There was a lot of harrumphing this week after Kevin Rudd declared he had changed his mind on gay marriage.

This was a hugely significant, genuine shift from a former prime minister, but he was mocked for saying it was a ”difficult personal journey”, with many pointing out his journey was not as difficult as the one gay couples took.

He was also accused of relevance deprivation syndrome, self-importance and of trying to embarrass Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Comedian Wil Anderson tweeted: ”I suspect Kevin Rudd thinks if Australia has marriage equality he will finally be able to marry his mirror”.

This is predictable; earnest heterosexuals are easy targets in this debate, let alone those forced to pack political ambitions on ice.

But it is shortsighted to condemn Rudd for changing his mind – this is the only way change happens.

He is hardly the only politician to have shifted on gay marriage: think of Barack Obama, Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, as well as, most recently, Barry O’Farrell.

What was disappointing, though, was that Christian groups also vehemently attacked Rudd because he attempted to explain that his support for gay marriage did not conflict with the fact he was a Christian – albeit, in his words, ”not a particularly virtuous one”.

The Australian Christian Lobby said he had ”burnt his bridges” with the Christian constituency.

Bioethics writer Michael Cook wrote he had lost his reputation as a Christian thinker. Sydney Anglican Archbishop Peter Jensen was also unhappy: ”His discussion of the Bible is historically shallow and he may be too confident about the state of current research.”

Rudd’s reasoning was straightforward: he warned against taking a literalist view of the Scriptures – pointing to slavery, the polygamy practised by the kings of Judah and Israel, or stoning for adulterers – and argued interpretations of the Bible had changed with history and context.

He also pointed out people were born gay, it was not something you did when you were bored, depraved or keen to make friends who still danced into middle age. He then referenced a slew of studies that have found ”same-sex families do not compromise children’s development”, as well as the fact that same-sex couples already raised children. The toddler has bolted.

Support of marriage equality is now the majority Australian view.

A 2011 Galaxy poll found six in 10 think same-sex couples should marry – with more women than men agreeing – 72 per cent to 47 per cent – and more young than old (two-thirds of those between 18 and 34 but a little more than half of those between 50 and 64).

The point the lobby seems to be missing is that Rudd’s view is now the majority Christian view, too. In a cultural tipping point that few of us noticed, the Galaxy poll found 53 per cent of Christians supported same-sex marriage.

Of course, many will disagree with Rudd, but it is wrong to suggest his stance has alienated Christians, or that he is a lone wolf. Some priests, such as Baptist minister Reverend Matt Glover, believe ”recognising same-sex unions will help return marriage to its rightful place in society”.

Anglican minister Dave Smith argues gay marriage would lead to greater social stability, and would provide a more secure environment for nurturing children of a gay couple than an unmarried one.

The church, in other words, contains multitudes.

It is important for its leaders to recognise, and not quash or disdain this diversity. It is also crucial for them to recognise many churchgoers are gay and lesbian.

Penny Wong is a Christian, as is American Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson – the first priest in an openly gay relationship to be consecrated a bishop by a major Christian denomination – who is in Australia now, tweeting his support (he will be on Q&A on Monday).

Electoral voting patterns show Christians do not vote in a bloc, and the lobby represents only a portion of the churches in this country.

Many would have been horrified by the lobby’s suggestion this week that gay marriage would lead to the creation of another stolen generation.

This offensive statement was astonishing, given the charges many parts of the church now face of protecting institutionalised child abuse.

Law student Stephanie Judd wrote an honours thesis about the role of the lobby in Australian politics, and found its support base seemed greatest in Pentecostal and Baptist churches.

Almost half the church leaders who signed the lobby’s petition – 44.8 per cent – were Pentecostal, for example, but just 1.1 per cent of Australians identify as Pentecostal.

Catholics comprise a quarter of the Australian population, but only 1.1 per cent of the lobby leaders (though this may seem lower because Catholics voice views through their Bishops’ Conference.)
While 17 per cent of Australians are Anglican, only 4.9 per cent of the lobby leaders are.

Judd wrote a strong piece on the ABC Religion & Ethics site this week, calling on the lobby to show more grace, and recognise it does not speak for all Christians.

It is unusual to hear the religious case for gay marriage; it always seems to be spoken from the fringes or in far-off countries, and dismissed as unbiblical ratbaggery.

It took Rudd to argue that while sex between men (not women, who are ignored) is slammed as an ”abomination” in the Old Testament, it is done so alongside a host of other archaic prescriptions for living in the ancient world, which have since been discarded.

Divorce is, of course, also strongly condemned, in any circumstances except for infidelity.

The meaning of marriage is a genuine theological debate in the church: I don’t have room to canvass its entirety, but those engaging in it should not be tarred as bigoted homophobes or biblical illiterates.

Yet Rudd was right to distinguish between marriage as a religious institution and a civil one. As the Reverend Bill Crews has pointed out, ”it is the state that legitimises marriages”. Not the church.

Two-thirds of marriages in Australia are conducted by celebrants.
The entire heathen world can get hitched if they please: pagans, Wiccans, vegans, even Roosters fans.

If the church wishes to define marriage, it should be talking not of stolen generations or burnt bridges to vengeful constituencies, but of commitment, devotion, fidelity and love.

Judgment is commonplace: grace is amazing.

Author: Julia Baird
Publication: The Sydney Morning Hearld
Publication Date: May 25 2013

~~

Some apparent dissidents in Australia’s largest union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (or SDA), are today calling on the organisation’s boss to reveal the research which he claims shows most of the country’s retail sectors workers are opposed to same-sex marriage.

That boss is Joe de Bruyn, a member of the national ALP executive and hugely influential figure in Labor party circles. The union, known as the SDA, has over 200,000 members.

A conservative Catholic, de Bruyn is a fierce opponent of same-sex marriage and says the majority of SDA members agree with his position.

Now a group called SDA Members for Equality want him to reveal the research that de Bruyn says was conducted a couple of years ago. The Canberra Times reports:
Mr de Bruyn said the union had “some years ago” discussed with a representative sampling of members the view that marriage was between a man and woman and received overwhelming support.
“We believe that this continues to be the view of the overwhelming majority of the members of the union,” he said.

The request by SDA Members for Equality is a reasonable one. It’s hard to square de Bruyn’s comments with the published polling which for some years has been showing around 60% or more of Australians support same-sex marriage.

(And that’s before asking why an organisation that represents people working on shop floors needs a trenchant position on same-sex marriage in the first place.)
Anyway, influential figures like de Bruyn are arguably the last large establishment outpost of resistance to same sex marriage in the Australian community.

This week former prime minister Kevin Rudd, a leading figure in the group of politicians who admits to having some of their fundamental philosophies underpinned by the influence of the Christian faith, revealed he had changed his mind on the issue.

There’s some background worth noting. Last year it was reported that Rudd told three gay marriage activists de Bruyn had done a deal with Julia Gillard to support her for the party leadership. According to their account, Rudd said that if he had remained PM, gay marriage would have “gone through”.

Rudd said the account of the conversation was inaccurate. Gillard’s office declined to comment.

Then this week Rudd revealed, in a 2000-word blog post on his website, that his position on same-sex marriage had changed. The article is very characteristic of Rudd, swinging from awkward dad jokes to deep intellectual argument.

But beneath it is a fascinating outline of the thought process that led Rudd to change his mind. It’s interesting because it provides a potential road map for other people with more traditional views of marriage like de Bruyn to make the same journey that Rudd has.

Rudd says that his reconsideration started after a coffee with a gay friend who told him he’d like to be able to marry his partner.

There wasn’t an epiphany, Rudd says. The conversation just got him thinking and his decision to change his public position was based on reflecting on three things:

• Christian teaching
• Scientific data
• The emerging reality of life in Australia

What follows is an unapologetic “shorter Kevin Rudd”, based on what he outlined in his blog post, but here goes:
Christian teaching: Rudd talks about the tradition in Christian thinking involving “faith informed by reason”. He separates literal interpretations of Biblical dictates from universal Christian values such as “love your neighbour as yourself”.

Some of the Bible’s teachings on slavery and the status of women have deservedly come to have no place in modern society, he observes, and a reasoned approach by Christian leaders has actually helped improve the social standing of groups who would otherwise be subjugated by Biblical rules.

History has shown Christian ethics are open to changing with the times, so there’s room for changes of views, he concludes. This opens the door for him to consider it further.

Scientific data: Rudd cites scientific studies that show people don’t “choose” to be gay. If this is accepted, he says, then unequivocally “our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay” should be fully embraced as equal members of society.

This fits with the equality principles of Christianity. He also refers to research which has shown, over decades, that outcomes for children raised by same-sex couples are no different from those raised by couples in conventional relationships.

Emerging life in Australia: Rudd is at pains to insist that childrens’ welfare should be of paramount concern, and goes back to the scientific research that shows there’s no cause for worry.

He adds that among the many changes to family structures in Australia is the reality that more and more kids are being raised by same-sex parents.

He notes that children in these relationships have the same legal rights as children in traditional marriage, and asks why Australia shouldn’t give children raised by same-sex parents the “emotional and practical stability” offered by civil marriage.

Combining his interpretation of the history of Christian thinking, scientific research showing same-sex marriages are the same as traditional ones in terms of outcomes for kids, and an acknowledgement of stuff that’s happening in families anyway, leads Rudd to conclude he can change his mind.

Rudd points out that his shift in position is likely to be considered in the context of the Labor leadership. The fact that there was such a huge response to it, compared to what you’d expect if it was another politician announcing they were changing their mind, proved why.

He still has a big following out there and knows how to tap into public sentiment.

What shouldn’t be lost, though, is the explanation of the change of heart by of a previously rigid opponent of same-sex marriage, in a member of the constituency that the gay rights movement needs to reach.

Rudd has outlined what it takes to change an influential mind, directly from someone who was on the other side of the argument, at least publicly, just a matter of days ago.

Author: Paul Colgan
Publication: Business Insider Australia
Publication Date: May 24 2013