During the third leaders’ debate, Bill Shorten warned Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull not to encourage ‘hate and homophobia’ by insisting on a same-sex marriage plebiscite. In a grave error of judgement, Shorten attempted to draw a line between ‘two terrible events’ – the shootings in Orlando and northern England – and the marriage equality debate that looms large for Australia, arguing that Turnbull shouldn’t ‘give the haters a chance to come out from underneath the rock’.

In subsequent interviews, Shorten backed away from his comments.

But the Opposition Leader’s thinking was not a mere brain snap – it reflects a belief that echoes around the claustrophobic chambers of Australia’s political class. It reveals a deep mistrust of mainstream Australia, and an obsession with the spectre of a conservative ‘hating machine’, lying in wait, desperate to parade its evil feathers of homophobia, xenophobia, racism or misogyny.

Fairfax journalist, Mark Kenny, is one who strongly believes in this conservative beast. On ABC’s Insiders, he vehemently defended Shorten’s view, describing those who disagree with gay marriage as ‘bitterly opposed’ individuals. As is standard practice in these kind of debates, he invoked the image of a struggling, vulnerable young person whom the conservative homophobes are itching to drown ‘in a rising tide of hate’.

The same-sex plebiscite is a core commitment under a re-elected Turnbull government. Shorten was no doubt advised that his words were counterproductive, and his pre-emptive, aggressive attack a serious misstep. It risked undermining, from the outset, the chance of a civil discussion and the possibility of a consensus.

Those like Kenny, who dispute the notion of a rational objection to gay marriage, reveal a dangerously intolerant mindset – you either agree with the question or you’re one of the haters.

It also reveals a worrying conviction that the government can regulate opinion and that legislation is a tool of compulsory thought control. Perhaps it’s a result of existing solely inside Canberra’s beltway, but according to this view, if parliament amends the Marriage Act, dissenting voices will simply disappear.

This seems to be the opposite of what is being truly sought; those in favour of gay marriage are advocating an acceptance, or at least, an understanding of the legitimacy of their relationship.

Far from demonising traditionalists, true marriage equality advocates support a conservative view of marriage, as an institution that ultimately benefits society. For this plebiscite to stand any chance of success, the debate should proceed on these, entirely different, grounds.

Supporting gay marriage means supporting marriage in general. It means reiterating the notion of lifelong loyalty and commitment, and emphasising the benefits that flow on from this commitment.

It’s a grave mistake to link this concept to ideas about sexual freedom, to reduce gay marriage to an act of sexual expression, and to portray opposition as inherently repressive. The government doesn’t spend its time granting approval to consensual sexual activities. But it does have a role in recognising stable and enduring relationships.

Australia as a whole is facing a crisis when it comes to relationships. We are witnessing the breakdown of stable, non-violent, selfless relationships that benefit all of us, but particularly the young. The increasingly violent nature of domestic relationships is a defining feature of our modern society; ACT residents are the first, and surely not the last, to face a ‘domestic violence levy’.

This combative nature of relationships is burdening our other institutions – including our judicial system. When he retired last year, Former Federal Court Judge Giles Coakes spoke of the huge increase in the number of family law cases before the court, and the growing refusal of parties to settle disputes. He described an attitude of entitlement – the demand that ‘I want to be heard’ – and the failure of couples, especially parents of young children, ‘to step back and take an aerial view’. The marriage equality debate is an opportunity to redefine the elements of a true loving relationship –one that is built on a commitment to the lifelong support and care of others, not on individual freedom or the expression of sexuality.

Successfully executed, this sort of campaign would encounter little resistance in suburban Australia, where enduring gay relationships have been present and accepted for a long time. It is also unlikely that the ‘hatemongering’ will arise from true Christians, who might profess their belief in sacramental marriage, but who also acknowledge, as Pope Francis puts it, that ‘before all else comes the wholeness and dignity of each person’.

The real question in this debate – for the political class as well as the ‘haters’ – is not whether or not you believe in marriage equality, but whether you are prepared to live peaceably alongside those with a different opinion.

The post Rage against the ‘Hate Machine’ appeared first on The Spectator.