I have never really understood why gay couples would want to marry in the traditional sense. Is marriage not a religious ceremony. This would be asking the very people that have for 2000 years condemned their souls for what they believe to be an evil act to go agains't all they stand for just to prove a point for the opposing camp. Is this not just a little strange?
Civil ceremonies are surly the answer, and yes the government should do something about it.

CJ Morgan writes:

<< If two people are silly enough to want to marry each other, what business is it of the State or anybody else? >>

Hahahaha. Yes, if you want to get married, then what does it matter if you are hetero or homo? Either way you’d have to be pretty dumb!! ( :>)

Stay single if you know what is good for you!!

But hey I agree with CJ – Gillard should lighten up and not impose restrictions where restrictions are not needed. She should support gay marriage, under the principle that in a democracy we should have as much freedom as possible, and only suffer lawful restrictions where absolutely necessary.

jason84, "Thats because most gay couples are not a clients of Centrelink, So its assumed that Centrelink's Couples are Couples initiative would be pointless to attend and take part in."

I doubt that would be the case because Centrelink's estimates would be based on its own information and population/income data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Centrelink is convinced that less than half of the the gay couples receiving Centrelink entitlements has identified as gay couples.

Further, Centrelink is being seen as 'discriminatory' for using any of the simple interview questions to reveal possible fraud.

It is probably true that the State intervention in gay relationships, especially the legislative initiatives that have been demanded by some activists and by the Greens in particular, are contrary to the wishes of most or many gays. Most gays did not ask for or want the government to be involved in their bedrooms. Matter of fact few people, regardless of sexual preference ever wanted the State to involve itself in 'de facto' relationships, but of course they were never asked either.

Similarly the same interfering, meddlesome, 'we know what is best for you' commentariat who advocated extension of the de facto definition and legislation are now demanding more interference by the State in gay relationships.

Australia is becoming a big joke, "fair go" is obsolete. Think Australia through its governments has become ignorant & intolerant to what a "Fair Go" use to be all about. It's a wonder anyone would want to come to this down-under backwater.

The reasonable thing to do is the reasonable thing to do

it is reasopnable to tolerate the abnormal

it is not reasonable to embrace it

Allowing same-sex marriages onto the statute book is to embrace the abnormal

therefore is should not be allowed in Australia or Portugal for that matter but the Portugese are a strange bunch anyway.

I see that Cornflower's being typically obtuse on this issue. jason84's point, which seems to be valid, is that most gay couples aren't Centrelink clients. Given that fact and the financial disincentive for identifying to Centrelink as a a gay couple, it is disingenuous at best to assert that the reluctance of gay couples who are clients of Centrelink to identify as such has any bearing at all on the issue of discrimination against those gay couples who wish to marry.

<< It is probably true that the State intervention in gay relationships, especially the legislative initiatives that have been demanded by some activists and by the Greens in particular, are contrary to the wishes of most or many gays. >>

How do you know this? Certainly, on the basis of contributions from gay people at OLO and from what gay friends tell me, the removal of lingering forms of discrimination against them is pretty well universally supported by the gay community and gay activists.

There is no good reason for prohibiting gay people who want to from marrying. The homophobia - explicit or otherwise - of others is certainly no excuse to perpetuate discrimination.