Last month, the European court of human rights ruled that member states are not obliged to allow gay marriage, despite "an emerging consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples". Shortly afterwards, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled unconstitutional the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the federal government to recognise gay marriages. And then, last week, Argentina became the first Latin American country to legalise gay marriage, granting same-sex couples all the legal rights, responsibilities and protections that marriage brings to heterosexuals.
It is difficult to see how a legal system that claims to take equality before the law seriously can deny marriage equality. Supporters of same-sex marriage regard inclusion into such an important social and legal institution as vital to the citizenship of gay men and lesbians.
But some take issue with this. As they are interested in preserving the diversity of gay relationships, they resist conforming to societal ideals of "normal" relationships. Their concern is that gay culture may perish as gay men and lesbians begin to pursue typical heterosexual norms by getting married and raising children.
The sameness of gay and lesbian relationships to their heterosexual counterparts is often emphasised. In the Canadian case of Halpern v Attorney General of Canada, seven gay and lesbian couples argued that their reasons for wanting to engage in the formal civil union of marriage – "to celebrate their love and commitment to each other" – are the same as those of heterosexual couples. But while love and commitment may motivate gay and straight relationships alike, they may be rather different in their approaches to, say, organising households or raising children. And it seems possible to enter into the legal institution of marriage without losing these differences.
Same-sex marriage may actually allow an ancient institution to progress into modern times. One inevitable deviation from heterosexual marriage is the absence of opposite sexes and so the traditional power of men over women. As this power difference is removed from gay marital contexts, the institution of marriage may itself evolve to better encompass gender equality. (Albeit there may, of course, still be power divides within a same-sex relationships and marriage.)
The assimilation of gay men and lesbians into a heterosexual lifestyle, whether that is considered a good or bad thing, is not the crucial issue. The real challenge to gay politics is the creation of moral hierarchies within the gay community. As some gay men and lesbians become included within privileged private monogamous unions protected by law, those who resist this inclusion may become less imaginable as gay citizens.
The debate about same-sex marriage exists in a context where spaces for sexual experimentation are being replaced with more socially "respectable" forms of gay visibility. Take the existence of gay professional networking websites like Jake, which distances itself from the so-called Gaydar approach by denying full membership to users posting partially undressed photographs.
Such a drive towards social respectability is problematic insofar as it produces artificial and moralistic divisions within the gay community. The "good" gay citizens are usually white, male, affluent and discreetly sexual. By virtue of their relative gender, class and race privilege, their views are taken to represent the voice of and define the political agenda for the entire community.
A case in point is the first national debate to pitch for British gay votes hosted by Jake. According to them, their polling base represents affluent, largely male, mainly successful business and professional people: 29% are business owners or senior executives, and a further 35% are in consulting, management, legal and medical professions. Half earn more than £50,000 a year. This seems not so much a cross-section of gay votes as an influential sub-group whose interests may differ from those of less privileged members.
Same-sex marriage may also operate as a vehicle for social respectability, ascribing respect to gay men and lesbians in marital unions. In so doing, it may further marginalise those who do not conform to current scheme of marriage, such as individuals in openly non-monogamous unions.
Diversity is not alien to heterosexual marriage: religious versus secular, gets being granted by husbands in Jewish marriages, Muslim divorces. It is important to think about whether the same-sex marriage could be re-imagined to include gay men and lesbians who do not fit the mould. If so, then we may further enhance the subversive potential of same-sex marriage. If not, then some individuals may remain outside an institution that does not reflect their realities.
None of this is a case against the legalisation of same-sex marriage, which is undeniably a significant right. Rather, it is a reminder that gay marriage is hardly the final frontier for gay politics, and may well prove an easier political victory than garnering support for broader sexual diversity.