To her credit, the PM kept her pre-election promise to not support same-sex marriage. Ms Gambaro acted logically and responsibly to oppose it, reflecting the view of the silent majority.

The author fails to acknowledge that the homosexual community has campaigned successfully in its quest for civil rights. So clever has this strategy been in diverting attention away from homosexual behaviour, that it has convinced many that homosexual relationships are virtually the same as heterosexual relationships. This is simply not the case.

No case has been established for socalled marriage equality. It is illogical to claim that the unnatural, dysfunctional, sterile homosexual act is equivalent to the pro-creative heterosexual act. Furthermore, a same-sex partnership requires an external agent such as surrogacy or sperm donor, for the generation of children.

Legalising same-sex marriage is contrary to the interests of society and the family.

There has been no vote against “marriage equality”. There has been a vote against gay marriage, a concept that makes as much sense as carnivorous vegetariansim, or, in the deceptive language of spin, meat equality.

Representative government is more democratic than dictatorship, but it is not democracy.

Representative government means the majority elect them, special interest groups push at them, and (worst) corporate sponsors buy them wholesale by buying their parties.

Only binding citizen-initiated referenda (BCIR) as in Switzerland and some American states such as California are democratic in that the people rule. This is because the people make the important actual decisions, don't merely elect proxies to misrepresent them. "-ocracy" means "rule by" and "demos" means the people.

Does the author think we should also have a referundum on the carbon tax or capital punishment?

Marriage between a man and a woman was first legalised in the religious
rules laid down in the Jewish Torah this wise law was later adopted by the Christians and the Muslims. Christanity grew and became the dominant religion in Europe, hand in hand with responsible government.
Governments evolved and passed secular laws based upon previous religious laws and beliefs. The Marriage Acts of various parliaments in various countries followed. Same sex unions were never contemplated as a normal occurring event, although the practise of sodomy was well known. Marriage was always defined as between a man and a woman and rightly remains so to the present day.
The vocal same sex minority who for very selfish and abnormal reasons desire society to officially acknowledge their union by allowing same sex marriage ceremonies should realise that the authorities, secular and religious, in view of the above long history can never allow such marriages to take place. So advisedly settle down and accept the status quo.

Does the author think we should also have a referendum on the carbon tax or capital punishment? (Posted by Runner)

If a substantial enough number of people sought it, yes. I for one wouldn’t be a signatory, but would certainly sign up for a referendum on the GST, and on any “trade treaty” being negotiated in secret such as the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement?