Gay Marriages

Steve, a good mate of mine, rang me over the weekend and asked me if I’d seen the article by Dr Muriel Porter in The Age on June 14. I said I had but I hadn’t given it much thought since reading it until going over it again with him over the phone. In it, Dr Porter suggests that denying public recognition to long-term gay relationships simply promotes homophobia. I told him to wait while I went to get the newspaper clipping from my filing cabinet, only to return empty-handed. Clipping-less, Steve went on to read out an excerpt of it over the phone to me.

“The same people who want to deny gay couples any vestige of formal recognition for their union, are also the first to denounce the stereotypical gay lifestyle. They deplore the promiscuity presumed to be part and parcel of the world of gay bars and saunas.

“If gay people are denied proper public recognition of their partnerships, they are left with little other than the lifestyle offered by the gay community, which inevitably leaves them in a kind of shadowland. To the wider community, the myth of gay relationships as invariably short-lived and somehow degenerate, remains unchallenged.”

I responded with a sigh, one coupled with both frustration and a sense of weariness at the same time. The issue of homosexuality within the Church has always been like a bit of a Molotov cocktail to me, potentially highly explosive and volatile depending on who you talk to within the Christian community but yet also emotionally heart-wrenching, and sometimes, plain wearisome. These days, I think I’d much rather have a cocktail drink instead.

Dr Muriel Porter’s article, in my opinion, blurrs the boundary between Church and State. Generally speaking, I’m a believer in the separation of Church and State, with the Church acting more as a conscience to the State and to its people. However, any discussion of same-sex issues or same-sex marriage in this case, always inevitably leads to a plethora of other related issues - from semantics on the term ‘marriage’ to religious and social arguments for and against same-sex marriage and even queer politics. And I don’t intend to do quite just that, not in this post anyway.

But in that regard, concerning the separation of Church and State, political divisions, political debates and "wedge politics" over same-sex marriage should be understood for what they are, distinctively separate from the Church’s division, disagreements (or agreements, for that matter) on the same issue. The former approaches the subject with the concerns of the State behind it, and what they, the representatives of the State, feel ought to be in the best interests for its citizens. The latter approaches it more so with the concerns for the spiritual and moral well-being of its believers, and rightly or wrongly, also in the best interests of its believers and humanity at large.

Given that long-term de facto heterosexual relationships already receive some level of recognition by the State and also enjoy, to a certain degree, a level of legitimate status by the majority of society, it doesn’t make a strong case, in my opinion, to argue that denying formal public recognition to long-term same-sex relationships in the form of ‘marriage’ amounts to outright discrimination or homophobia. Just as two people in a cohabiting de facto relationship aren’t considered by most people to be ‘married’, it doesn’t mean that people therefore see either partner as being less significant or “relatively unimportant” to the other partner in the event of say, a crisis or death. One can still afford dignity and respect to individuals in a de facto relationship without necessarily calling them a ‘married’ couple or calling their lifestyle arrangement ‘marriage’ per se. And in some cases, some of these people are precisely in a de facto relationship because they have chosen not to get married.

Dr Porter also fails to mention that even within the gay community, there are differing views on same-sex marriage, with some even strongly opposed to the concept of same-sex marriage. For them, they see marriage as a heterosexual institution and they would want to have nothing to do with it. Then, there are also those who would like their relationships to be recognised by the State and Church as marriage. To assume that the gay community is united and is heading towards one similar direction on this issue would be nothing further from the truth.

This then brings me back to my original point about separating Church and State. Just exactly from who are those gay couples seeking recognition for ‘same-sex marriage’? From the State? From the Church? From society? From everyone? Is it mainly for the economic, taxation and superannuation benefits? The social recognition? Or is it for the formal legal recognition on paper? Or everything I’ve just mentioned? Quite frankly, I suspect that most people would agree that societal recognition of gay couples (at least in most Western countries) has long been accorded, even if informally and not institutionally enshrined as such. If it is a change in the taxation and superannuation benefits that they want (among other things), then I say, rightly seek that from the State.

Dr Porter’s suggestion that denying proper public recognition of same-sex partnerships leaves gay people with little options other than the lifestyles offered by the gay community - presumably those that are short-lived and somehow degenerate - is questionable. Same-sex couples like the late Australian author Patrick White (1912 - 1990) and his partner Manoly Lascaris (1912 - 2003) attest to the fact that long-term same-sex relationships are possible with or without being accorded ‘marriage’ status to it.

Taking Dr Porter’s suggestion, one would assume that in cities with large gay populations, like San Francisco, where there is a greater public acceptance and recognition of homosexuality and of homosexual couples, the number of short-lived relationships and the level of promiscuity would be significantly lower. And perhaps it is. I don’t know. I don’t have the statistics to say it isn’t so. However, why is it that I have a nagging feeling that that isn’t necessarily the case, in what is presumably a city with a much greater gay visibility, greater social acceptance and recognition of homosexuals and same-sex couples and relationships, even if not officially sanctioned as 'marriage'?

Or are those long-term same-sex relationships more to do with the dynamics of the individual couples and the lifestyle choices that they make rather than to do with whether society affords them a ‘marriage’ option or status for their relationship? I only wonder. But I’m certainly not confident about Dr Porter’s tacit assertion that public recognition of gay partnerships in the form of ‘marriage’ will be correlated with a decrease in promiscuity and, in turn, an increase in the numbers of long-term gay relationships.