What the equal marriage right people lose sight of is the huge impact institutionalised monogamy ( or nuclear family) has had as the fundamental building block of the Judeo- Christian world ( "JC World").
The teachings of the Bible may be as logically unsustainable as those of the Koran but it is undeniable that the JC World contains the only societies which have given rise to the inventions, innovations and institutions which have multiplied the productivity of mankind.( Inventions all the way from steam engine through to internet and rockets to the moon)

Other societies which have lifted the wealth of their members have also adopted the nuclear family as their basic building block.

It is the nuclear family which provides the basis of nurture and education of children to bring them to their maximum potential where those innovations and inventions are created.

There are personal relationship laws which place same sex couples in the same position as divorcing couples on death and separation so the fight here is about symbolism.

The family based on a same sex couple as a vessel for nurture of children is untested. The family so based can not be universal if the species is to be maintained. It is inherently not universally sustainable.

If we do not keep the traditional definition of marriage and the symbolism that goes with it, what argument do we have against the Muslim who wants to "marry" wife number 2, 3, or 4 ? Assuming they "love one another" (ugh!).

We may be destroying the very basis of the prosperity we now enjoy.

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the strongest opposition to this is coming from sometimes ultra-religious closet Gays?

And who manage their (Homophobic?) farce by being more butch than Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?

And given they are living a constant lie, are often compulsive bullies or tellers of mistruths or terminological exactitudes, have extremely short tempers, little if any tolerance for dissent and generally express themselves with endless, butch it up expletives!?

How are we doing so far? Ring any bells?

And I'm not saying this applies to all house husbands or men who seem to have a strong almost materialistic attachment to their much loved children; albeit, that would not necessarily surprise?

Other than that, I can find no other plausible reason for Latham's opposition, other than he always seemed an oddball/eccentric character and at times seemingly brilliant if somewhat flawed/best ever Labor opposition Leader?

But particularly presumptuous and fatally flawed in reading the public mood and or on some of his decision making or policy calls.

I mean here was the man who, after climbing over others to get the top job, almost single handedly killed Labor's chances of beating the long stand Howard regime, by climbing into bed with Green's leader, Bob Brown!?

Talk about a meeting of like minds or fundamentally flawed personalities; and given politically expediency, seemed more than capable of running with the hare or hunting with the hounds?

And as popular in today's labor circles, as a pork chop at a Bar Mitzva?

And given just how wrong he's been as a reader of public sentiment, go in exactly the opposite direction to what he proposes!
Rhrosty.

His article illustrates very clearly why the politicians need to be removed from the equation and relegate the decision to the Australian people in the form of a plebiscite.

A good article and long due.

It is largely the taxpayer-funded ($1.3billion pa) national broadcaster that has kept SSM and other 'Progressive' priorities in the limelight.

I don't mind that 'their' ABC has its 'Progressive' editorial policy and that it likes to be seen as THE leading crest of the 'Progressive' wave (while shamelessly aping the BBC) and tres politically correct.

I just don't want to pay the ABC for its politics, albeit reformist as it likes to see itself.

Honestly, how many redundant politics and public affairs shows, repetitive bumpf, should the exasperated taxpayer have to stump up $$ for?

If we cannot have the old independent Auntie back then by all means set it adrift to fend for itself. It is already well set up to do so and has plenty of fat to shed.

Put the taxpayers dollars into necessary, urgent, infrastructure development, such as developing North Queensland and making Highway 1 safer by getting rid of those one lane bridges for instance.

If it is such a minor issue, then why can't it just be passed on the nod by both sides and more important issues addressed?

I don't agree that marriage is a minor issue that is only to make people feel better about having a document. It may have become debased to that extent, but if it has, then it says less about the institution than it does about the shallowness of attachments in our Brave New World.

Marriage is no less important than any other contract. I doubt very much that Mr Latham or any of those who argue for the trivialisation of marriage would be similarly cavalier in their attitudes to contracts for important things like money...

If the only purpose of marriage is to make it easy to administer child support collections when it ends, then by all means, get rid of it. Does anyone really think that's all there is to it, though?

Although it is mostly based in the context of American culture and religion, and the European situation too, I find that a website titled The Bilgrimage provides a much more nuanced and complex understanding of the all-important emotional-sexual dimensions of human culture.

And of the puritanical sex-and-body-paranoid double mindedness at the root of the "traditional" mis-understanding of the emotional-sexual dimensions of our existence-being. Especially as it relates to women and children, people of colour (whether christian or not)), and anybody who is in any way different from the binary black-and-white norm as defined by the up-until-now in power paradigm as defined and enforced by the in power church "fathers".