Eventually same sex marriage will be legalised whether the union will be called 'marriage' or something else probably does not matter at the end of the day. Gen Y sees the world in a much more egalitarian light and are more open to individual freedoms. Given they will be running the country eventually, it will be interesting to see how long some of these draconian ideals remain.

SM
I suspect you are right, both Rudd and Gillard would have faced pressure from religious organisations, but at least with Rudd his religiosity would not be attacked in the same way.

Otokonoko
That was beautifully written and expressed. I wish more religious people were as generous of spirit and rational as yourself.

pelican, "Eventually same sex marriage will be legalised whether the union will be called 'marriage' or something else probably does not matter at the end of the day."

My position, just to repeat it because it serves some to continually misrepresent me, is that I do not see any reason to trash the Marriage Act. Gay marriage can be formalised through other regulation as you have identified.

There is very good sense in not trampling over the Marriage Act. For instance, it avoids the situation where many people and organisations will be put in a position where they are required by other laws to act against their own consciences.

Similarly, a regulation especially for gay couples avoids the obvious inconsistency and discrimination against Muslims and others whose beliefs, traditions and culture accept polygamy or other arrangements.

The Greens, in keeping with the modus operandi any group of activists, seek to advance a particular sectional interest or cause and have no interest in policy that includes all Australians. They have no interest in tying up loose ends either. That is apparent in their, "We are all for gays and beggar the Muslims - oh, and stuff the rest of you 'homophobes' as well".

Of course the Greens also harbour the looney anarchists, Marxists and other fringe dwellers dumped by Labor and their interest in this is to dump on yet another hated 'white' institution, so they are in for the sport and have no interest in discussion, hence the name calling and disruption, as per usual.

As pointed out previously, there have already been changes to family law that were poorly conceived and thrust upon the public without proper consultation with the electorate.

The challenge is there for the Greens to be up-front and honest and run their proposal to trash the Marriage Act as a major plank in their election platform for the forthcoming election. They say they have the numbers so why the reluctance to test the electorate?.

Correction. The sentence,

'That is apparent in their, "We are all for gays and beggar the Muslims - oh, and stuff the rest of you 'homophobes' as well".'

should have read,

'Their apparent attitude is, "We are all for gays and beggar the Muslims - oh, and stuff the rest of you 'homophobes' as well".'

The eagle-eyed will also spot the missing 'of' in the opening sentence of the same paragraph:

'The Greens, in keeping with the modus operandi (of) any group of activists'

Draft in haste...

It's clear from the great majority of responses in this thread that reasonable and rational people from a wide range of perspectives support the right of gay people to marry. Of course, there will always be a small minority of people who think that it's fine to discriminate against people because of their sexuality, but hopefully the government will eventually amend the Marriage Act to remove the current discrimination.

I see that Cornflower still refuses to answer my simple question, hiding instead behind the hateful amendments the Howard government made to the Marriage Act in 2004, that specifically prohibit same sex marriage. Nobody's talking about "trashing" the Marriage Act - all it needs is a minor amendment.

Interesting that she tries to get mileage out of the fact that the Greens are the only mainstream political party in Australia to advocate the removal of such discrimination. Cornflower, the issue here isn't the Greens' principled stance on same sex marriage, it's the bigotry of those who want to continue to treat homosexuals as second class citizens without the same rights as others.

Indeed, if you had any objection that doesn't amount to sheer homophobic bigotry, you'd have told us why gay couples who wish to marry shouldn't be allowed to in Australia. But of course you can't, can you?

Perhaps you could learn from the examples of Otokonoko and Aka, both of whom have reservations about gay marriage, but who recognise that they are insufficient to justify the continued denial of the right for gay couples to marry if they so desire. However, I won't hold my breath.

Otokonoko,
I second what Pelican said.

Cornflower,

"I do not see any reason to trash the Marriage Act."

I see no reason to trash same-sex couples by excluding them from the Marriage Act.

What do you mean by "trashing the Marriage Act" anyway?

What kind of terrible things do you have in mind that same-sex couples would do to Marriage Act as soon as they get married?
Don't high divorce rates and domestic violence perpetrated by married heterosexual couples count as 'trashing' the Marriage Act?

It has already been said that marriage has not remained unaltered throughout history.
It is an Act made for people and by people.
And, like Pelican, I believe that it is inevitable that same-sex marriage will be legalised, just as interracial relationships got accepted and later, interracial marriage was legalised while slippery-slope arguments looked more and more ludicrous.

I'm sure that racists and racist organisations would've been forced to act against their own consciences, too.

Joy to the world! (And to the Greens).

What about the simple point that I made in my first post on this thread, to which no one responded –

<< …the principle that in a democracy we should have as much freedom as possible, and only suffer lawful restrictions where absolutely necessary. >>

If it is not absolutely necessary to deny same-sex couples the freedom to marry, or have the same formal arrangement under a different name, then it should not be denied to them.

Isn’t it really that simple, in the end?

Isn’t it fundamentally antidemocratic to deny them that right?