Objections to gay marriage are not inexplicable – just dishonest.

Once again, arguments over gay-marriage in the government have prompted a McFlurry of articles from conservatives, church leaders and other homophobes opposing gay marriage. Prominent amongst their arguments are cries of “what about the children?” and other dire warnings that gay marriage will lead to a breakdown in the concept of marriage itself (like that hasn't already happened), wholesale immorality and the general destruction of society.

These arguments conveniently, wilfully and maliciously ignore that fact that gay couples are ALREADY living together in marriage-like relationships and are ALREADY raising children despite  which, the total destruction of society has not occurred.

Some homophobes - and let’s be clear, anyone who opposes gay-marriage IS a homophobe - even point to the fact that gay couples are already in de facto marriages or “civil unions” and ask, given that, why gay marriage should be even necessary. This is a devious argument that attempts to subvert the entire issue by alleging it doesn’t matter. But obviously it does matter to them, otherwise they would just agree to it.

The fact is that all these argument are fundamentally dishonest.

The opponents of gay-marriage know damn well that there are already gay couples living together, and even raising children. They truth is that they hate this but can't do anything about it. Their response is therefore to say “Okay, we can’t stop gay people living together like husbands and wives and we can’t stop them raising children but at least we can stop these acts from being officially recognised in law.”  You see it’s all very well to say that gay couples have the same protections under the law as all other de facto couples and it’s all very well to say that they can be registered as civil unions but the argument is not about the rights and protections of the people in the marriage, it is about the relationship between the married couple to the state and the wider community. Marriage is regarded as a special condition under the law and accorded a special status by virtue of being solemnised through formal registration. Yes, it is perhaps mainly symbolic but that symbolism is powerful: it symbolises acknowledgement and respect.

Denying gay couples the right to get legally married is like saying a gay person can go to university and study a degree; they can have access to all the facilities, attend all the lecture and pass all their exams and be judged as having obtained a degree but they cannot get up on the podium at the graduation ceremony and actually be handed a certificate by the Vice Chancellor. Imagine the university saying “We can give you a print-out of your results proving that you passed the degree and that will enable you to get a job but we cannot actually award a degree or call you a Bachelor." And it would be little consolation if they added "But it doesn’t really matter because it’s really only  symbolic.”

The arguments against gay marriage are the same types of argument used in Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia years ago to prevent African-Americans from enjoying the same freedoms and privileges as white Americans. Make no mistake, the battle for gay-marriage is exactly the same sort of fight. It is also worth remembering that when Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson took action to end segregation in those states they did not start off by holding a plebiscite. They passed laws and set about enforcing them.