Australian Prime Minister Offers Christian and Moral Defense of Gay Marriage (Updated)

UPDATE: (September 8, 2013) My praise did not help Mr. Rudd in the Australian elections on September 7. Mr. Rudd and his Labor Party got crushed. He will no longer be prime minister and has announced that he will step down as head of the Labor Party.

Kevin Rudd is the prime minister of Australia. In a recently televised Q & A, Rudd offered a response to a question about why he changed his position on gay marriage. His response is both philosophical and theological.

Now, I want to give credit to the pastor for asking the question. He likely knew it would not be a very popular stance to take in this setting. Additionally, had he not raised the issue…we would not have this clip.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd

Many people are changing their minds on this issue. It is not a matter of political correctness, but rather a matter of reflective equilibrium, as John Rawls put it. Reflective equilibrium takes place when we adjust our positions and moral stances in light of our deepest moral commitments and new information or learning. Rudd, in his response, provides and example of reflective equilibrium at work.

While it is tempting to say, “Look! This politician just schooled some religious guy!” To do so would miss the value of this clip. Rudd does not tell him to take his religion and shove it. He instead offers a counter-argument which is also very religious. I also like that he asked a follow up question of the pastor to clarify the pastor’s position. We often are too quick to make assumptions during arguments about these issues.

Mr. Rudd is not only right in his answer, but the way he formulated and presented his response is an example to all of us.

Categories: Philosophy

10 replies »

  1. I did not see that Q&A that night, but my wife told me about it and a comment on Channell Nine about how Rudd was rude to the pastor. I can see he was not, but gave a nuanced response. The pastor who based his theological position on the Bible which would have included Leviticus could have been asked also the Bible says do not eat shell fish, or kill the reluctant (bad behavioured) child.One can cherry pick the Bible. Go to Ruth and see how she basically seduced Boaz by “uncovering his feet” mean touched his genitals.

  2. I still don’t understand this big war over “marriage”, if someone believe marriage is between man and woman, how two gay folks will redefine it?

  3. The Prime Minister, being a politician, gave a politically correct answer. He admitted he reached this answer only 5 months ago, just before he became PM. Self-serving politicians play into the gay propaganda machine. Most people, most, do not like gay necking, sex or marriage. You won’t hear of this issue in 15 years.

    • Update:
      Prime Minister Rudd has gone down to defeat in the Australian election and has agreed to step down as Party Leader.

  4. “P2 – One should not be forced by law to change, control or limit their behavior.”

    This is a bizarre premise, considering that’s exactly what most laws are exactly FOR.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s