Dear Paul,

Here's something that may appeal:

"Take one dream. Dream it in detail. Put it into
your own hands. See its final outcome clearly in
you mind. Then mix it with a little effort and add
a generous portion of self-discipline. Flavour it
with a wholesome pinch of ambition. Stir briskly with
confidence until the mixture becomes clear, the doubt
separated from the resolution. Then bake at an even
temperature in a moderate mind until the dream rises and
is firm to the touch. Decorate with individuality.
Cut into generous portions and serve with justifiable pride.

Approached in this manner, life is a piece of cake.

(Bryce Courtenay, 1992.)

"Why are gays not prepared to compromise?"

It is right to refer to the small but noisy Gay Pride activists and not the broader community of homosexuals.

Homosexuals needed and got acceptance and the greatest majority of what would be a diverse population with differing attitudes would have left the political scene, comfortable with acceptance and legal protection.

However, homosexuals would be very regretful, angry, that now as a result of the intervention of the radical feminist rump in the leftist 'Progressives', the private affairs and 'relationships'(sic, new speak, radfem approved!) are subject to State scrutiny, reporting and regulation (of course).

Whereas once (and since forever!) homosexuals were capable and adult enough to run their personal affairs and break-ups as they chose, as a result of interference and behind the scenes political manipulation by the leftist 'Progressives' it is now the State, public servants and courts, who now presume to tell homosexuals if they are in a 'relationship' or not and how to distribute assets after.

No wins only losses there for homosexuals, but a stepping stone for the political "Progressives" aka international socialists whose target is knocking out the institutional pillars of their despised capitalist society, specifically FAMILY, fatherhood and 'traditional'(sic) marriage.

It isn't homosexuals who are unwilling to compromise. They just want to get on with their lives and they certainly didn't ask for the State regulation that now applies to them.

What has happened is that Shorten's Labor, comprising so many of the handbag hot squad for the previous Gillard government that was noted for its Gender and Class wars Labor, are devoid of policies and have chosen to run with gay marriage and global warming for the next election. The tiny publicity seeking Gay Pride activists would be nothing, squat, without the concerted effort of organised left.

It is the left that is not prepared to compromise.

Former Labor leader Mark Latham was right to slam Labor over its obsession with gay marriage, saying it should concentrate of on 'Struggle Streets' instead,
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/former-labor-leader-mark-latham-slams-labor-over-gay-marriage/story-fnizhakg-1227371979220

That should be Labor's 'Handbag HIT Squad'.

The leftist Emily's Listers, who couldn't even give credit to another women, Julie Bishop, when she enjoyed world-wide acclaim for her astute and tireless work to win unanimous backing for the UN resolution calling for “full and unrestricted access” to the MH17 crash site. See here,

<[Julie]Bishop, in particular, has been acclaimed by foreign ministers and diplomats she worked with to ensure the support of all 15 members of the UN Security Council for the Australian resolution...

Netherlands foreign minister Frans Timmermans made it clear Australia’s leadership and Bishop’s direction were crucial to the success of the UN move..

Given Plibersek’s paid-up membership of Emily’s List, which purports to support women in politics (except if they reflect mainstream values) and women generally (as long as they vote Left-of-centre), her churlish refusal to acknowledge a significant achievement by an Australian woman reflects a meagre capacity to pay a compliment, even when demonstrably earned.

When asked whether she supported Abbott’s response on behalf of Australia to the heartbreaking disaster, she replied: “I think emotions have run very high. We know now at least 37 Australian citizens and permanent residents have lost their lives. It’s a very emotional time for our country. It is important that we establish a proper investigation now so that those who are responsible can face the consequences of their actions.”

Nothing doing there..

Where Bishop builds, Plibersek destroys.

Where Bishop seeks consensus, Plibersek sows dissent — in the Middle East and with our nearest neighbour Indonesia.

Plibersek’s ill-mannered refusal to give any credit to Julie Bishop, another woman, or indeed, Tony Abbott, is symptomatic of her boorish approach to politics and goes a long way toward explaining why so many Australians have been repelled by the performance of Labor’s handbag hit squad.">

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/the-handbag-hit-squad-fails-to-show-respect/story-fni0cwl5-1227000616669

"Where Bishop seeks consensus, Plibersek sows dissent"
That explains the 'gay marriage' strategy of Shorten's NO POLICIES Labor too!

The issue of same-sex marriage is a
conscience issue and an important change
that's being proposed and surely all
sides of the debate have an equal right to
be heard - instead of being demonised.

The following website gives an over-view:

http://theconversation.com/why-Australia-is-so-far-behind-the-times-on-same-sex-marriage-42327

Foxy, I hooe you don't think a no vote would be the end of the issue, because it won't be. These people are only after gay marriage equality as a stepping stone as their quest for equality will be endless and to give in here will open the flood gates. The next thing will will then see is someone wanting to legislate so Muslims can marry ten year olds, and have multiple wives.

Sorry, but it time governments pulled outnthe big stick.

As for the Mewman government, people willingly accepted the gifts from labor but were unwilling to pay them back and that grub from Redcliffe did so much damage.

Dear Rehctub,

A tolerance of criticism and of dissenting
opinions is fundamental to democracy. It is
important therefore that governments
should recognise the
grievances of minorities that have little
political clout. If the losers in the
political process don't accept the legitimacy
of the process under which they have lost they
may well resort as you suggest to more radical
tactics outside the institutional framework.

However, I'm optimistic that what the voters
decide will be accepted. Most people take the
legitimacy of their particular political system
for granted very early in life.

Although I could be proven wrong in this case.
I hope not.