Of course gay marriage won't work- there's no woman to oppress. With no women in the house, who will scrub the toilet? I can't believe that gay men would want to get married, given straight men's fear of it.

I am hoping for great things from the Copper Lady once the election is over and the Christian Right is safely locked away in its box. Sadly, you have to make compromises if you want power, even with people who are stupid and misguided. As the religious lobby dwindles into insignificance, however, we should see more and more enlightened decisions -- from BOTH sides.

Sam, What's this about Gillard breaking the glass ceiling? Stop deluding yourself. Gillard was elevated above it by the ALP backroom boys who could see their party losing the next election with Rudd at the helm. They only need to capture more of the wymens' vote to get across the line.

Can't imagine a woman like with you with your glaring women are the victim mentality voting for a bloke if you have the choice of voting for a woman, regardless of what their policies are.

(‘Penultimate’ doesn’t mean ‘the mostest’; it means second last.)

“The institution of marriage has long been enshrined in patriarchal and religious values that have done nothing to improve the lot of women.”

Let’s do a thought experiment on that. Before physical paternity was understood, and therefore when patriarchy was impossible, do you think the lot of women was better off or worse off, with no moral or legal obligation on a man in his capacity as father to make any contribution to a woman’s child? How might a woman obtain supplementary subsistence in the absence of an obligation on a particular man to make any contribution in his capacity as father? Think about it.

And if what you are saying is right, then presumably you have no objection to the abolition of compulsory child support?

“Ultimately it’s not the relationship form that’s the problem.”
It’s not the relationship that’s in question, since gays have the same right as anyone else to make explicit commitments to each other to be lifelong partners with all the same commitments as heterosexuals customarily undertake in marriage; and to hold ceremonies to celebrate the making of such commitments. The question is whether the government should register and regulate the relationship.

“If Gillard represents, as a woman and an atheist, a challenge to those values, why her resistance to gay marriage rights?”

Good question. But that is not an argument in favour of government recognition of gay marriage because that would only extend the same privilege and exclusion you are unhappy about. It’s an argument in favour of the abolition of government regulation and registration of sexual relationships.

If two women or two men want to tie the marital knot, then why not?

And why stop there? Can’t Australia legalise marriages for one man and two women? And for gender equality, women should be allowed to marry two men, or three, or four or more.

I know of a basketball team that had three or four of its key players all bunked down in the same apartment. For many reasons, especially on game days, it would have been more than convenient if they could all have made use of special allowances usually available to married couples involving car pooling and shared laundry.

You're the feminist lost soldier fighting away in the jungle long after the war is won.

Even if your fantasy world was accurate, what's wrong with doing the bulk of domestic duties when you're working in a smaller capacity outside the home? Marriage is a partnership. It's been shown that adding up paid and unpaid work, women and men in couples do nearly exactly the same hours of work.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/conferences/aifs10/chesterspaper.pdf

Your distorted picture of 'today’s most liberated households' is pure agenda driven speculation, painting most marriages as a gender war over the cleaning of the toilet. Families and couples choose what work/caring mix each man/woman does based on economic realities, standard of living, their attitude to child care and private schools, and a whole range of other factors.

Trade-offs are made by both partners, influenced more by each partner's needs, salary, breast feeding, career ambitions of BOTH parents, availability of part time work in both parents jobs, all sorts of factors.

'Societal expectations' are a mere side show in all this and they affect the wage slave working dads (Sorry patriarchal oppressors) just as much as your poor downtrodden working mums.

I don't see many people staying in bad marriages these days, and definitely no more women than men would stay in marriages due to the status of marriage.

Really, in today's society, it's men who are more likely to stay in bad marriages because of the perception (correct or otherwise) they will end up living in a 1 bed flat and working their ass off for the Mansion they no longer live in and the kids they rarely get to see. I don't think Barren Gillard's life choices, or one feminists commentary on them, or your idiotic commentary here have anything to do with anything.