Marriage equality: Can the Gay Rights Leopard change its spots?

I do not believe marriage equality will undermine the institution of marriage, for a very good reason. That reason is that allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed cannot possibly do any more damage than straight couples have wrought on marriage since the passage of the 'no fault' divorce Family Law Act of 1975.
 
But opinions differ on this controversial issue. Groups keen to defend and promote the traditional meaning of marriage, such as the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL), maintain that marriage should be about using the holy rites of the religion and social rituals of the law to underwrite the shared commitment of opposite-sex parents to raising children. Wary of another push to dilute the meaning and further render marriage into simply a vehicle for individual self-fulfilment, the ACL has copped flak for running TV ads during last Saturday night's Sydney Mardi Gras opposing gay marriage on the grounds that gay and lesbian families are bad for children.
 
There is no question that marriage is best for children. The social science evidence clearly shows that children, on average, do best on a range of welfare indicators when their parents are married and stayed married, and that family breakdown is associated with a range of negative social outcomes.
 
But this evidence cuts both ways, and can be cited to support a 'conservative case' for marriage equality.
 
Gay rights campaigners like Rodney Croome have suggested that because gay and lesbian parenting is increasingly common, there are good public policy reasons to extend the right to marriage. Marriage equality, on this account, means that that the children of gay and lesbian couples can also enjoy the benefits of marriage, which include devoting greater financial, emotional and educational resources to child rearing, and, crucially, greater family stability compared to de-facto and sole parent couples.
 
Yet this conservative case for marriage equality rests on a shaky premise: Is it likely that gay and lesbian couples will take their marriage vows any more seriously than straight people do, and will stay married for the sake of children?
 
Given the 'progressive' nature of the campaign for marriage equality, I believe it's a stretch to think that within its chest beats a neo-conservative heart determined to restore the traditional meaning of marriage.
 
At least traditional marriage advocates like the ACL are consistent, and oppose all efforts to redefine the meaning of marriage regardless of whether those efforts are spearheaded by Lionel Murphy or Tim Wilson.
 
This puts a different complexion on calls by the marriage equality movement for parliamentarians to be free to exercise a conscience vote on marriage equality. Those calls represent little more than the proverbial political gun to the head: stripped of party discipline, members of parliament who vote 'No' are certain to be singled out as bigots for denying gay and lesbian couples their 'rights'.
 
Rather than indulge in the personal politics of grievance and moral embarrassment, it might be more constructive if the advocates of marriage equality could accept that those opposed to gay marriage might have genuine conscientious objections centred on what they want marriage, as an important social institution, to mean for the welfare of children.
 
To enable those currently opposed to change their minds in good conscience, advocates of equality might think of ways to demonstrate that they take the traditional meaning of marriage seriously. However, this would require the leopard that is 'gay rights' to undergo a considerable change of spots.

Dr Jeremy Sammut is a Research Fellow at The Centre for Independent Studies.