The case of Ben Jago not being recognised as his male partner’s next of kin is heartbreaking. The stories shared through social media in response to Ben’s story show he is not alone.

Last weekend the Launceston Examiner broke the story of a Tasmanian gay man, Ben Jago, whose partner of five years, Nathan, killed himself in January.

Neither the police nor the Coroner’s Office recognised Ben as next of kin even though by Tasmanian law it is quite clear he is.

Ben and Nathan owned a house together, shared a bank account, were known as a couple and planned to marry in New Zealand next year – more than enough for them to be “significant partners” (the equivalent of de facto partners) and next of kin under the Tasmanian Relationships Act.

Instead two different government agencies ignored this and Nathan’s mother was deemed his closest family member, despite being estranged from her son.

Ben was refused the opportunity to see Nathan’s body, had no role to play in the funeral and had no say in the burial arrangements.

“To be treated like I meant nothing to him and was not even a part of his life,” Ben said, “left me feeling like a part of my soul has been crushed into dust.”

Ben Jago speaks about the death of his partner.

The implications for marriage equality are clear. If Ben and Nathan had been married under Australian law there would have been no question about their kinship.

It’s true that in Tasmania unmarried couples can obtain a certificate by signing a deed of relationship, something Ben and Nathan had not done.

But it is clear from the response of the police and the Coroner’s Office to Ben’s case that they don’t understand what a deed of relationship is, how it works, or what rights attach to it.

For example, neither agency understood that partners do not need to be in a deed of relationship to be deemed next of kin.

The Coroner even suggested to Ben that he obtain a deed after Nathan’s death, something which is legally impossible.

As one rueful Tasmanian official said to me “the great thing about a marriage certificate is that everyone understands what it means and no-one can challenge it”.

Ben’s experience is a direct response to all those politicians who declare marriage equality unnecessary because same-sex couples already have the same rights as de facto couples and can obtain relationship certificates in some states.

It also refutes sceptics on the left who declare marriage equality to be a boutique issue, more about promoting privilege and assimilation than removing real-life disadvantage.

The implications of Ben’s case run deeper than legal discrimination. Equality in marriage would have made it less likely Ben and Nathan’s love and commitment was disrespected and disregarded, even if they had chosen not to marry,

This is because the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage sends the message that the love and commitment in all same-sex relationships is less valuable, and that these relationships don’t need to be taken as seriously.

I’m reminded of the deaths of Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson in the Lindt Café siege. They both had been in long-term, committed relationships.

But in news reports of Tori’s death his parents and siblings were mentioned before his partner, where reports of Katrina’s death mentioned her husband and children first and her parents rarely if ever.

As with Ben’s partner Nathan, Tori’s parents came first because he couldn’t marry. This is because marriage is still a rite of passage from being a child in one’s birth family to an adult in a new family.

In effect, the exclusion of same-sex partners from marriage infantilises us.

I’m not saying marriage equality will erase all prejudice against same-sex partners, but that it’s much harder to challenge while it has the law’s justification and protection.

Don’t take my word for it. Consider some of the responses to Ben’s story on social media.

For some people it has tapped a deep well of grief about the disrespect same-sex partners have long faced.

Wendy Lenthem writes:

I had a very special friend who died after a long illness. His partner of 32 years was denied any of his assets, not allowed to his funeral and was kicked out of their house even though he and his partner were on the mortgage papers. This from the family who had no contact with their son, brother and uncle for 38 years since he came out. The family were contacted by the partner in the hopes to recoil before his death and say their last goodbyes. They refused to come see him and 2 days before he died at home they literally camped outside the house not entering until he died and even before the funeral director got there, barged through and started taking stuff. We called the police but couldn’t get any support. It’s wrong. So wrong. 32 years! 32 years ignored by society, family, government. It’s just heartbreaking.

It’s also clear from the responses to Ben’s story that he is not alone and discrimination continues despite the legal recognition of same-sex relationships.

According to Kyle Hawthorne:

Unfortunately this story is all too common. I went through a very similar situation to Ben in 2012. Initially they put his father down (as next of kin), however I made sure the coroner’s office put myself down as the next of kin. I left Australia and now live abroad because I was a second class citizen.

Jeff Franklin tells a similar story:

Four years ago a friend went through a similar situation as Ben experienced. Two very intelligent men who had been together for four years when tragically one died very suddenly. Enter ex-wife and family and you can guess the rest. The lawyers on both sides were the financial winners!! Until marriage equality is a reality use every legal protection possible!!

But the response to Ben’s case is not entirely bleak. Ben’s story has also elicited profound empathy from many Australians, including many heterosexuals.

Nici Perriam is typical:

My husband of 7 months passed away in 2012. As we were a male and female everything went through me. All of his assets immediately passed to me even though there was no will. An awful situation was made easier due to the good fortune of having that piece of paper. This is why I’m so desperate for marriage equality. So that people who are in the worst of circumstances have an experience like me, and not like Ben.

Across Australia there are hundreds of thousands of people like Nici who will see in Ben’s story the urgent need for marriage equality. It will be their voices that will convince politicians to vote for marriage equality, or, if we have a plebiscite, convince their fellow Australians to do the same.

Personal stories like Ben’s, having tapped our compassion as a nation, will play an indispensable role in finally leading us to marriage equality.