How the Opposition Uses Power Against the Social Movement
Every social movement that challenges the status quo faces opposition from those who benefit from existing arrangements. Understanding how opposition uses power to prevent or limit the movement’s success is as important as understanding the movement’s own power.
This note uses the Australian Marriage Equality Movement and its opposition as the worked example.
KEY TAKEAWAY: Opposition to the marriage equality movement employed multiple forms of power — political, legal, organisational, and rhetorical — to delay, dilute, and ultimately unsuccessfully prevent marriage equality. Analysing this opposition through the lens of power shows why achieving social change is difficult and why movements need sustained, sophisticated strategies.
Who Was the Opposition?
Opposition to marriage equality in Australia came from:
- Conservative religious organisations: Australian Catholic Bishops’ Conference; Australian Christian Lobby (ACL); some evangelical Protestant organisations
- Some Liberal and National Party politicians: including several cabinet ministers during the Turnbull and Abbott governments
- “No” campaign organisations: formed specifically for the postal survey (Australian Marriage Forum; Coalition for Marriage)
- Some socially conservative community groups: traditionalist family organisations
1. Political Power
- Blocking parliamentary votes: For over a decade (2004–2017), the Coalition government refused to bring a marriage equality bill to a free vote in Parliament. This was the opposition’s most effective use of power — using control of the parliamentary agenda to prevent a vote that would likely have passed.
- Delaying tactics: The postal survey itself was partly a delaying mechanism — by creating a new process (a non-binding public survey) rather than allowing a parliamentary vote, the opposition delayed the outcome by months and imposed significant psychological and financial costs on LGBTQ+ Australians
- High Court challenge by the No side: Legal challenges to the postal survey’s validity were mounted but ultimately failed (the High Court upheld the survey’s legality)
- Religious freedom legislation: The opposition succeeded in securing the inclusion of some religious exemptions in the final marriage equality legislation — a partial success for the No side in shaping the terms of the reform
2. Rhetorical and Persuasive Power
- “Slippery slope” arguments: Claimed that marriage equality would lead to broader social harms (children’s confusion about gender roles, religious persecution, loss of freedom of speech) — designed to shift public concern away from LGBTQ+ rights to broader fears
- “Think of the children” framing: Argued that children need a mother and a father; characterised marriage equality as harmful to children’s welfare — a powerful emotional appeal targeting undecided voters
- Religious freedom framing: Repositioned the debate: instead of marriage equality vs discrimination, framed as freedom of religion vs compelled affirmation of values — made the No campaign appear to be defending rights rather than opposing them
- “Safe Schools” conflation: Attempted to link marriage equality to the Safe Schools anti-bullying programme to activate parental concern about sexuality education in schools
3. Organisational Power
- Australian Christian Lobby: well-funded, professionally organised, with direct access to conservative politicians; regular meetings with Prime Ministers and cabinet; submission to parliamentary committees
- Coalition for Marriage: co-ordinated the No campaign’s postal survey campaign; television advertising; letterboxing; mobilisation of conservative religious communities
- International network: Drew on arguments, materials, and strategies from anti-marriage-equality campaigns in the US (particularly the National Organization for Marriage) and Ireland
- Access to mainstream media platforms for No campaign spokespeople
- Some conservative newspaper editorial lines (The Australian) expressed scepticism about rapid change
- Targeted social media advertising directed at parents and conservative religious communities
Why the Opposition Ultimately Failed
Applying Chenoweth’s framework: the opposition failed because:
- The Yes side achieved overwhelming participation (3.5% threshold far exceeded)
- Key loyalty shifts occurred: major corporations, sporting bodies, and moderate Liberal Party members broke with the conservative position
- The opposition’s rhetorical framing was perceived by the majority as disproportionate fear-mongering rather than credible argument
EXAM TIP: VCAA questions on the opposition’s use of power want you to identify specific mechanisms — not just “the government opposed it.” Name specific tactics, organisations, and rhetorical strategies. The more specific and evidenced your response, the higher the mark.
