What irritates me about statements like this:

"It is fitting, therefore, that the state should support marriage and the family, not because of religious interests, but because society springs from marriage through the birth of children."

Is that for at least the last 30 years, the Australian birth rate has been below the replacement rate(1), so while our population been growing, it clearly has not sprung from children born from marriage but from immigration.

The point is that the argument against same sex marriage from the author is bunk - it is not supported by the facts in this country. Therefore it is not a valid argument against same sex marriage.

(1) see this: http://demographics.treasury.gov.au/content/_download/australias_demographic_challenges/images/adc-13.gif
from here:
http://demographics.treasury.gov.au/content/_download/australias_demographic_challenges/html/adc-04.asp

I really struggle to understand this moral panic around same sex relationships.

The constant attempt to trivialise them by trying to define marriage as being for the production of children clearly only manages to demean all other marriages that don't. (Would he also try to stop the elderly from getting married on this basis? Or those who have no intention of having kids?)

It is very interesting to read about Iceland, which has one of the world's highest divorce rates but is one of the best societies for bringing up children. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/18/iceland. I particularly like this quote: " 'The fact is that Icelanders don't stay in lousy relationships. They just leave.' And the reason they can do so is that society, starting with the parents and grandparents, does not stigmatise them for making that choice. "

The conclusion: marriage is not necessary for a stable society; it is society's attitude that matters far more.

Cory Bernadi clearly believes same sex relationships are no more than an economic convenience. On that basis alone, his argument can be easily dismissed as bogus.

The devaluing of heterosexual marriage has gradually come about by calling the husband and wife “a woman and her partner”, by labeling the father “absent” or “deadbeat”, by the removal of so many fathers from birth certificates etc.

I wonder have much gay marriages will be devalued.

Senator Bernadi packs a lot of lies into 500 words:

“The Rudd Government … say that same-sex couples are being discriminated against in current legislation because they do not have access to marital entitlements.”

Not true. The government’s position is that same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite-sex defacto (i.e. non-marital) couples.

“This first amendment bill changes 14 superannuation acts to include same-sex relationships. The “marital relationships” category will no longer exist.”

Not true. Marital relationships will still exist, but superannuation benefits will not depend on a couple being married. The benefits will flow to all marital and non-marital couples.

“According to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission report from last year, the advantages awarded to married couples should now be open to others - by a false appeal to “rights”, same-sex couples should be afforded the same rights as married couples.”

Not true. The HREOC report specifically avoided marriage. The commissioners said:
“An opposite-sex couple does not have to marry to get those entitlements; nor should a same-sex couple have to marry. So, while same-sex marriage or civil unions could assist those couples who choose to formalise their relationship in that way, this Inquiry has focussed on ensuring that all couples have all the same rights whether or not they are married.”
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/pdf/SSSE_Report.pdf Page 18

One of the most galling humiliations suffered by same-sex-attracted people in this country is the fact that so many of our political leaders feel under no obligation to speak the truth when referring to us.

Is this guy what passes as talent in the Liberals these days? No wonder they are all worried.

One thing the Coalition clung to in refusing to remove discrimination against same sex couples in Commonwealth super was that it would cost too much - hundreds of millions, I seem to remember Minchin threatening. Now they are OUT OF POWER (deal with it, losers) and forced to deal with the issue, they want such rights extended even further to interdependent couples! Would that not cost MORE?! Logic and the Liberals - so rarely do they meet.....

What distinguishes 'marriage' from de facto relationships is the ceremony and public commitment, is it not? Straight people who live in de facto relationships do not bother with the ceremony, and therefore could justifiably be accused of degrading the status of marriage. They can have it and don't want it! They even have kids without getting married! THE SHAME! However, straight de factos currently have the same rights as bona fide married couples in all Commonwealth legislation.

That doesn't seem to stop Cory for a moment, who conveniently conflates 'real' marriage with the fake kind.

Current laws do not protect 'marriage' - they protect heterosexuality. Same-sex couples that make EVERY effort to ensure that their relationship is formalised and recognised, should the worst happen to one of them, have less rights that a straight couple who can't be bothered.

Just come out and say it Cory - in your opinion, same-sex couples are less worthy - of EVERYTHING - than straight couples. Period.

Marriage is originally a concept from religion and the supernatural. Since the time of Caesar, the Church has been the handmaiden of the state. Nowadays, religion still, despite declining numbers of active followers, enjoys still way too much power and influence in society.

I prefer to see public policy and the law being driven by objective considerations, rather than by a hidden agenda for stooges for supernatural cults.

People of society are aware that the major Churches are covertly and sometimes overtly lobbying against this change, not because of society's interests, but because of their supernatural belief that same-sex and de facto relationships are "sinful and corrupt lifestyles".

So raise your hands, stooges for Churches, are you keeping stum so that you can peddle your agenda.