Rodney Croome has argued for the same rights as heterosexuals. And why not? A ban on gay marriage is active discrimination.

No doubt, there will be those who argue that same sex marriage threatens the 'institution' of marriage - I fail to see how, thus far I have not been threatened by anyone marrying regardless of who they are or their beliefs.

Unfortunately the usual suspects will voraciously seek to have their personal beliefs imposed on everyone else; they will quote god, they will claim it destabilses society, they will say it is unnatural. What they cannot say is how it hurts them personally, because, ultimately it doesn't hurt them nor interfere with their lives.

I expect to be told that my post here is garbage or 'on a trendy band wagon' - simply because others disagree and cannot overcome their own prejudices to debate rationally.

Gays aren't going to go away just because someone doesn't like them - time to live and let live, people. Try it, it really doesn't hurt at all.

Its none of my business what anybody does in the privacy of their own home between consenting adults. Nor is it anybody elses business. For any government institution, state or federal, to impose themselves on an aspect of my personal emotional relationships and or sex life is just something that I for one will never tolerate as long as my (heterosexual) ass points to the ground. Gays of both sexes are at least 10% of the population....everywhere on the planet. Always have been, always will be. Those who're 'not disinterested' account for at least another 10%. You cant legislate sexual proclivities. Its as stupid as trying to outlaw left-handedness. On the plus side, this has brought the subject to the surface for consideration. On the minus side, much of the consideration, such as it is, is in the form of shock jock ranting to the braindead white skinned white bread eaters in the white fenced suburbs.....who gave us back johnny howard because he was going to stop those nasty yellow people coming here to blow up our homes and offices with their wmd's. These dribblers too often believe what they see and hear....but dont do any digging to check what is fed them. I sometimes rather cheekily refer to them as 'pap people'. They're close to being in the majority now....does this make them right? No. But it does make it more of an uphill struggle to get them to realise what it is that they're allowing themselves to be party to. Labour didnt just lose the last election....they were flogged mercilessly for selling pie in the sky (thanks whatshisname). Liberals didnt just win....they got away with murder because they sold the same message as the big guys...the yanks; an insecure public looked to the 'strength' for reassurance. The power of spin. The yanks are very good at it, and we tend to suck. I hate to play the same games as them, but this disparity in selling the message needs to change, quick. Racist yank nonsense is overriding EEO statutes with companies such as ADI. Not a good sign.

I don't see how the Marriage Act and the potential Tasmanian law could possibly not operate in the same field. Even though they apply to different groups they still have the same purpose. The argument that the legislation is not intended to be exclusive also seems weak and I doubt the present court (or any other) would accept it.

It may be clear that the Cth only deals with hetero marriage, but that does not mean that it is not meant to be exclusive and any ambiguity would mean looking at the second reading speech. I think that the historical context of the act prior to the amendment, s46(1) and the fairly exhaustive nature of the provisions is enough to remove any doubt. But there is the issue of the bigamy section being explicitly exclusive.

In any event, the Liberal party wouldn't think twice about passing legislation to stop new marriage laws and Labor is too demoralised and politically incompetent to be able to make a principled stand. Any serious debate increases the potential for further growth of fundamentalism and the development of a more powerful religious right in Australia. I do however think that it is necessary for a debate to occur, but it will go nowhere without a realistic expectation of success. The Greens do not have the required support, so either the impetus must come from within the Labor party or from a well ordered, tasteful and unaffiliated movement that is able to engage in significant public activity against the ban.

omygodnoitsitsitsyou, 10% is definitely overstating the size of the gay population and most probably the seriously bisexual as well. Could you please use paragraphs?

I think the issue here is not one of rights, but definiton. The union between two people has been defined as a marraige.....what we need is for the whole concept of religion and marraige to be abolished and a better definition (legal) of when a union exists between two people, regardless. This needs to cover all the areas that a traditional hetro/religious covers (and improved I guess). Gays just asking for religious recognition of their union is really up to the individual churches, but hey looks like a class 1 type of discrimination display which should be easy enough to demonstrate once religion/marraige is removed from the leagl framework altogether. Keeping the argument base on semantics i.e. Gay Marraige) is just helping the right wing christian groups enforce their conservative ways.

Good point Real Rob, perhaps the solution is to distinguish between a religious 'marriage' and a union between two people that provides the same rights and priviliges regardless of what sex the two people are.

Then the churches can maintain their right to deny a church 'marriage' to gays, if that makes them feel 'better'.

The proportion of gays in societies does seem to vary. However, it is fairly unarguable that it is not a modern phenomeneon. it was encouraged in Greek society - which surely did not deteriorate because of this.

I guess there were three intentions involved in the amendments to the Marriage Act last year.

First, in the light of judicial and legislative developments in other countries, to neutralise the same-sex marriage debate in Australia. The hopelessly divided Labor Party had no choice but to stifle any debate on the issue.

Second, with Christian-right parties apparently on the rise, to prop up John Howard’s image as a social conservative.

Third, actually to stop same-sex couples from marrying. This is certainly what our elected representatives thought they were doing when they passed the bill, which Rodney Croome acknowledges when he says that they “inadvertently” opened another door to same-sex marriage.

With the Tasmanian Greens’ move, and the legal opinions it is based on, the amendments sound like a Pyrrhic victory, except for the fact that most discriminatory practices against same-sex couples these says take place under Commonwealth law, rather than state laws. A married Tasmanian gay couple still won’t be treated equally by the Commonwealth in social security, tax and immigration issues, because the Commonwealth has specifically prohibited itself from recognising their marriage. Defence personnel and Commonwealth employees in same-sex relationships will still be disadvantaged compared to their opposite-sex colleagues, married or otherwise, because the Commonwealth retains for itself the right to discriminate against them.

I thoroughly endorse the Tasmanian Greens’ move to enable state-based same-sex marriages. It has the potential to offer same-sex couples real equality, at least in those areas covered by state laws, and because it exposes the hypocrisies behind last year’s amendments to the Marriage Act. I hope it will bring about more pressure to end the discrimination which the Commonwealth practises against same-sex couples daily.