What's Religion Got To Do With Same-Sex Marriage Anyway?

The same-sex marriage debate is troubling enough without religion trying to get their fingers in the pie, especially when their argument is so easily quashed.

Prior to 1999, same-sex couples were nowhere to be seen in Australian law. By the end of 2008 though, the Federal Government had passed legislation giving same-sex de facto couples in Australia the same rights as de facto heterosexual couples. Though this may seem impressive at first glance, there is something missing from this deceptive picture of equality: the 'm' word - marriage.

Despite the fact that 62% of Australians support marriage equality, and that even political support seems to be on the incline in a big way, same-sex couples still cannot tie the knot. But so what? Shouldn't equal legal rights be enough? To quote the so oft-quoted words of William Shakespeare:

'What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other name, would smell as sweet...'

This attitude blatantly ignores the symbolic significance of marriage. The fact that lesbians and gay men are prohibited from marrying not only perpetuates exclusion and inequality but also sends out the message that there is something second-rate about the love and commitment between same-sex partners - a message that I'm sure anyone in a same-sex relationship would strongly dispute. Allowing same-sex marriage, on the other hand, will create equality between all Australians regardless of sexual identity. How is it that little ol' me can see that inclusion is and always will be the better option but others cannot? My guess: blindness by religion.

It is universally accepted that individuals do not choose and cannot change their sexual orientation. Based on this fact alone, the denial of equal rights to individuals who can't help but fancy members of the same sex is an unsustainable matter of principle. But, to assert that this inequality is demanded by a church that is dedicated to love, tolerance and acceptance is particularly unconvincing. Even offensive. Regardless though, some of the strongest opposition to same-sex marriage comes from the religious sector. The late Pope John Paul II, shortly before his death, denounced same-sex marriage as 'an ideology of evil'. More locally, a representative for the Catholic Church in Australia told The Australian that supporting same-sex marriage is an 'assault on the culture of life'. And lets not forget the Australian Christian Lobby who are more than happy to provide an overwhelming level of disdain for same-sex marriage.

Marriage is sacred. Sure, I'll give you that. But marriage is not so sacred that failing to uphold the separation between heterosexual marriage and same-sex relationships will allow the supposed profanity of homosexuality to threaten its sanctity. That is laughable and simply untrue. In Europe and North America the overall rates of heterosexual marriage and divorce have not been adversely affected by allowing same-sex couples to marry. Not to mention the fact that heterosexual married couples are pretty damn close to diminishing the sanctity of marriage all on their own. Divorce rates prove my point. Also, think Shane Warne and Tiger Woods. Or Elizabeth Taylor, who has been married 8 times and is sure to hit someone up for Round 9 any day now. Or Woody Allen, who married his lover's daughter. And Britney Spears must have set some kind of record with her marriage that lasted a pitiful 55 hours.

There is no doubt that time, money, God and nature are universal trump cards that are pulled out in order to win an argument. And it seems religious groups have played the ace: 'It's against nature and what is more, your children will suffer'. The religious opponents argue that marriage must be reserved for husband and wife because of the connection between heterosexual marriage and procreation. And apparently it is only by having a mother and father that children receive the socialisation that is most likely to shape them into successful, responsible adults. Come on. Old people marry, infertile people marry, injured people marry, disabled people marry - and their marriages are fully legitimate, respected and lawful. Moreover, given modern reproduction technology, the possibility to create children without a man and a woman is not only entirely feasible but also completely available. And, if you're still not convinced, major American and Australian psychological associations have found that, not only are same-sex relationships as stable and committed as heterosexual relationships, but also that the children are in no way disadvantaged, reaching the same level of intellectual, emotional, social and sexual adjustment as their peers. Religious opponents are clutching at invisible straws; it's time they stopped supporting discrimination and let equality take its course.

I am not anti-religion. I am pro-equality. And the same-sex marriage debate is not a fight against religion. It is a fight against prejudice. This fact is what our precious politicians who so vehemently deliberate on this topic should be most concerned with, not that marriage equality could destroy the institution of marriage or may be biologically unnatural. What's more, we elect these representatives and they should, in turn, represent us as citizens of an increasingly secular country that prides itself on giving everyone a fair go and is saying 'yes' to same-sex marriage. Just as homosexuality went from illegal to legal, marriage must become not a union between a man and woman but a union between two people.