It was with no small amount of pleasure that I awoke this morning to discover that a Federal judge in the United States had just overturned California's much maligned Proposition 8, a 2008 citizen passed Constitutional amendment that defined marriage explicitly as being between a man and a woman. For those with an interest in gay rights, the bill's passage had somewhat tempered the otherwise euphoric state that accompanied the election of Barack Obama. But the decision of Judge Vaughn Walker to invalidate the amendment on the grounds that it violated California's Constitutional duty to avoid inflicting undue discrimination upon it's people was a tremendous victory for the 'homosexual agenda', as the more aberrant edges of the American political set put it. The kind of edges that would stump up money to broadcast this ad:





"Coming together in love"? Get your hand off it, you putrescent hate jockeys. At least have the courage of your convictions and say "Look, we hate gay people and think they should be fair game in hunting reserves. Give us some money and we'll make our gay hunting dreams... a reality". But despite the victory, California still has a way to go until it fully emerges from the clouds of the religiously righteous. An eventual Supreme Court appeal is almost certainly on the cards, a decision which, given the currently divided state of the Court, will be schismatic, unpredictable and very, very final. But for now, the ol' gay marriage is back on the cards for the 37-odd million inhabitants of America's most populous state, joining it with Connecticut, Massachusetts, Iowa, New Hampshire and Vermont.

The global stocks for same-sex marriage were also given a boost last month when Argentina legislated to extend all available legal rights and responsibilities to its homosexual population, seemingly following in Spain's footsteps as an otherwise religious nation willing to ignore the shrill yellings of its Catholic constituency for the sake of general human kindness. This followed closely on from Iceland, whose openly lesbian Prime Minister was the first person to take advantage of the law. They join the now 10-strong assemblage of nations who have legislated in favour of gay marriage, a group that also, somewhat surprisingly, includes South Africa. If one is to include civil unions in the mix, the number swells to 30.

Which, I guess, takes us back to Australia. Where it has been revealed this week that the current Government has continued on with the policy of the Howard Government in refusing diplomatic assistance to Australians who are overseas and trying to get a certification of single status from the local embassy. So, it's not enough to keep the filthy taint of gay marriage away from our own shores (like so many greedy, greedy refugees), now we're trying to keep it from infecting our citizens even while they're in another country. And then last week we were treated to the supremely edifying spectacle of Penny Wong, notably our first openly gay minister, being forced to defend the Government's ongoing decision to treat her as a second class citizen. Which even by the desolate standards of this election campaign was a fairly sad and bare and empty moment.

Wong copped a lot of opprobrium at that point, much of which, to be honest, I think was distinctly unfair. Cabinet solidarity is, for better or worse, a fairly entrenched standard in the Australian political scene. Witness the now weeks long furore over the "leak" in the Labor frontbench. The same media forces who so willingly lambasted Wong for her loyalty to the Government line and apparent betrayal of the homosexual cause have themselves spent day after day gleefully hypothesising and insinuating and accusing various members of the Cabinet for their supposed violation of the exact same principle. The idea is that Cabinet discusses matters of policy in private and under strictest confidentiality, and then when a decision is reached faces the world in a unified fashion. It's part and parcel of being a member of Cabinet. For Wong the decision was to either tow the party line, or to resign from the frontbench and sacrifice her career, her portfolio, and potentially her role as a fierce advocate for homosexual rights in the Labor Cabinet. I can't imagine it was an easy position for her to be in, but her reaction was understandable.

But the supposed incongruity of Wong's private life and her professional standpoint really just distract from the basic fact that we, as a developed, secular and generally humane nation continue to see the legitimation of same-sex marriage as an apparent threat to the general good order of things. Although, I think that formulation imposes more ideological value than either major party is really capable of right now. More likely, everyone in Canberra can see and knows that gay marriage is an inevitability, and probably a near one, but that in the low-ball, anti-reformist electoral math that currently stands in for what was once known as politics, the prospect of acting on a non-essential and potentially divisive piece of social policy is singularly unappealing. By these standards, gay marriage goes into the same "too unpredictable" basket as other popularly supported initiatives such as euthanasia and abortion reform. These are the issues that people support, but to which no politician wants to sign their name. Because God forbid anyone would be caught wilfully engaging in the sort of career-ending folly that would be having a considered, conscientious and individual position on such things.

As you might have picked up, my position on the matter is fairly unequivocal. It matters a lot to me, and potentially more than it should. There are, quite obviously, a lot of difficult and searing issues currently facing Australia and the world. The environment leaps to mind. But I think as much as anything it is that relative insignificance that makes it a matter of such profound injustice for me. Because it would be so simple, so quick and so easy to  stop being as we are and to allow gay people the unequivocal right to this cornerstone of public life. It would take but a single, soon accepted and quickly forgotten Act of Parliament to do it. An Act that would have as its only consequence the extension of happiness and fairness to a significant portion of our nation's inhabitants. And so, the fact that we choose not to do it, that we lack the political vision required to make this simple Act a reality, can only  feel like a refusal of the most momentously petty proportions. It's an unnecessary harm, and as a country with pretensions of enlightenment it should be, and is below us.

To take us out, here's a picture of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, 79 and 83, a couple of 51 years, who in 2004 became one of the first gay couples in America to receive a marriage licence. And if that doesn't break your heart a little, then I don't know what will.