The Right Side of History for Julia Gillard

In an interview this week, Julia Gillard said that, during her time as PM, she “wanted us to have a deeper debate about the role of marriage, and I thought maybe this was the moment for the deeper debate". "I got that wrong, you know, got it incredibly wrong and very happy to say that". "And then as the campaign for change grew stronger and stronger and it became clear that the only debate to be had was marriage equality, then I was very happy to support marriage equality."

As things turned out, we never had a wide debate about marriage and “the need for alternative, non-religious ways to legitimise relationships” [1]. Now she says we did not need it – she got that wrong. She should have backed marriage equality instead. Now wishes to correct the record and line up on the right side of history.

I find her comments disappointing on two fronts. First, I think our country would have benefited from a more profound debate about marriage and its relationship to church and state. I believe a move towards civil-sanctioned unions would have been less divisive.

Second, the idea of the right side of history is problematic. In 2020 in Russia, it looked like Vladimir Putin and not Boris Yeltsin was on the right side of history. The right side of history sounds like whoever prevails was the best – might is right. Just because one side (Putin or marriage equality) prevailed does not make it right.

C.S. Lewis coins a wonderful phrase – ‘chronological snobbery’. The notion that an idea is better just because it is newer is, of course, nonsense. This reminds me of G.K. Chesterton — 'When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.'

By Rev. David Rietveld

[1] ABC News Website “Julia Gillard admits she 'got it wrong' on same-sex marriage debate” (16/05/23)