You don't need anyone to "allow" you to marry. You just marry. That's what makes a couple married - the act of explicitly taking each other to be partners.

The belief that marriage is something that the government, or the church, does to the parties is false.

Neither the gumment nor the church claims that anything they do constitutes the act of marriage. The role of the government or the church in officiating at a marriage is only to *recognise* the marriage which is constituted by the act of the parties. Marriage pre-dates both church and government by many thousands of years. Government did not start to register marriages until the 19th century, and marriage had been around for many thousands of years before that. And the church didn't start officiating at marriages until the 17th century.

The fact that government registers heterosexual marriages is not an argument in favour of the registration of homosexual marriages. It is an argument in favour of the abolition of governmental regulation and registration of sexual relationships.

As usual, the enemies of equality aren’t letting the facts deter them from having a swipe at same-sex-attracted Australians:

>> If that is so why has there been such a poor response to
>> Centrelink's Couples are Couples initiative? There are
>> reports too that same sex coupes now feel they are being
>> discriminated against through being treated the same as
>> heterosexual couples.

In the 2006 Census 49,366 people identified themselves as a partner in a same-sex de facto relationship - just shy of 25,000 couples: http://www.coalitionforequality.org.au/2006census.pdf
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features20March%202009

In January 2010 Centrelink announced that 4245 couples had registered themselves http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/gay-couples-register-with-centrelink-for-welfare-20100130-n5ho.html

The fact that 17% of known same-sex couples in this country have promptly registered their relationships with Centrelink exposes the above claim as just another piece of homophobic slobbering.

@Cornflower

"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."

All the same-sex couples I know just want to be treated the same as an average heterosexual couple, so obviously that means the government has to intervene in same-sex realtionships to ideally provide us in same-sex realtionships the same rights as heterosexual couples. If the government did not become involved in same-sex realtionships then there would be discrimination in law, and how would we be treated equal?

@Jefferson ‘The fact that government registers heterosexual marriages is not an argument in favour of the registration of homosexual marriages. It is an argument in favour of the abolition of governmental regulation and registration of sexual relationships.’

This is precisely the crux of the issue especially when taxpayers’ money is spent on regulation and registration of sexual relationships. I suspect that many homosexual people do not want this situation to change. They equate regulation and registration with acceptance of that relationship on some kind of moral rights basis. This is what they truly seek. It must be that they want some government recognition of their relationship since the practical advantages are either not worth having or are not justifiable for either heterosexual or homosexual relationships. The fact that governments are involved in marriage relationships at all is an aberration which has long outgrown its tenure. Homosexual people who want to be included in such a waste of taxpayer’s funds are not looking for anything more than an affirmation of the equality of their relationship with some other group – in this case heterosexual married people. If they were truly comfortable with their relationship they would not need anyone else’s seal of approval.

It is a timely reminder to governments as well; that they should not be seen to be neither condoning nor condemning any types of sexual union by spending government resources on them.

The story woulfe linked to describes the collateral damage from unnecessary State interference in and disruption to private lives from changes to family law:

'The Welfare Rights Centre runs a federally funded information line. Director Maree O'Halloran said: "The calls to our centre are overwhelmingly from people over 55, and many are fearful of being publicly identified as gay or lesbian."

"Many people are agonising over whether they fit the Centrelink definition of a couple and in some cases have disagreed about whether to declare. Sadly, some lifelong relationships have disintegrated under new pressures, such as financial interdependency, for the first time."'

Centrelink is also empowered to make moral judgements about the lifestyles and living arrangements of the old and others on fixed or low incomes who are forced by economic circumstances to share digs. For example, students on Youth Allowance:

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/ya_independent.htm

jason84,
Bad law discriminates against everyone. Why should people who for decades have been perfectly able to decide their own personal arrangements, be told by the State whether they are in a de facto relationship or not? By what right do you presume to make decisions for others?

Phanto et al,
"If they were truly comfortable with their relationship they would not need anyone else’s seal of approval."

Are you saying that everyone who gets married does so because he/she is not comfortable with the relationship? So what? There are many reasons why people might want to get married, and all of these reasons are none of anyone's business.

Perhaps opponents of same sex marriage should stop making a big song and dance about side issues like 'the value of marriage' or 'govt interference' and focus on the real issue: discrimination.
What if you'd replace the words "same sex marriage" with "mixed race marriage" or something, then it becomes obvious how terribly discriminative the law is.

There needs to be equality, and as long as one group of people is not getting the same rights as other groups of people automatically receive, then there is no equality.

Be against marriage for whatever reason- that's perfectly fine. But do not single out one group and prevent that group from getting married just because you are against marriage.
Protest by all means, but do not use a certain group as some kind of pawn to prove a point. This is an unfair and discriminative way to go about it.