Nicky Bryson: Separate and not equal

Settling for a compromise does not equal make, as exemplified by the latest push for civil unions, writes Nicky Bryson.

Last week I watched in delight as Magda Szubanski ‘came out’ for herself and in support of marriage equality – an incredibly brave move on both parts for which I applaud her. What has been really interesting to me is that having such a famous person support marriage equality in this country is once again shining a spotlight on the whole ‘separate but equal’ stance that many Australians endorse.

In between all the congratulatory remarks on each news story have been the more depressing comments from people stating that they support us having some kind of legally-binding union but that we should leave the whole institution of marriage to men and women.

I actually read the words that “legal unions would give the equality they demand without hijacking a tradition and twisting it to something it’s not”. For so many people, an ‘us and them’ mentality still prevails.

Perhaps I am incredibly naïve but I can’t understand how this thought process could even develop in 2012. I find it easier to deal with the outright homophobes who believe we don’t deserve any rights than I do the weak, hypocritical people who think we deserve some rights, for sure, just not as many as them.

I don’t use the words ‘separate but equal’ lightly. In American history the term was used to justify racial segregation after the abolishment of slavery and it was a very bleak period. Would the people who support separate but equal marriage laws be so keen to see that kind of thinking applied across the board to homosexuals? Should us gay folk have our own schools, our own lunch counters, our own bathrooms? If we could undermine marriage, well we could undermine just about everything, I guess.

Then naturally the arguments that marriage is a religious concept arise. I’m willing to bet that half the people who introduce this one haven’t been to a regular church service since Sunday school. Our own prime minister used religion to defend her opposition to marriage equality, yet that little hussy is living in sin with a hairdresser!

There is a massive push to allow us to get married, as long as the church doesn’t have to get involved and I’m disgusted by how many gay people think it’s a good idea. I’ll be damned if I’m gonna go Uncle Tomming my way through life, happy for any scrap that feels like equality. So what if some gay people might want to get married in a church? Who has the right to say that their religious desire to be married by a priest should be shunted aside so the rest of us can get closer to what we want?

Equality shouldn’t come with a ‘get out jail free’ card for anyone. The very definition of the word denies escape-hatch clauses. I don’t want to be separate but equal. I contribute in every way to this society. I’m gay and I will live and die upon this earth the same as everybody else. In that time, I will have worked, loved, laughed, cried and struggled my way through life no differently to my heterosexual friends and neighbours.

I want people to stop being so frightened of what it means for me to do all of that with a wedding band on my finger. I shouldn’t have to earn that equality, or accept a different version of it. Just like I’ve been shouting at every rally: “Gay, straight, black, white; Marriage is a civil right”.