Back in 1969, Time magazine wrote a piece about a quirky, little phenomenon, newly gaining the courage to point one toe out of the closet, called “homosexuality.” A largely sympathetic, more curious than condemning culture piece, it nonetheless believed that homosexuality was the result of a disturbed childhood and ended with this analysis:

While homosexuality is a serious and sometimes crippling maladjustment, research has made clear that it is no longer necessary or morally justifiable to treat all inverts as outcasts. The challenge to American society is simultaneously to devise civilized ways of discouraging the condition and to alleviate the anguish of those who cannot be helped, or do not wish to be.

Some historical understanding may need to be given. The American Psychiatric Association didn’t remove homosexuality from the manuals of mental disorders until 1973, with the American Psychological Association following suit in 1975.

10 years later, in 1979, and with much changed, another Time piece on homosexuality looked into the way gays had become organised. They no longer wanted to be afraid of coming out, or barely tolerated in their gay ghettos. Gay people wanted to be accepted by the mainstream, recognised by law, and therefore had turned into a political movement.

But as the piece points out, as the gay movement picked up steam it gained an ironic tribute, “the rise of an alarmed, organized and vehement opposition that includes fundamentalist churches.”

It’s a time that was captured in this year’s wonderful film, ‘Milk’. Harvey Milk was an intelligent, generous, gregarious former Wall Street suit, who went on to become “the first openly gay man elected to any substantial political office in the history of the planet,” as told by Time, now in 1999. The magazine was profiling Milk as one of their “heroes and icons” in their list of The Most Important People of the Century.

The film also depicts the work of conservative Christian singer Anita Bryant. In 1977, the passing of an ordinance that prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in a Florida county, inspired Bryant to begin a highly publicised anti-gay campaign to repeal many of the hard won gay rights ordinances across the United States. However just as the anti-gay movement was born out of the gay movement, Anita’s campaign, and the murder of Harvey Milk, inspired many more to join the fight for equality in terms of homosexuality and the law. And hopefully, many more again, in this generation, with the release of the film.

It’s a half a century long game of tug-of-war, with both sides continually finding new recruits. Yes, there is more acceptance of homosexuality now than forty years ago, but only thanks to an anti-gay movement that continues to remain active, vigilant and organised. Because if they don’t, the other side will make overwhelming progress and possibly undo decades of hard work.

One only has to look at last year’s Proposition 8 to find an example of this perpetual two steps forward, one step back pattern. In May 2008, a California Supreme Court case in a 4–3 decision, ruled that bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, effectively legalising same-sex marriage for that state. It was a triumph for everyone who had fought for gay rights, and many couples did marry, including high profile lesbians Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi.

Just six months later, on the same day the people of California voted in their new president, they also passed a new ballot proposition banning gay marriage once again. (The gay marriages consecrated during those months will continue to be recognised.) The battle for and against leading up to the vote had become the most expensive ballot measure on a social issue in the nation’s country with opponents of Prop 8 having raised $43.3 million, and supporters $39.9 million.

And it was this decision, passed with just 52 percent of the vote, that sparked a flame in me. While I always had vague feelings of support for gay marriage, it was, I must confess, something I had never really thought about. When I heard about gay marriage originally being legalised in California, and we began seeing pictures of happy gay couples tying the knot, it simply warmed my heart.

But with Prop 8, that happy chapter came to an abrupt and bitter end. Suddenly I had the feeling like we had been robbed of hard-earned progress. That indignation inspired in me questions I should have asked a long time ago; wait a minute, a section of our society aren’t allowed to have the same rights as the rest of society? And this is LEGAL? How can that be?

As I’ve said previously, for me many tricky debates are a question of different definitions, or different interpretations. And both sides have strong, though opposing structures of rationale to back their feelings up. But when it comes to the question of gay marriage, the arguments of the anti-gay marriage movement are terribly thin. I won’t go into all of them. These SMH readers (second letter onwards) get stuck into it if you need any convincing.

(UPDATE: This statement on the Australian Marriage Equality website says it best, and I found very touching. They also respond point by point to some of the anti-gay rhetoric.)

It seems pretty obvious that all most of the flimsy excuses the anti-gay marriage movement give, are just blatant, old fashioned, unjustifiable homophobia in disguise. Which is why, unlike questions of abortion, or interfering with dictatorships, or globalisation, or how best to deal with global warming, etc., I am concrete about my views on about gay marriage.

Which is to say, I believe EVERYONE has the right to marry, and be recognised by the State as so, no matter what their sexual orientation.

And no, de facto relationship status, or registered relationships status are not good enough. Here in Australia, same-sex marriages are not permitted, however cohabiting same-sex couples are recognised as de facto couples, which effectively gives them the same legal entitlements and protections as a heterosexual, married couple.

But this is not the same as a marriage. And the battle has moved to the next stage.

As Australians, gay or straight, we should no longer tolerate living in a nation whose legislation discriminates against a section of our society. How can we be a proud of country whose homophobia has been sanctioned by the government? It is time we really made Australia the fair and just country it purports to be. Until that day, our claims of egalitarianism are nothing but hypocrisy.

In my next post, I hope to learn and share some practical and effective ways we can fight for the legalisation of gay marriage here in Australia.

UPDATE: I’ve decided to change the title of this post. I think the original was not only overly sensational, it didn’t reflect the majority of the post’s intention.