Gay Marriage

Those reading the SMH on 2 March, 2011 were treated to the penetrating insights of Helen Razer on gay marriage. Apparently the advancement of civil rights for homosexuals is the province of the progressive left, marriage is a conservative anachronism, so why should any gay people want to get married?

She makes a few serious points, however in an effort to combine analysis with “entertaining” writing, more detailed examination of a complex social issue gives way to flippancy masquerading as witticism.

Although it is the goal of the left that no group or type of relationship be privileged, many people do not share this view or see it as “progress”. There is no inherent reason why homosexuals seeking certain civil rights should support the generalized “progressive” ideology, in which any form of deemed social privilege must be overturned.

Many homosexuals don’t want big government. They want a strong preference for immigrants from modern, liberal, democratic societies, to maintain their hard won rights as much as anything. They don’t agree with the black armband version of Western history. They don’t support the pretence that we can’t criticize culturally derived behaviour such as Islamic homophobia because such criticism might be construed as racist.

They do want the civil right to get married and have their commitment treated by society in the same way as any other couple. What they want is what marriage represents for heterosexual couples in a modern, liberal society: the power to say for yourselves when your relationship has progressed to a level of mutual commitment beyond that of sharing a dwelling and a bed. They don’t want that distinction made by a politician, judge or public servant.

Ceremonies such as marriage represent a public announcement and recognition of a transition within one’s own life and within society. They are not compulsory and it is this choice which can give them great meaning. For many people, a formal marriage is not the same as sexual partners cohabiting, regardless of sexuality.

In the break-up of a relationship, conflict often ensues as to the entitlements and duties of each partner. If the institution of marriage disappears as a “privileged anachronism”, how will the seriousness of the relationship be determined if there are no children involved?

By a judge? A committee of progressives? Who will set the criteria?

Better, I suggest, to allow those involved a say in the matter.