A BILL legalising same-sex marriage has been passed in New York, prompting celebrations and the usual outburst of homophobia.

The passage of this Bill draws attention to the issue in Australia where, despite our sense of social democracy and progressiveness, same-sex marriages are still illegal. When asked about her stance, Prime Minister Julia Gillard monotones the definition given in the Marriage Act, which states: ``Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.''

In other words: homosexuals need not apply. The other reason most often given for refusing same-sex marriage is based on religious principles. I always feel this flies in the face of basic sacred tenets, which generally espouse universalism, acceptance and love. Here it's a case of words speaking louder than actions.

That we're still discussing these kinds of issues and framing them in such reductive ways in the 21st century is a disgrace. I'm not alone in thinking this either. A recent Galaxy poll indicates 75 per cent of Australians feel the Act should be changed to include same-sex marriage. So why won't the Prime Minister listen? Is it simply gutless populism and pandering to the religious Right? Or are their more complex issues involved?

Why do some people feel drawn to fiercely protect heterosexual marriage, making it an exclusive custom when it fails in 50 per cent of cases?

According to British academic Frank Furedi: ``Gay marriage has become one of those causes through which the cosmopolitan cultural elites define themselves and construct a moral contrast between themselves and ordinary folk.''

He writes about the moral superiority of those who support gay marriage and their tendency to silence opposition by asserting their enlightened stance and comparing it to the prejudices and homophobia of the majority.

Apart from the selectiveness of Furedi's argument and his appalling generalisations about why the ``elite'' support fellow humans' rights to access a legal institution, he's wrong about so-called ``ordinary folk''.

Ordinary folk are not a bunch of prejudiced bogans; nor are the ``cultural elite'' in agreement. We're diverse and divided, but most want this antediluvian law overturned. What Furedi overlooks is that many arguments for gay marriage embrace ideas about love, spirituality and emotional equity. Whether we're homosexual or heterosexual, we all have the right to succeed or fail in the love stakes. That one type of love is legally sanctioned through a public ceremony, legislation and the rights these accrue and another is not, is an anathema to many.

When public outcry around gay marriage enables comments such as those posted on Foxnews.com to circulate after the New York Bill was passed, allowing bigotry a global audience, then this isn't simply an issue about a person or group feeling superior or another being intolerant. It's about systematic and thus sanctioned abuse and discrimination practised because of an entrenched and reductive notion of mainstream values and the maintenance of these. On this site, gay people were described as ``freaks'' and marriage to toasters, pets and blow-up dolls were likened to homosexual unions. Others felt empowered enough to write: ``If there was a test to know when a fetus was gay, I would support abortion.''

Read Full Story at: http://www.couriermail.com.au