A constitutional law expert has argued that Australians are easily spooked by "patently ridiculous" arguments against same-sex marriage because their poor civics education leaves them unable to critically evaluate claims from the "no" campaign.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Charles Sturt University law lecturer Bede Harris will tell a University of Canberra audience on Thursday that key arguments made by "no" campaigners are weak from a legal and philosophical perspective but capitalise on Australians' lack of understanding of the constitution.
"There's some very stupid arguments that can be punctured very easily and I think that the 'yes' campaign needs to confront them directly and with intellectual rigour," Dr Harris said.
"Quite apart from some of the outrageous statements made by the 'no' campaign, the 'yes' campaign need to get their act together and confront this on an intellectual basis."
Dr Harris will tell his Canberra audience there are no legal or philosophical reasons to oppose same-sex marriage.
He will strip marriage of its religious connotations and compare it to other legal contracts, arguing "I don't think any of us would say people should be prohibited from entering into a contract for the sale of land based on sexual orientation".
As well, Dr Harris will say it's not up to the government to limit the autonomy of consenting adults, and it's against the nation's constitution for religion to influence its laws. He will note that freedom of religion allows for freedom from religion.
Dr Harris refuted arguments against same-sex marriage based on children by noting that gay couples could already adopt and that not all opposite-sex couples reproduced.
Dr Harris, a Zimbabwean who has taught in South Africa and New Zealand, said it "astounded me just how little people know and how easy it is to frighten them" when it came to constitutional law.
"I think there's a more broad thing to think about here, and that is that we have very poor civics education in Australia," he said this week.
"The line that came out during the republic referendum in 1999, and a very similar line is being run now, that if you're uncertain, vote no.
"It actually benefits the 'no' campaign for there not to be a detailed, intellectual argument and to say, alright, well there's risk if you don't know, so the safest thing is to stay with the status quo.
"I think that also needs to be punctured and say to people no, if you're uncertain, ask a question, think it through.
"Don't just vote blindly no because you're affecting someone else's rights if you're voting no, or you're postponing the day on which their rights can be vindicated."
Dr Harris will speak at the University of Canberra, Building 11, on Thursday at 3.30pm.
