ADVOCATES of gay marriage usually argue that, in its present form, the Marriage Act denies gays justice conceived as equal access to goods and opportunities. This can obscure the deepest reasons why the act should be revised.
Seen as a demand for equal access to goods and opportunities, gay marriage is not a high priority for most politicians, especially as Julia Gillard has promised to increase their availability to gay couples. From that perspective on justice, graver wrongs cry out for our attention. It is therefore understandable that many politicians would not risk alienating parts of the electorate where gay marriage is strongly opposed. Perhaps that is why Kristina Keneally, who spoke eloquently in support of gay marriage on Q&A a couple of months ago, and who, as a Catholic, presumably believes marriage is a great spiritual good, believes it is not a "core issue".
People have different reasons for opposing gay marriage. Some find gay sex disgusting. Others do not, but believe it is immoral. Whatever else marriage is, it is a celebration of a union to which sexuality is intrinsic. Anyone who is a classical liberal can support laws that permit something they find immoral and even disgusting. But they cannot support laws that celebrate it.
There are also opponents of gay marriage who argue it would have bad social consequences, especially for children. Their case stands or falls on facts that are disputed. But although people who do not object in principle to gay marriage can advance this case, it is almost always pressed by people who soon make it clear they would oppose gay marriage even if the evidence turned out to be overwhelmingly against them. In one way or another - often by the way they appeal to what is natural - it becomes evident they believe that gay sex is immoral.
Read more:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/to-reject-gay-marriage-is-to-be-blind-to-our-common-humanity-20111130-1o6v7.html#ixzz1fDCphPJd