Same-Sex Marriage and Conservative Christian Values: A Comparison Between the Republic of Ireland and the State of California (US) from a Post-Legalisation Perspective

Abstract

After years of contentious and polarising debate, same-sex marriage was legalised both in the US and Ireland in 2015. However, the relative autonomy of American states and the country s vast size make a single state, like California, more appropriate as comparison with Ireland. So, although Ireland s population is more akin to a single county in California, the whole state was selected because it provides a more comparably diverse demographic and government size. This project, then, investigates the relational dynamics between pro- and anti-same sex marriage campaigners in California (US) and Ireland. The juxtaposition of Californian and Irish proponents and opponents of same-sex marriage in this regard is informative. Although different in population size and religious demographics, there are a number of similarities between the campaigns and campaigners that make it a valuable comparative study. Building on existing work that investigates the central ideologies embroiled in this socio-political conflict, this project is concerned with the human experience of relevant activists.

Based on a review of literature, this project identifies ideological, religious and cultural factors that have contributed to the creation of oppositional identities between these two groups through both a sociological and religious studies lens. A qualitative methodology is applied to data collected through semi-structured interviews with politically active members of public campaigns for and against the legalisation of same-sex marriage in California and Ireland. The relationship between private experience and public expression is explored. Analysis of the responses demonstrates the outsized role that emotion plays in post-legalisation perceptions of the process and result, with particular regard to personal grievance. The impact of the campaign process, including its strategic design, is assessed and connections between activists in the US and Ireland are illuminated.

The social and political implications of the legalisation of same-sex marriage in Ireland (2015) and California (2012) are, then, appraised to identify ideological, political and cultural barriers preventing interaction and dialogue between these two groups. Jonathan Haidt s Moral Foundations Theory is employed to give insight to the role that moral instinct plays in the respondent s political decision-making. It also sheds light on the power of personal narrative as a means of connecting across worldview divides.

Finally, a critical analysis of Rawlsian liberalism shows the inhibitive role a restrictive proviso has had on inclusive discourse around same-sex marriage. In light of this, this project shows its conflict is better supported by a Habermasian post-secular political framework, which encourages the equal valuing of secular and non-secular voices in public discourse. However, the results of this project challenge Habermas s post-secular emphasis on the religious/secular worldview divide. Instead, findings indicate the greatest worldview divide currently inhibiting productive dialogue between those on either side of the same-sex marriage debate is the liberal/conservative one. By investigating a variety of avenues into the same-sex marriage debate, this research critically assesses the possibilities for, and hindrances to, genuine dialogue.

On the basis of such assessments, it recommends dialogical practices that encourage both/and, not either/or, views of its participants. This both/and lens allows for a more accurate understanding of the multifaceted nature of both the conflict and those most frequently engaged in its debate.