Cory Bernadi's recent speech in the Senate linking homosexuality to bestiality illustrated how inverted and confused politics in Australia has become.
Bernadi and other so called common sense conservatives contend that amending the marriage act to allow gay couples to marry is a case of extreme left-wing politics. As if gay marriage is a radical and abstract liberal idea.
In fact, conservatism and gay marriage are no longer irreconcilable. Indeed the most persuasive arguments in favour of gay marriage are distinctly conservative.
The most cogent argument is based upon facts. Studies in psychiatry and neuro-psychology have for decades demonstrated that an individual's sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Those who contend otherwise have a narrow understanding of the established science.
Pragmatism and established facts have never bothered conservatives. Facts are the domain of realists and help demolish loosely constructed theoretical ideas. In light of the facts the millennia old idea that marriage must solely be a heterosexual phenomenon collapses.
Second, those who take exception to perceived aspects of gay life should welcome the institution of gay marriage. Wouldn't the alleged promiscuity inherent within the gay community benefit from the edifying influence of marriage? Of course it is spurious to claim that gay couples do not equally value fidelity. At a time when heterosexuals are increasingly spurning commitment, here is a group that is championing the institution of marriage. Perhaps gay couples might even coax straight couples back on to the marital path?
Third, people choose marriage for a wide range of reasons, not just to start a family. In affluent societies young married couples are increasingly eschewing large families and instead focusing on advancing their careers. Others choose to not have children at all. We do not revoke the marriage certificates of those who decide not to be parents, or those who are unable to have children.
Fourth, the children's rights argument is weak and particularly misleading. The parental debate should not automatically be attached to the marriage debate. Yet it is important to note that our society legally acknowledges the parental status of gay couples that already have children. What is the benefit of preventing these couples from marrying?
Fifth, the attempt by some conservatives to apply religious tenets to the debate has become tedious. Theological suppositions founded upon a literal reading of ancient texts can be problematic. Christian conservatives often cite Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22 which labels homosexuality 'detestable'.
Yet most overlook other biblical extremes. Never once have I heard a pastor instruct parishioners against wearing wool and linen fabrics in one garment (Leviticus chapter 19 verse 19), or sign off on a father's intention to sell his daughter into slavery (Exodus chapter 21 verse 7).
Such verses clearly reflect the wisdom of a very different era. Writing in Eureka Street, University of Melbourne Theologian Professor Andrew McGowan argued that Christians need to overcome the myth of the immediacy, which suggests that one can judge biblical authors as though they had our own sensibilities.
Sixth, the semantic argument misses the point entirely. Some protest that marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. But surely there is more depth to this debate than a desire to ward off singular distortions of the English language? One wonders whether Sarah Palin's invention of the term 'refudiate' (an amalgamation of refute and repudiate) stirs similar passions.
Finally, what characterises the conservative disposition is a dogged commitment to realism. Conservatism is not opposed to reform; it is a prudent political philosophy that refuses to gamble current benefits for uncertain future outcomes. The intellectual giant of conservatism Edmund Burke warned against what he termed 'abstract principles', believing that society must evolve organically.
Polling data has for years confirmed that a majority of Australians support the legalisation of gay marriage. Our society has been debating the merits of gay marriage since the 1970s. Attitudes towards homosexuality have changed and the public now believes same sex couples are worthy, that they can fulfil the fundamental purpose of marriage. Such reasoning is Aristotelian, not liberal.
True conservatives have always accepted what is irreversible. The Bernadis of the this world should stop and consider the principal works of conservative philosophy. Opposing gay marriage is now conspicuously unconservative.
Dustin Halse teaches politics and history at Swinburne University and is a member of Swinburne Institute for Social Research. He has written political opinion for the The National Times, The Drum, The Conversation, New Matilda and Australian Policy Online.