Graham, that's a very pragmatic idea, but it does tend to beg the main question, which goes to the way we view the relationships of homosexual people. I'm not a great advocate for "rights" on the whole, preferring the idea of implicit obligations, and it seems to me that in denying gay people the opportunity to marry, we are in fact implying that they have a reduced capacity for undertaking such an obligation.

From where I sit, marriage is a contractual arrangement first and foremost, which is how there can be a de facto ('implied') marriage at all. I don't really see what all the fuss is about.

Good article, and hear hear.

"when we confessed to being in a de facto relationship at the beginning of our marriage instruction.

According to him the ceremony was merely a post facto recognition of the intention to enter into a lifelong commitment. We were, in effect, already married."

Only if you had exchanged vows. Merely living together and having sex constitutes a de facto marriage, not a common law marriage.

Salutations, I 100% agree!

Good piece, Graham, which resonates with my own this morning (http://donaitkin.com/on-marriage-equality/). One practical problem is that I would guess that a lot of other legislation hangs off the Marriage Act.

By the look of this pic from Andrew Meares, as Shorten intros the Bill - the govt is nowhere to be seen.

http://twitter.com/mearesy/status/605184346518003712

Surprise, surprise....

Good article with thoughtful responses. My view is that for 'the Christian church' of which I am a member to start bleating about the 'injustices' of this is just another example of how far it has removed itself from any meaningful input by ALL church leaders to actually encourage their congregations by their example, to also write, email, etc to their elected representatives about any issues. The risk of being removed from office is, after all, usually the greatest motivator for politicians to take action. The homosexual lobby has done a brilliant job of doing this while the church sleeps on.
Leaders must lead - the homosexual leaders have lead - the church's leaders have not - simple as that.
Perhaps there could be a new legislated definition of 'religious marriage' to classify those who have or want a religiously endorsed 'heterosexual marriage'?