Is same-sex marriage an adequate response to queer youth suicide?

However, it's worth bearing in mind that there are downsides to marriage that can impact on non-heterosexual persons in other ways by creating new discriminations: those who do not or cannot find a partner for marriage are further marginalised, often increasing shame. All of the wonderful, imaginative and alternative ways of 'doing queer families' become less legitimate and these would be a loss not only to queer communities but to the broader community that can learn so much about how to think about relationships from these examples.

There is also a question as to the number of GLBTIQ persons who actually desire the right to marry. My own partner of seven years and I find the idea of marriage a tad distasteful, and of all our coupled friends and colleagues none have stated they would marry given the opportunity. Ultimately, the right to marry is a positive, but whether or not this very 'adult' issue is a priority in light of queer youth issues such as suicide needs more understanding.

In community and political terms, the point I have often argued is that campaigning resources are finite: the more energy and effort that is put into the predominantly adult issue of marriage, the less that is available to combat the more pressing and immediate issues such as protection from homophobic bullying, queer-friendly youth support and counselling resources, and research into intervention and prevention.

RELATIVE MISERY

An emerging theory of suicide is known as the 'relative misery hypothesis'. This theory argues that when an entire community is hard done by, the bonds of oppression are a support mechanism that helps prevent suicide (which is not a justification to continue exclusion from marriage, of course).

When, however, some people see their community peers doing better (those who marry as opposed to those who for whatever reason cannot) or more affluent (those in high-profile positions as opposed to those who remain unemployed) or more attractive (particularly in a community which over-values appearance), then suicide risk is statistically more probable.

Following this, when GLBTIQ younger persons see queer adults ticking off marriage along with other attributes of affluence, then the frustration of not being able to see oneself achieve these aspirations can lead to a greater likelihood of suicidality. Legislation does not change how one feels about achieving the goals it makes a right.

It is a complex theoretical position-but suicide is a complex social problem and ought be treated as such.

While Villis and Hewitt are right to point to the benefits of same-sex marriage for adult population health, we are yet to have evidence that there are any direct benefits for younger persons who are struggling to cope with being bullied, humiliated, shamed and cannot (yet) envisage a liveable life and a happy future-let along a marriage ceremony.

Where queer youth suicide is a substantial problem with much further complex research needed, we might say it is a bit trite to use it as a justification for a marriage arrangement that can only be enjoyed by adults.

Ultimately, same-sex marriage is absolutely fine and very much should be legislated to accommodate those who desire it. But as a mechanism to end discrimination for youth, it should only be thought of as one small part of a much larger effort that is needed to combat queer youth suicide which involves preventing the horrors of persistent bullying and homophobia, cultural change to overcome the continuing problem of sexual shame and shifting sexuality away from majority/minority distinctions in which queer sexuality is never quite as socially legitimate as heterosexuality.