When one looks at a dispute over anything, it's the substance of the reasons on each side that matters - obviously. But sometimes you can also tell from the style and tone when one side is on a hiding to nothing and the other has a case. Here are excerpts from two pieces pertaining to the recent debate in the Australian Labor Party about same sex marriage. The first is from Barry Cohen (£):
With the world on the brink of another global financial crisis, the representatives of the workers decided that the issue of the day was whether Bruce and Bob or Barbara and Betty could marry.
.....
What fascinated me, listening to the views of the pro-gay marriage brigade, was whether they believed their own bullshit and whether they had thought through the implications of their proposal.I have no intention of arguing with them. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman - full-stop. Neither my first lady nor I will budge on this and we will vote accordingly. Why? Because we believe that marriage as now defined is the basis for family life and has been for thousands of years. We want it to remain so.
Note the contempt of 'Bruce and Bob or Barbara and Betty', and of 'bullshit', and the red herring of there being more important issues. But note, too, that what this goes with is a refusal to argue at all beyond Cohen's assertion of his belief that it should continue to be as it has always been.
Now compare this from Stephanie Bolt:
Offering civil unions seems a reasonable compromise from the position of any straight person who has not ever had to question for a single moment others' acceptance of their relationship or their right to choose to marry the person they love. Offering civil unions sends a signal that, to me, says I am lesser.
I'm then told that civil unions are in a legal sense similar to marriage and, therefore, why should it not be embraced by same-sex couples? If it's such a palatable alternative it's then fair to ask why it's not embraced by many more heterosexual couples?
To point out the blindingly obvious, many of us regardless of sexuality want to get married; we want the ceremony that is such a significant marker in life's journey. There may be little that legally separates the two, but socially and culturally there's a chasm.
Marriage is touted as one of our most enduring traditions. Traditions are organic; their foundations are laid in the past but they grow and evolve over time. Granting me and my partner the right to marry - to have our loving and committed relationship recognised in law and by the community - doesn't erode that tradition; it builds upon it.
She takes on the view that something that's nearly like marriage should be accepted as being just as good as it, and points to the flaw in it. Either it's as close to marriage as makes no difference, in which case why refuse the possibility of marriage to same sex couples? Or the alleged importance of refusing it shows that there's a difference that really makes some difference. She also turns the argument from tradition against those like Cohen who would use it as a blunt instrument. And she lets her reasons do the talking. Chalk and cheese.