It is unnecessary for the Federal Government to separately continue to regulate marriages.

Commonwealth corporations law is sufficient to deal with personal relationships...

In this way those who so wish can incorporate a partnership complete with articles of association detailing the requisite items of joint decision making, share holdings, asset acquisition and distribution. It should also clearly deal with potential disassociation.

Flexibly, any future expansions or takeovers (hostile or otherwise) could allow for mistresses or cicisbeos to become junior partners and shareholders. A hedging position or derivative activity to the core business, as it were.

Any children could be regarded as a dividend or a rights issue and accounted for as both an asset and a liability.

Also, at one fell swoop, we would do away with the oxymoronic concept of the 'family trust'.

Those of a religious bent could still have unions 'blessed' as per their faith's rules.

At last a logical comment from a gay-marriage advocate: “By advocating for states legislating over marriage, they are essentially saying that ‘marriage’ is inherently heterosexual”.

Marriage is inherently heterosexual: it is the union of one man and one woman and always has been in our society. The ACT is pretending that “same-sex marriage” is not “marriage” at all, but something completely different, thus getting away from “marriage” being a federal power. Strangely this seems to be acceptable to most gay marriage advocates, yet having a state or territory legislate for civil unions or civil partnerships or anything that is not called “marriage” is completely unacceptable. Just add an adjective and the states and territories can do what they like! Let’s have Victoria set up its own army by calling it the “local army” and thus not be in conflict with federal power. Let’s have NSW set up its own customs and excise taxes and call them “same-state customs and excises”. Then if federal law creates same-sex marriage, Queensland can create a special “traditional marriage” for men and women and decide it is not on conflict with federal law. It’s bonkers.

I suspect that ACT is just indulging in some posturing and it will be delighted when the High Court strikes its law down and all those “same-sex married” under it have their “same-sex marriages” declared invalid and become fodder for the media to focus on their status as victims of a heartless Tony Abbott.

< Gay marriage must happen and will happen >

Commonsense would lead one to agree. But… there’s got to be commonsense present in our leaders. And therein lies the problem!

Our leaders show the most glaring lack of commonsense when it comes to very high immigration, the obsession with growth and the continued rapid momentum away from a sustainable future.

If they can show the opposite to commonsense on something of this importance, then they can do the same with much lesser issues.

So we shouldn’t be waiting around for the Feds to act on gay marriage. If states and territories wish to push forward with the issue, then they should!

No we don’t want a country with some states not having gay marriage laws and other having them but with some differences. We want it to be uniform.

Well hopefully if the states act, it will get the Feds’ arses into gear a bit quicker than they might have…. and develop a uniform law for the whole country.

Ludwig:

...Obviously Ludwig, you either have not read the original version of the “Gay Manifest.. 1970”, which was air-brushed for acceptability in 1978, or your starkers!

The gay manifesto: (not the Terrorist version of 1970)

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp

No Dan I haven’t read that.

Sorry, but I’m not sure what your point is in bringing this to our attention.