know, crossing the floor on every issue or any issue which I disagree from the collective on." 

Turnbull, frankly, has made a hash of his have-it-both-ways play for Wentworth's gay vote. 

Other useful links ...

Perry v Brown  

ABC interview with Theodore Olson  

Marriage Equality Australia 

Sydney Morning Herald letters in response, July 9, 2012