Why marriage equality has been an important issue for reasons beyond same-gendered folk getting married

A look at some of the broader ramifications of the marriage equality issue.

Like anyone with more than a drop of human compassion, I support consenting adults of the same gender getting married if they feel like it. This should be a simple issue. Are you an adult? Have you given consent? Does your partner meet the same criteria? Then you can get married if that's what you want to do.

Strangely, this simple issue has proven to be a drawn-out, dragging-along, back and forth issue.

Increasingly peculiar, wilful and plain ignorant justifications are offered for why this simple issue cannot just go ahead, and in the process, Australian society has divided on the issue. The division is by no means equal, either numerically or in capacity to string a rational thought together.

Politics.
Australian politics, despite the odd moment of brilliance, is largely characterised by which non-entity deserves to play business as usual the most. We have been sailing through a period where public satisfaction with both of our major parties has been at a record low. When asked why, it's mostly social or environmental issues that crop up. Supporters of these issues largely find a frustratingly obstinate barrier in both sides of politics. One of these stonewalled issues has been marriage equality.

Whether from reasons borne from his intensely catholic, Bob Santamaria-disciple, privileged Johnsman background, or from a desire to continue to frustrate the minority ALP government at every turn, on every issue, for any reason, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has been pretty vociferous in his opposition to marriage equality, even going to the point of mandating a no vote, on an issue that would traditionally have been a conscience vote for the Liberal Party.

The feminist, atheist, unmarried Julia Gillard has routinely denied marriage equality. That she has done so is a source of constant confusion for the electorate as a whole. Why? we keep asking. There is a theory that her slender hold on the party is entirely due to the backing of right-wing power-brokers. That it is down to the right wing Mark Arbibs and Joe DeBruyns of the party that she keeps her job. The idea of a left wing Laborite, willingly succumbing to the conservative demands of the party's far-right, and throwing out ideals she may have held along the way, to keep the top job is not a particularly appetising image.

The opposition to marriage equality is seen as obstinate by a majority of the Australian public. In addition to inaction on climate change, the inaction on issues of social justice is causing a frisson of disillusionment with the major parties. The issue has become such a litmus test, that the cranky and half-mad Bob Katter has lost two of his salt of the earth bigot candidates just in the past week, simply because of their homophobic comments. The public view seems more or less clear - we've moved on, but our candidates remain mired in the middle ages. They can't dodge the issue, they are continually faced with it, and their staunch opposition continues to erode their credibility.

Religion.
Needless to say, most opposition to marriage equality is originally traced back to religious views. The ongoing friction between religious conservatives, religious moderates and atheists and agnostics over all manner of social issues has increasingly reflected badly on the religious conservative. As public opinion inevitably shifts to a more tolerant and progressive outlook on a variety of issues (birth control, abortion, gay rights, women's rights and of course marriage equality), religious conservatives have become increasingly zealous, and - in some cases - somewhat insane. When a religious conservative starts talking about pogroms, disenfranchisement, incarceration as the 'answer' to the gay 'problem', all most people will hear is 'nazinazinazinazi'.

As atheism increases in western societies and church attendance largely dwindles, marriage equality activists have found a largely staunch ally in atheist organisations. Whatever an atheist's gender or orientation, many support marriage equality out of an interest in social justice, and a desire to strengthen the wall between church and state. They see religiously-driven opposition to marriage equality as a heinous violation of that separation and governmental acquiescence to it as the height of craven spinelessness and a betrayal of their citizenry.

Churches that support tolerance and show support to their LGBTI parishioners earn newfound respect, they see new members joining at a rate most other churches would be incredibly jealous to have. Religious leaders who speak from a position of tolerance are hailed as visionaries. Religious leaders who speak from a position of bigotry are reviled as divisive thugs or morons. Margaret Court, Shimon Cowen, George Pell - none of these individuals have a particularly positive opinion in the public eye, and it is their homophobia which has contributed to that. And covering up pedophilia in Pell's case, but that's another story.

The difference between younger generations and older generations on issues including marriage equality is stark. One study from a year or two ago found something near 90% of young church-goers to be disappointed in their church's conservative outlook on gay issues.

The most recent debate on church exemptions to discriminate in employment - often specifically targeting gay Australians, aroused a staggering opposition in the majority of Australians. Are we getting sick of swallowing the church's 'special privilege' to break the law?

Economics (sort of).
Talk to marriage celebrants and one thing you'll hear from a large number of them is a request for the Howard government's change to the Marriage Act in 2004 to be excluded from their ceremony. Celebrants in turn are stuck between a rock and a hard place - they cannot change the terminology by law, and so some couples postpone their wedding, many others request a disclaimer to be added that specifies the couple's opposition to the Howard era hetero exclusivity (I've been to two weddings in the past 12 months that have done this).

An internet meme that occasionally circulates states that 'gay gift registry' is a great reason to legalise same-sex marriages. I'm sure many department stores would agree. There is a common-sense retail-based reason to accept marriage equality. It's one of the most expensive parties you'll ever throw in your life. Why not expand that cash-fest to couples who currently are excluded? The rush to get married as soon as the law is changed will doubtlessly see more than a few celebrants kept busy, more than a few reception venues booked out, caterers, bar staff, glass and table hire, department store gift registry offices...

That's a lot of money. Celebrants have no issue - they want the work.


Endnote.I'm glad the marriage equality issue came about. Ever since the early attempts by Tasmania and the ACT that prompted the Howard government's bigoted legislative tantrum, a seismic shift has occurred in our society. We have seen our government shown up for the petty slave to special interest bigotry groups they are, we've seen our faith organisations revealed as the hateful groups many of them were, and they've become more and more hateful in their gnawing at the issue.

We have changed in many ways because of the marriage equality issue. Despite the tears, and the worry, and the anxiety, despite the rabid babbling of bigots in our media and governments that has caused many of us abiding pain, that has exacerbated prejudice, the positives that have come out of it are incredibly valuable. We are taking steps to throwing away discrimination in greater degrees.

This issue is won, all bar the shouting. It doesn't mean we should pat ourselves on the back and stop fighting, we should push it that further mile. It will be won, we will see it happen in our lifetimes.