In the current debate four subsets of what might be described as co-dependent cohabiting couples have emerged: heterosexual married, heterosexual unmarried, same-sex couples and blood-relations. The argument being made against the extension of legal and financial rights to gay couples is that it discriminates against blood-related cohabiters, as the distinction to all practical purposes between the two sets must be the sexual dimension to a gay couple’s relationship. This is a smokescreen, one thickened by the addition of the gay adoption issue which has been given an artificial prominence in the debate, being the one that would potentially upset the greater part of Irish society.
Marriage aside, the very basis of reform should be that mutually co-dependent cohabiters from all subsets receive the same basic rights as married couples when it comes to social, legal, welfare and tax issues. That differences exist is indicative of the cloying influence the constitutional definition of the family (or a specific interpretation therein) still has in an Ireland where the configuration of the family has radically changed. But that is as far as the common ground between the four subsets goes.
Marriage is about two people wanting to make a lifelong commitment to each other with the blessing of the State and therefore every citizen of that state, a right that currently is the sole domain of heterosexual couples. Cohabiting unmarried couples can exercise this right at any point they want to, while for blood-related cohabiters, such a need for recognition will never arise.
Therefore the rights issue is a separate one. The rights automatically applied to a married couple should also be applied across the other three subsets: that is parity. But so long as a heterosexual couple can have their bond recognised in front of all the citizens of Ireland and a same-sex couple can’t, there isn’t equality.
That's why it has to be gay marriage.
