We see countless arguments and discussions in our media, all of which seek to justify as to why it is same sex couples should/should not be allowed to have legalised marriage. Ultimately, though, in the ongoing debate surrounding same sex marriage, I feel the core principle behind the movement has been lost. To not allow same sex marriage is a discriminatory act. There it is. Plain and simple. It is discrimination. Am I oversimplifying it? You be the judge.
Equal Marriage is not about love.
As idealistically sweet as it appears, using the argument that Equal Marriage is about love softens the argument. The same sex marriage cause is not about idealism, or about the concept of love, or anything quite so vague. The reality lies in the facts. No other group of people is subjected to proving that their relationship is based on love in order to get married. Being excluded from the right to get married because you identify with a particular group of people (ie as a homosexual) is discrimination.
Equal Marriage is not about ‘providing married parents for kids’.
Same sex couples may find themselves in a situation where they want to be parents. This is something to be applauded and admired. It is not, however, the reason same sex marriage should be legalised. It is not about the children. It is not a moral debate about whether or not the family unit is stronger when the parents are married. No heterosexual couple is forced to have children to get married. Not everyone who is a parent is expected to enter into a heterosexual marriage. That would be ludicrous. The fact remains to be this: being unable to perform the same public ceremony for your relationship because you are not of a particular orientation is discrimination.
Equal Marriage is not about the economy.
I’ve heard and read debate, sometimes in a satirical sense, that encourages the idea that same sex marriage would be good for the Australian economy. You know what? I don’t care if it is or is not. That is simply not the point. If the government considered marriage to be important to the economy, it is time to send out the auditors and identify what good heterosexual marriage has provided for us fiscally. Pink dollar or not, disallowing same sex marriage is suggesting that those in same sex relationships are of less worth than those in a heterosexual relationship. This is discriminatory.
Equal Marriage is not about proving that same sex couples are capable of monogamy.
It should not be considered a contributing factor that some same sex couples have been in long term relationships for periods of time that appear to be exemplary. I am not suggesting that it is not worthy of applause that couples find their relationship strong enough to remain committed to one another. However, this is not used as a gauge for determining if a ‘straight couple’ are to get married. As it is not used to determine the worthiness of a heterosexual marriage, it should not be used as an argument for same sex marriage. Allowing one group to get married while another cannot is discrimination.
Do you see the common thread to my argument? While there appear to be many reasons same sex marriage is ‘justified’, there really only needs to be ONE. You cannot have one set of rules for the general populace that does not allow for everyone to be treated with the same respect. Just because someone identifies with a particular sexual orientation does not preclude them from the same rights. To do so is discriminatory.
Regardless of the size of that group, whether they are in the minority or not, they are still entitled to the same legal rights as everyone else. ‘Minority groups’, as such, are even more worthy of protection from such discrimination. Their voice, while not being the loudest due to their size, should be protected by the greater majority simply on the grounds of wanting equal treatment for all. Just as religious, racial, economic or any other form of discrimination is frowned upon, so should we frown upon discriminating against those of different sexual orientation.
Equal marriage is quite simply a case for equal rights for all. The more readily this is recognised, the sooner we can expect the discrimination to end.
