"Here's a thought on time: marriage is an age-old institution, much older than the 1950s. I'd say somewhere between 5000 years and 500,000 years, depending on how you interpret it. Should we really be so hasty to change it?"

You must be a christian, you have three fundamental facts wrong.
1) people were not about 500,000 years ago.
2) Marriage between a single man and a single women is a very christian thing. Many other cultures had lots of other variation.
3) Pollies are meant to represent their voters, and that means they need to change their positions as the public does.

True leaders have the courage of conviction; even when and where that conviction is both opposed and unpopular!

And the best and most visionary leaders have the capacity to take the populace with them!

And that is why the entire "bipartisan" parliament must be accorded a conscience vote on this and say a long overdue bill of rights?

We just have to stop paying just mere lip service to; for the people, by the people, of the people democracy!

[As opposed to misrepresentation or Gerrymanders produced by (dastardly deeds done in the dead of night) swapped preferencing!? Which by the way is now biting both the major parties in the ass, in the Senate!]

But particularly in the Labor party, which given the compulsion to vote along party lines, wouldn't look out of place in mainland China or the former USSR!? Da, democracy!

[Ve do not elect zese folks to rule, but zerve ze vill of ze people! Da democracy! i.e., Jou vill do az I zay ven I say it! Ve have vays of forcing you to enchoy yourself! Da?]

And given the polls are showing at least 72% of us are in favor of true equality, just get on and get it done; or, put it and a long overdue bill of irrevocable rights to a plebiscite!

And as simple and as uncomplicated as asking, should there be marriage equality; and should a bill of irrevocable rights be enshrined in law/the constitution?

Now that wasn't so difficult was it? More tea anyone?
Rhrosty.

It is the job of politicians in a democracy to do what they are told by the electorate. Where what they are being told to do is impossible, dangerous or highly inconvenient then -- like any other employee -- they are entitled to refuse or to try and find a compromise solution. But as other countries have already demonstrated, there's nothing impossible, dangerous or highly inconvenient about legalising homosexual marriage, and the electorate is telling them ever more loudly to do so. They should stop faffing about and get on with it.

In the rare event that it turns out to be a disaster and the electorate changes their minds, we can de-legalise it again, can't we? So what are our elected employees waiting for?

The majority of Australian's believe in capital punishment, yet no party would put up a private members bill to bring back the death penalty.

Like all issues, just because the majority support gay marriage, does not mean it automatically becomes law. There are issues of domestic violence, children protection, estate planning issues.

Give the government a chance to get this law right before introducing it. Otherwise we are asking for more ligation

The reality is that the press have been promoting perversion for a long time. They r well and truely over represented by their view. Like with the gw religion they have managed to demonise anyone interested in truth or facts. Everyone knows that the anal passage is designed for waste to come through. In Ireland they largely used the paedophile priest issue to assure people that the likes of Elton John and Michael Jackson r the moral guardians. What they fail to highlight is that most Catholic priests who offended were sodomites. Of course emily's listers have always detested the natural family.

//Otherwise we are asking for more ligation//

Only between two consenting adults. Safe word is pineapple.