The Case for Gay Marriage

Emancipation, feminism and civil rights movements gradually eroded unjust social conventions and transformed Western society. Today, slavery is viewed as abhorrent and legislative discrimination on the basis of gender, race or religion is non existent. There is, however, an unacceptable form of instituted prejudice against gays. The absence of the right to a homosexual marriage strips the community of pervasive legal and civil rights. Further, the grounds against gay marriage are unconstitutional and unethical.

The tactics of certain homosexual rights activists have distanced many potentially sympathetic Australians. The lack of tact displayed during demonstrations by these activists indicates insensitivity to the social consciousness. Sadly, legitimate arguments for gay marriage were drowned out by outrageousness. Opportunistically capitalising on social concerns, religious opponents argued that gay unions undermine the holy foundations of marriage. What most people are oblivious to, and what is very rarely addressed, is the fact that the absence of a legal recognition of homosexual relationships necessarily results in a limitations of their statutory rights. Consider cross insurance. Typically, spouses cross insure each other to expedite the claim payout process. Self insurance is less preferable because terminal payouts constitute part of the deceased's estate and are generally delayed by legal red-tape. The Insurance Act precludes seeking cover in instances where there is "no insurable interest". Conceptually, this means that one can't insure against a stranger's death. Legally, homosexual relationships do not constitute an insurable interest. Consider pecuniary concerns. Homosexual partners do not qualify for a myriad of tax exemptions and other financial relief afforded to heterosexual partnerships. These include, but are not limited to; superannuation spousal salary sacrifice tax breaks, family private health insurance cover, inheritances taxes (pre-reforms), family welfare packages, income family tax benefits and offsets. Consider power of attorney. Homosexual partners cannot bestow upon each other powers of attorney. Addendum, homosexual partners cannot remain with each other in hospital past scheduled visiting hours. To reiterate, these citations are by no means complete.

Having established the fact that homosexual couples suffer judicial discrimination, it is pertinent to consider the rationale for why they do so. It is argued that a marriage is legally defined as the union between a man and a woman. Opponents to gay marriage contend that there is an explicit expression of gender. The Australian Constitution deliberately uses the terms "man and woman" to illicit the notion of adult cognition. The emphasis is clearly upon the legal capacity to consent. In fact, the gender is incidental. To better comprehend this point, suppose that the Constitution read "a marriage is the union of an adult male and an adult female". While it is likely that the Constitution envisaged the traditional view of marriage, the use of the terms "man and woman" seeks more to assert the notion of age and maturity than make any valued judgment about gender. And that's what gay marriage is about at the end of the day- the consent of two adults.

Regardless of one's view of homosexuality, one must recongise the legitimate grievances that funnel through as a result of an inability to wed. The advancement of gay rights doesn't equate to a condonance of the homosexual lifestyle, but rather the alleviation of social inequality.