You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!
Barry O'Farrell is a politician and a conservative one at that.
And conservative politicians have something of a rep for non core promises, or post election audits that allow them to shelf various pre election promises?
He has to now remain cognizant of just how dependent a basically bankrupt NSW is on federal funding, and just how antagonistic certain elements of the "NEW" federal govt are to true equality on so many levels/fronts.
Perhaps the way to go, and the way virtually all reform is prospered, is through baby steps?
Perhaps those who want marriage equality, would be wise settle for legalized civil union? And they may even find that the PM would sit still for a conscience vote on that? And there may be enough support for that much, to see it become legitimized?
I mean, 50% of something is a whole lot better than 100% of nothing. Take what progress is available for now, and then continue to adjitate for truer equality!
Then they would be far better placed to progress marriage equality, when a more sympathetic govt is installed?
Other than that, a referendum, if widely supported by either side, would settle the issue for some decades or all time!?
Rhrosty.

< NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell has given us one of the weakest of all: "national consistency" >

Well… yes and no.

Yes marriage equality should most definitely be a federal issue. We don’t want a patchwork of differing policies in different states.

But he shouldn’t be sitting back and waiting for the Feds to take action. O’Farrell has got the chance now to get some action happening in NSW.

So he should most definitely be supporting the NSW same-sex marriage bill.

Throughout our national history, it has often been a state government that has led the way. This is happening at the moment with Newman’s crackdown on criminal bikie activity, which other states are looking at closely and working towards taking similar action.

So come Fatty O’Barrell, support this legislation!

According to an article in yesterday's Crikey, Ludwig, that is in fact the more difficult row to hoe.

>>Yes marriage equality should most definitely be a federal issue. We don’t want a patchwork of differing policies in different states.<<

Apparently, the attempt by the ACT to lead the way has taken them straight into a legal minefield.

"...suffice it to say that the mere fact it makes reference to the federal definition of marriage in its framework, as well as seeking to legally recognise foreign same-sex marriages in its jurisdiction, kicks this law out of bounds on the full."

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/10/31/how-the-act-gay-marriage-law-is-designed-to-fail/

According to the article:

"...the states and territories do in fact have the power to act, but only where they expressly legislate for same-sex marriage outside of the federal definition of marriage. The two laws can coexist. However, trying to blend state or territory law with Commonwealth law, as the ACT does, dooms that reform to failure."

If this is correct, then State-by-State legislation in favour of gay marriage will satisfy all but the most entrenched positions on both sides. Gays will have the right to marry, while the "don't mess with the definition of marriage" people will have their needs met at the same time, thanks to the "federal definition" remaining untouched.

There. Problem solved. Gordian knot elegantly and permanently severed.

Small donations gratefully accepted.

Pericles, it is unfortunate that these sorts of thing can get bogged down in legal wrangling and become complicated beyond any level of commonsense.

But the bottom line is very simple: we should have marriage equality, not some completely different setup for hetero and homo couples. We should realise by now that homosexuality has been with us since the year dot, and that there is nothing wrong with it…. and that the definition of marriage should most definitely include it!

So, good on the ACT for doing what they’ve done.

And Batty O’Farrell should just get on with it in his state.

That's simply perverse, Ludwig.

>>So, good on the ACT for doing what they’ve done.<<

What is good about bringing in legislation that is certain to be struck down in court? Where's the sense in that? And how does it actually further the cause for gay marriage?

Did you actually read the article?

"The ACT gay marriage act is in deliberate breach of the constitution and is designed only to embarrass the Prime Minister"

Deliberate. That means, they knew what they were doing. They knew it would fail.

For which you say "good on them"?

<< "The ACT gay marriage act is in deliberate breach of the constitution and is designed only to embarrass the Prime Minister" >>

If this is true Pericles, then yes it would be somewhat perverse.

But I’m not going to take Brain Grieg’s assertion to heart. Surely it was a genuine attempt to do the right thing.

Even if it was deviously designed to fail and…

< to try to embarrass Abbott by bringing sharp focus to the issue of marriage equality and the need for federal action. > …

…is that a bad thing?

Who knows the truth of the situation here. But I assume that it was not deliberately designed to fail and was presented with good intentions.

Whatever the case, it is still good for state and territory governments to introduce their own bills, in the hope that the Feds will follow suit in a similar manner and that we will have a uniform national acceptance of gay marriage before too long.