"Gillard doesn’t appear homophobic."

If voting against equal rights for gays 'doesn't appear homophobic', then what does? True, Gillard may be playing political games rather than expressing her true feelings, but if the outcome is the same, what's the difference? 'Homophobia' doesn't have to mean hurling abuse at Gay Rights parades.

"Why are leftwing sexual minorities and their enablers so hungry for nanny Canberra’s approval?"

I don't know. Maybe you should ask some Aboriginals, or some women, what it feels like to be on the sharp end of discriminatory legislation, and regarded as a second-class citizen by the country in which you work, vote and pay taxes. I know that I wouldn't be very happy about it. But then I'm not gay. Perhaps they're more tolerant than I would be under the same circumstances.

But I hope not.

The gay marriage campaign is a fascinating illustration of so much that is wrong in our national debates. It moves us from a democracy to a victimocracy.

The campaign is founded on the lie there is an institution, marriage (i.e., the lifelong and exclusive union of one man and one woman), denied to gays when in fact there is an institution, marriage, that gays do not want.

It appeals to our deeply held value of equality even though it has nothing to do with equality but is no more than a demand to change the meaning of a word that has had the same meaning since it entered English from the French. It has infiltrated the phrase “marriage equality” into the conversation rather than the more accurate oxymoron “gay marriage”, a concept akin to calling people in the process of adopting children pregnant.

It constructs the debate as one of enlightened freedom-lovers versus homophobic religious bigots when it is really between those who think words can mean anything anyone demands that they mean and those who think that at least some meanings matter and ought to be preserved.

It has produced mass hysteria in the genuine distress of those disappointed that parliament has not yet fallen for the linguistic sleight of hand inherent in the proposition, but the distress is not the fault of those who voted in favour of the English language but the fault of those who invented the ludicrous campaign in the first place.

That such a campaign would be taken seriously by pontificating airhead Greens is not surprising. That it would subvert a major party to the extent that the majority if its MPs have now broken the promise they took to the 2010 election is sad.

A person, whether gay or not, is legally entitled to form a union with a member of the opposite sex or of the same sex. The first is marriage. The second is not. Demanding that the word currently used to describe the first of these be now used to describe the second is just silly

C'mon everybody. The answer is obvious. Gillard has no beliefs or holds them weakly while her wish to retain popular support and power is clearly her main concern. Its a losing issue, thats why Julia voted against it. If it was a winner, she would vote for it. Simple. Being an atheist she can change belief at will and being only interested in her own 'legacy' she does whatever is pragmatic at the time. Why people are looking for anything deeper is puzzling. Julia Gillard is only interested in on thing, the 'legacy' of Julia Gillard. Thats it.

What a load of erudite distraction. Biology has nothing to do with the legitmacy or otherwise of the current legislative definition of marriage.
Marriage is a social construction. As the patterns of relating within a society flow and develop, so do the patterns we define to hold those new patterns and modes of relating.
The legitimacy of both sides of this debate is obvious - we all constitute the society that is constructing it's institutions and defining it's norms.
I think it's reasonable for a marginalised group to feel their reality should be incorporated into the wider societies frame of reference and one way for that to happen is for their committed relationships to be recognised as legally equal to any other committed relationship.
Oh, "history" gets to reveal who's on the right side of it, not you. Sheesh.
Mikel Azure.

Julia Gillard was not mistaken in allowing a conscience vote. With the exception of items specified in the platform on which the party was elected every vote should be a conscience vote.

I don't think her opposition to same-sex marriage has anything to do with her beliefs except for her belief that it would be helpful in increasing her chances for election.

After reading this article thoroughly, including the linked articles, I have realised that the author makes no distinction between the word marriage and the word union.

The Dutch triad are not married. They are partners in a civil union. The Brazilian example, ditto. Yet the author makesm the illogical jump to a conclusion that union = marriage.

Well, it is not.