No Need to Prove You Love

Deciding to give up alcohol, or take up smoking, is a lifestyle choice. So too is the decision to become vegetarian, move to the seaside or cycle to work.

But when flicking through a glossy catalogue to peruse the various "lifestyle choices" available, you're unlikely to stumble upon the option of being gay.

An individual's sexuality is not an interest-free, buy-now-pay-later commodity. To airily dismiss it as a mere "lifestyle choice" is not only patronising but plain old intolerance disguised as commonsense.

Which is why heterosexual couples are rarely forced to endure glib comparisons of our long-term relationships with fashion accessories.

Our right to fall in love with a member of the opposite sex is not only unquestioned, it's celebrated.

Irrespective of the romantic complications, mistakes and heartbreaks in which we become entangled, we're never asked to justify our sexual orientation.

That's a given. Our birth right. Nature taking its course. It's only in a same-sex scenario that the notion of "choice" suddenly enters the equation.

It's this sentiment that underpins much of the lingering opposition to gay marriage. What more convenient excuse to deny certain couples the same rights as everyone else than by insisting they have "chosen" to be excluded from mainstream society?

By that logic any amendment to the Marriage Act would simply be pandering to the whims of a minority. It's certainly an effective means of discrediting same-sex unions without acknowledging the blatant double standards and hypocrisy in play.

This isn't about homophobia, anti-gay marriage campaigners insist. Have your clubs, your cute TV shows, your parades. Even live together if you must. But marriage?

Sorry, that's a union reserved for a man and a woman. Don't ask why, it just is. Always has been.

Even allowing for the painfully cautious approach that has come to characterise federal politics, it's hard to understand the inaction of the major parties in the face of such flimsy reasoning.

With polls suggesting a majority of Australians support gay marriage - and in the absence of any coherent or compelling case against it - their hesitation is inexplicable.

"I have yet to hear a single reasonable and logical argument for denying marriage to couples of the same gender," observes a gay friend.

"Anyone is perfectly entitled to say 'it doesn't feel right' or 'it doesn't accord with my religious beliefs' but such sentiments are no longer a basis for discrimination - and haven't been since the '60s - for any other significant minority.

"I mean, honestly," he says.

"What is there to be afraid of?"

Yet fear is the operative word. Not only for our voter-backlash wary leaders but for the supposed defenders of marriage. Those who like to bleat about its sanctity but who clearly suspect it is weak enough to crumble under the slightest provocation.

You can't have much faith in its resilience if you genuinely believe it will be undermined by extending its definition to include devoted couples who happen to be of the same sex.

If domestic violence, infidelity and an escalating divorce rate have not tainted the exchanging of marital vows, why should this particular prospect?

Last week two 17-year-olds decided to tie the knot just days after meeting during schoolies celebrations on the Gold Coast.

Although too young to be legally wed, there is nothing to stop them from making it official when they turn 18 in a matter of months.

An engagement ceremony most notable for the wine cask that took centre stage doesn't do much for the reputation of holy matrimony. But the tradition of marriage has withstood far greater challenges than a couple of tipsy teens.

It will even survive the likes of Charlie Sheen, currently back in court following his umpteenth arrest. Multiple ex-wives and a domestic violence rap sheet? Now that's a dubious "lifestyle choice". Yet there are no legislative obstacles to prevent Sheen remarrying.

With the issue certain to resurface in Federal Parliament in the new year, it's time to reposition how the debate over gay marriage is framed.

What's at stake is the right of all consenting adults to legally wed, irrespective of our individual quirks, preferences and beliefs.

Some marriages prove lasting while others do not. Many result in the birth of children but not all.

Marriage has never been a one-size-fits-all undertaking. The onus should be on those who would deny this right to all Australians to convince the rest of us what they know about marriage that we don't.