The Insult of Needing to Justify Our Love

As in the USA, the struggle for same sex marriage continues in Australia and a column in the Herald Sun looks at an issue that often plagues same sex couples - the feeling that we need to justify our love for another of the same gender and, indeed, out very existence. One of the things that I take as a clear signal that someone is a foe of marriage equality and gay rights - or proof that they are incredibly stupid - is when they use the phrase "lifestyle choice" when discussing gays. Is breathing a life style choice? Is one's height a lifestyle choice? Is the color of one's blood a lifestyle choice? Of course not, and neither is sexual orientation even though the Christianists do all they can through their fraudulent "ex-gay ministries" to delude the larger public into believing otherwise. One of those working to change things in Australia is Senator Penny Wong, pictured with her partner. Here are some story highlights:
*
DECIDING to give up alcohol, or take up smoking, is a lifestyle choice. So too is the decision to become vegetarian, move to the seaside or cycle to work. But when flicking through a glossy catalogue to peruse the various "lifestyle choices" available, you're unlikely to stumble upon the option of being gay. To airily dismiss it as a mere "lifestyle choice" is not only patronising but plain old intolerance disguised as commonsense. Which is why heterosexual couples are rarely forced to endure glib comparisons of our long-term relationships with fashion accessories.
*
What more convenient excuse to deny certain couples the same rights as everyone else than by insisting they have "chosen" to be excluded from mainstream society? By that logic any amendment to the Marriage Act would simply be pandering to the whims of a minority. It's certainly an effective means of discrediting same-sex unions without acknowledging the blatant double standards and hypocrisy in play. This isn't about homophobia, anti-gay marriage campaigners insist. Have your clubs, your cute TV shows, your parades. Even live together if you must. But marriage?
*
Even allowing for the painfully cautious approach that has come to characterise federal politics, it's hard to understand the inaction of the major parties in the face of such flimsy reasoning. With polls suggesting a majority of Australians support gay marriage - and in the absence of any coherent or compelling case against it - their hesitation is inexplicable.
*
Yet fear is the operative word. Not only for our voter-backlash wary leaders but for the supposed defenders of marriage. Those who like to bleat about its sanctity but who clearly suspect it is weak enough to crumble under the slightest provocation.
You can't have much faith in its resilience if you genuinely believe it will be undermined by extending its definition to include devoted couples who happen to be of the same sex. If domestic violence, infidelity and an escalating divorce rate have not tainted the exchanging of marital vows, why should this particular prospect?
*
With the issue certain to resurface in Federal Parliament in the new year, it's time to reposition how the debate over gay marriage is framed. What's at stake is the right of all consenting adults to legally wed, irrespective of our individual quirks, preferences and beliefs. Some marriages prove lasting while others do not. Many result in the birth of children but not all.
*
Marriage has never been a one-size-fits-all undertaking. The onus should be on those who would deny this right to all Australians to convince the rest of us what they know about marriage that we don't.