What a facile load of double-talk and self-contradiction.

One fact suffices to dispose of the author's entire argument. The act of marriage is the act of exchanging vows, not the act of registration by a government official. If the author's unarticulated assumption were correct, it would mean that marriage didn't exist until the 19th century. It's nonsense. Not even the church or the State claim, or have ever claimed, that their actions constitute the marriage. They have always claimed that that the register for their own purposes a marriage brought into being by the act of the parties in taking each other to spouse.

Homosexuals have the same right to marry - to exchange vows of commitment and celebrate them however they want - as everyone else.

There is no such thing as a "right" to have the government register your sexual relationship, and hence no issue of right or ethic arises.

Notice how the author doesn't say what a right is?

But it should be obvious that his conception is inconsistent with democratic government.

Yet this is the same author constantly arguing that rights are whatever the government says they are, else how could there be such a thing as a "right" to have the government register a sexual relationship, or a "right" to the fruits of other people's labour taken under compulsion by threatening them with prison and rape, which is the basis of the author's entire political and economic ideology?

Isn't it, Max? You're being contradictory and intellectuallly dishonest in pursuit of a political agenda of more governmental power, aren't you?

While I find much merit in our argument Max! I disagree with its conclusions, which like honor among thieves, is not found?

As for political duty, I believe, it starts with self service, flows up to the party room the wider party, (hopefully, occasionally) to then duck, weave, bob and back-flip, when confronting manifest electoral ramifications?

Honor, duty? What planet are you living on Max? This is "AUSTRALIAN POLITICS" and government by royal decree, replete with internal power struggles for diametrically opposed dominance, not democracy! Just the best snail pace impostor, money, power and influence can buy!?

We could do so much better if we were a real democracy and lived or died on the battle of ideas, coupled to our best angels?

I could expand, but like throwing pearls before swine, entirely fruitless endeavor!
Alan B.

Perhaps the answer lies in neither political unity or party unity. Perhaps the answer lies outside party politics altogether, where each elected individual answers to his or her own conscience based on moral and spiritual principles after actively participated in an open minded, reasoned and fair form of consultation, no put downs or personal abuse, no pre determined party positions, no machinations or political manipulation, with a view to achieving a harmonious and unanimous result if possible in the best interests of all, but if not by a majority of votes. It is a bit like traditional forms of decision-making.

Rubbish like this is the reason that so many have no respect left for academics.

When most of the people I know vote at an election they don't even know the name of the clown, Opps candidate, they are voting for. Just try manning the absentee desk at a polling station if you doubt this.

Most are voting for a party, & a few of them are voting for a party simply by habit. For those who are voting for a party, because they prefer the policies of that party are in no way giving the local clown the right to vote following anything but the party policy.

There is no way I am interested in trying to find out if the local candidate has a conscience, or has ever thought of exercising one if it exists. I most definitely have never given him/her my approval to muck with the stated party policy, particularly when they have no idea which policy actually won my vote.

This is the typical garbage of elites, who think their opinion is of some special value. Let me assure you Max, your opinion, & parliamentarians opinions is of no special value & it certainly has no special quality. The same thing goes in spades for any elected representative, if elected as a party member. They have absolutely no right to ever exercise their private opinion, other than in their private lives. They gave up that right when they asked for my vote as a member of a party.