Until someone can state a reason the government should have any say in adult, consensual relationships then the entire argument is moot.

We all ready have in place laws that govern property rights, adoption, tax, contracts, and protect both children and adults from non-consensual relationships.

Remove the Marriage act entirely and allow people to decide if/when/how they wish to define their relationships. This will also allow communities/groups to recognize any type of relationships they wish within the exiting laws described above.

"Overseas studies show they (civil unions) do not provide same-sex couples with same level of ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (def: recognition of the existence or truth of something)"

This seems to be the main goal of the gay movement, to force people who disagree with homosexuality to accept it. We know that when gay marriage is legalised homosexuality will be promoted in schools, universities and anywhere else that the left has a strong influence.

Churches in Australia will never be able to acknowledge same sex marriage, thus, for the left, freedom of religion must be a casualty on it's path to equality. Truth is, gays won't feel equal unless the church is rendered useless (e.g. by closing down its charities that don't support gay adoption) or changes it's view on homosexuality, which it simply cannot do and remain Biblical.

Social conservatives were ridiculed for using the 'slippery slope' argument against civil unions 10 years ago but they turned out to be exactly right. With gay marriage, we will be half way down the slope, the bottom of the slope will be the loss of religious liberty as we know it, as history repeats itself and the State muscles its way into the Church once again.

I am also somewhat uncomfortable with the arguments put forward, but for different reasons to progressive pat (who should in all conscience rename himself reactionary roger, but that's a different discussion).

"The reason civil unions are less and less popular among same-sex partners is because they failed to solve the problems these couples face."

Ok, so what are those unsolved problems?

"Overseas studies show they do not provide same-sex couples with same level of acknowledgement as married couple"

I'm sorry... run that past me again? The "acknowledgement", surely, is in the act of mutual commitment, which is between the two individuals concerned. Why should it be a concern what anyone else thinks?

"...and sometimes not even full relationship entitlements."

That is not the case in Australia. Next.

"...most people don't know what a civil union is, what it means and what legal effect it has"

Again, that is utter nonsense. Equally for heterosexual civil unions, by the way.

"...a separate and second-class status for same-sex couples that studies have shown can actually foster discrimination and stigma rather than remove it."

I'd be interested to see those "studies", their provenance and their conclusions. Because quite frankly, I can't believe that in Australia those not already disposed to discriminate and stigmatise would react any differently to a civil union between same-sex partners. What is it about the act of "getting married" that would change their attitude? In any way whatsoever?

"...a national civil union scheme would also be immensely impractical... require referrals from the states... new system of celebrants... certificates.. amendment of all official forms. etc. etc."

That's simply being petulant. There is no possible reason that it could not work, given a modicum of determination.

Look, I can understand why you might feel hard done by, but why not just have a civil ceremony, and declare yourselves "married"? That's what heterosexual couples do, all the time.

It'll certainly be quicker than waiting for the church to change their order of service to meet your requirements.

The gay marriage issue is the silliest issue that people have ever got worked up over. Calling it “marriage equality” is just a trick to disguise what is no more than attempted word theft.

It is not even a gay rights issue. It is an airhead issue.

In our society, there is something called marriage – the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman – that gays most definitely do not want. They want something different – the exclusive and life-long union of one man and another man or of one woman and another woman. Instead of pursuing this aim, they and their supporters attempt an arguably unconstitutional word theft by creating mass hysteria about something called “marriage equality” and calling those who disagree religious bigots.

This is as logical as my demanding as a vegetarian the right to eat meat, meaning, not the flesh of animals, but the relabelling of vegetables as meat, under the slogan of “meat equality” and as my accusing those opposed to my weird claim of being vegephobic bigots.

If gays want legal recognition of the exclusive and life-long union of one man and another man or of one woman and another woman, that is fine, but it is not marriage.

Just to forestall the usual accusations made against those who dare to oppose this crusade, I point out that I write, not from any religious motivation, but as an English teacher from the era before words meant whatever anyone wanted them to mean.

Same sex couples would love to have their devotion to each other formally solemnized, but Australian law doe not recognise it.
The only official recognition for same sex couples, is if both or either are recipients of Centrelink payments, then those payments are adjusted to those of a hetrosexual couple.

I agree with Stezza and Chris.

The analogy I use is that I am male, and I would like to be recognised as the mother of my kids. I know this goes against the very meaning of the word, and I am a father and a parent, but the word mother has vastly greater nurturing connotations, and I would like the government to recognise me as the mother of my children.

We will never have true gender equality, and men will never be regarded as nurturers of children until we can be recognised as mothers.