All the same arguments apply against letting the state define marriage. If the church is not to have the privilege of defining it, why should 'democracy'. If the church were in a majority, would that justify the church defining it? According to the author's argument it would. And that's how we have come to the current definition.

The commonest misunderstanding about marriage, which the author shares, is that marriage is something that the government does to the parties. This is incorrect. In fact neither the church nor the state ever claimed that marriage is constituted by an act of the church or the state. The position of both church and state is that marriage is constituted by the act of the parties in taking each other to be husband and wife. Registration by church or state merely recognises the existence of a marriage already contracted between the parties.

The common law of marriage developed in the Norman period when the justices went on circuit throughout England. Marriage customs were diverse because England at that time was a patchwork of different ethnicities: Celts, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, etc. The justices distilled out of this diversity the common characteristics that they (being Christians) would recognise for the purposes of the central government (most of which had to do with inheritance of real estate). That is the origin of our inherited law that marriage is a union of "one man and one woman".

It doesn't just discriminate against gays. It discriminates even moreso against multiple marriage. The irony of it is that the state recognises, and indeed subsidises serial polygamy, while simultaneous polygamy is a criminal offence. Thus the position of polygamists is even worse than that of gays.

The argument that the state should permit gay marriage and continue to criminalise polygamous marriage has all the same defects as the current orthodoxy against gay marriage.

People's private sexual and familial relationships are none of the government's business. Governmental regulation of consensual sexual relationships should be abolished.

Jardine,
A good response to another rant against the Christians. But the last sentence is incorrect: the government does not regulate consensual sexual relationships. Neither is there regulation of same sex female couples using a sperm donor to produce children. The problem, I think, that the state has with same sex marriage is that it falls outside of the definition of marriage that has reproduction at its centre. According to this definition sexual activity between same sex couples is not really sex because sex, by definition, is to do with reproduction. That is not to say that love between same sex couples is not binding and good.

I worry about how easy it is to take the worst examples of church polity and behaviour and then draw the worst conclusions. We can use that exercise to blacken the name of any social entity. When it is applied to the church it simply becomes hysterical and insulting. It is interesting that it is not applied to democracy or science. Church bashing seems to be the fashion of the day.

Peter Sellick

Thanks Sells; but the government does regulate consensual sexual relationships. For example if a couple have sex, and then as often happens, they decide they want to have sex again, and so on, eventually they get to a point where the government arbitrarily imposes marriage-like obligations affecting property, spouse maintenance, and so on.

The law against bigamy is another example of government regulation of consensual sexual relationships.

Another example is for so-called social security: the government inquires into the applicant's sexual relationships, and may for its own purposes constitute a marriage relationship even where the parties do not.

So on one hand government undermines de jure marriage by substituting its own terms for any terms of the parties (e.g. until 'irretrievable breakdown' for 'til death us do part'). On the other it creates de jure marriages for couples who have not volulntarily undertaken one.

(They have thus created the situation where we now have de jure marriage, de jure de facto marriage, and de facto de facto marriage!)

"The problem, I think, that the state has with same sex marriage is that it falls outside of the definition of marriage that has reproduction at its centre. According to this definition sexual activity between same sex couples is not really sex because sex, by definition, is to do with reproduction."

That describes the problem that the church, rather than the government, has with same sex marriage.

I would like to see sexual relationships deregulated. That way Christians could undertake marriages as they want, and exclude recognition of those they don't. Gays could do likewise. And everyone else could do likewise.

The sticking point is the desire of people to use government:
a) to manipulate everyone else into providing a recognition of a particular kind of sexual partnership that they know everyone else doesn't want to recognise, and
b) to pay benefits to people on the basis of favoured kinds of sexual relationships.

Thus the problem is not the definition of marriage itself. The problem is the desire to misuse government to blackguard everyone else into compliance with one's moral beliefs.

""The problem, I think, that the state has with same sex marriage is that it falls outside of the definition of marriage that has reproduction at its centre. According to this definition sexual activity between same sex couples is not really sex because sex, by definition, is to do with reproduction."" Sells (Friday, 10 September 2010 10:58:50 AM)

How many define marriage as having "reproduction at its centre"? Sure, it is an aim of a lot of marriages, especially heterosexual ones, but to position it as "the centre"?

Does the state really define sex and sexual activity that narrowly, or is that a slant you want to emphasise?

As you say, Sells, "the government does not regulate consensual sexual relationships".

Sells, "Church bashing seems to be the fashion of the day" and so it should be in this the 21st century, whilst the church attempts to impose medieval dogma on society.
Your belief that marriage is only for reproduction, shows contempt for those who are unable to have children, and to the love they have for each other.
"God is Love" you may chant, but he or she must be conerned, at those who presume to speak in their name.

Sells, "the definition of marriage that has reproduction at its centre."? Who's definition is that?

Certainly not my definition. Certainly not the definition of elderly couples getting married. (Should that be banned?) Certainly not the definition adopted by those couples who have no interest in having children at all. And certainly not the definition of most people, I would think, who actually put "love" at the centre of marriage.

To be honest, I don't think "reproduction" is even what JESUS would have put at the centre of his definition of marriage. After all, Jesus pretty much put "love" at the centre of everything, didn't he?

You see, centring marriage around reproduction pretty much means your marriage should probably be made null and void once you've finished raising your kids. The whole thing becomes worthless after that, don't you think?

Your definition of marriage is the definition owned only by those people who are attempting to enforce their view on the world on others (usually using their religious belief as their evidence). It is a feeble attempt to own morality in society. And, like the author suggests, Christians need to critically assess and deal with the behaviour of their own flock before they start trying to shepherd the rest of society.

Have you heard what happened in Spain? The so called non-discriminating(?) new legislation that came in with the arrival of the new (Socialist) govt after the Madrid bombings occurred - ironically discriminates against mum and dad. For the sake of this new same sex marriage legislation, now birth certificates cannot state "Mother" and "Father" but instead "Progenitor 1" and "Progenitor 2". Does that mean children can no longer say Ma Ma or Papa anymore? Que bizarro!

The good Dr. Wilson

Below, the first of three tenants remaining from the magna carter, the foundation of the Westminster political system , the basis of the Australian way,

1. The freedom of the church of England
FIRST, We have granted to GOD, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for us and our heirs for ever, that the church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole rights and liberties inviolable(that must not or cannot be transgressed, dishonoured, or broken; to be kept sacred). We have granted also, and given to all the freemen of our realm, for us and our Heirs for ever, these liberties underwritten, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, for us and our Heirs forever.

As peeving as it must be to unbelievers out there, the FACT cannot be denied, Australian society is “foundationed” on Christianity. Repeat: “that must not or cannot be transgressed, dishonoured, or broken; to be kept sacred”. The prime tenant of the Westminister system, lives because of Christainity and features Christianity first and foremost.

So, good doctor Wilson, lets contain the debate on homoseexuality to morals, based on Christian ethics, as is the law relating to marriage now. No radical changes thank you.

This really and truly is a poor article. I understand (because I respect others) that there are serious arguments why a democratic state should allow same-sex marriage, but this article missed the mark by a long shot.

From the opening paragraph that assumes that Christians think that marriage started with Jesus Christ (I've never met anyone who thought this), through the tired old argument that it is disrespectful for Christians to express their opinion about same-sex marriage (seemingly just because they disagree with the views of the writer), on to the illogical idea that because Churches have disgustingly failed to live up to their principles in protecting children they should therefore give up their principles about marriage, and finishing with the final hypocrisy of giving her own definition of marriage in the same breath as castigating Christians for daring to offer their definition, this article is all rhetorical self righteousness and no substance at all.

Diver Dan,

You quote the Magna Carta as a basis for using Christian 'ethics' and 'morals' to determine the basis for debate and law.

The Magna Carta, a document issued in 1215 when Christian 'ethics' and 'morals' supported slavery, the crusades, burning people at the stake, torture etc...

I get the feeling that it may have passed out of relevence in the 21st century. What some king decreed 800 years ago on the other side of the world really has very little effect on my own personal 'ethics' and 'morals' today.

Constance, you make a good argument against poor word choice, but no argument against same sex marriage reform.

No, I hadn't heard that, Constance.

>>For the sake of this new same sex marriage legislation, now birth certificates cannot state "Mother" and "Father" but instead "Progenitor 1" and "Progenitor 2"<<

That is really, really dumb.

As far as same-sex couples are concerned, a maximum of one of them can possibly be a "progenitor", since the word has an identical usage in Spanish as in English:

Eng: progenitor - a direct ancestor

Esp: progenitor - ascendiente en línea directa

If the birth certificate only shows the names of the same-sex carers, what document is used to identify the actual progenitors?

If there is none, what has disappeared is any chance the child might have had to discover their "birth parents".

As far as our own laws are concerned, I'm reasonably certain that the child has some rights in the matter, so any legislation that tried to take this information out of the equation would have a very hard time indeed.

And quite rightly so.

Not much forgiveness or understanding shone through in this article given forgiveness is one of the author's fields of interest. Mother Theresa was highly regarded in her day for living a life not too many of us would pursue. And in spite of all the good she did, she is pilloried for baptizing dying Hindus in hospice care.
If you believe in God or Gods you would know that a compassionate God, in this case a Hindu God, knows the heart of the believer, and Mother Theresa's action would be for naught. So no spiritual harm was done.

Does the author truly believe those Christians who oppose Green policy should be seen and not heard, along with their counterparts amongst Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Mormons and non religious.

This issue has to be discussed openly and broadly for how else will anyone know what same sex people really want. Until we actually know, no one can form an educated opinion.

So what do same sex couples want?
1. Support for same sex marriage that includes all the blessings of a traditional religious ceremony (whether it be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Mormon etc)
2. Support for same sex ceremony that excludes some or all religious ceremony ie the blessing that the couples successfully procreate (and this is common to all religious ceremonies)
3. Support for same sex couples to have a secular ceremony in a state run registry office.
4. Support for a same sex ceremony/relationship that qualifies them for the benefits male/female marriage receives ie spouse leave, adoption, IVF etc
5. All of the above
6. None of the above

Let's discuss this openly and frankly.

WWG asks

'So what do same sex couples want?' Like all those that deny their Creators right to determine right and wrong, they themselves want to be god. They are not really any different from those who live in defaco relations or those who watch porn and claim it is harmless. The fruit is clearly seen but their 'rights' is more important to them than common decency. The author pulls out the 'we are the compassionate ones' garbage not giving two hoots about the good of society.

In 2004, that is, 2004, the Howard government passed an amendment to the Marriage Act that defined marriage as a union between a man and woman. Therefore it would seem that the Australian government did indeed define marriage, and very recently.

Prior to 2004 there was no such definition of marriage in our Marriage Act. It was amended by the Howard government specifically to prevent same sex marriage.

I have no wish to deny Christians or anybody else the right to express their views on marriage, or to conduct their marriages as they see fit, and I believe I made that clear in the article.

What I do object to is those views being imposed on the lives of non Christians via government legislation. As happened in this country in 2004.

We have never had a legal definition of marriage that had reproduction at its centre, and I very much doubt that we ever will. It is a bizarre and reductionist concept of love.

Anything written that queries the Christian position is immediately determined to be church bashing. Is there some reason I don't know about as to why the churches should be exempt from critical examination and commentary?

I think that if churches seek to exert such enormous influence over the lifestyles of non Christians, then they had better man up and get ready to be questioned and challenged. The days when we took our direction, unquestioning, from the village priest, have long gone.

Whether or not the Hindu god would overlook Mother Theresa's intrusions, I cannot know. But that is beside the point. This is only given as an example of the lengths Christians can go to in their unrelenting determination to impose their beliefs on others.

Jennifer Wilson.

Jardine,
The government only interferes when it is necessary to protect the individuals in a sexual relationship. This had to do with property justice, not sex. It is indisputable that when a couple set up home together that their relationship ceases to be private and becomes public whether there was a marriage ceremony or official registration of a marriage. This relationship the law holds has certain responsibilities, like if one individual is the breadwinner and the other the housekeeper then property accumulated during the relationship is held to be in common.

So I deny that government interferes in sexual relationships, rather its only purpose is to protect the vulnerable.

Jennifer Wilson asks, "Is there some reason I don't know about as to why the churches should be exempt from critical examination and commentary?". The answer is yes — it upsets Runner.

There is no reason churches should be exempt from comment but let's remember they also deserve a right of reply.

I am still looking for an answer to my question. What do same sex couples actually want?

And Jennifer I apologize for being a bit personal in my comment. Just took umbridge at the Mother Theresa comment. Surely there is someone who is still alive that you could have used as your example. That person could defend themself

Sells - when the government passes legislation that states marriage is a union only between a man and a woman, then the government is interfering in sexual relationships. It should be of no concern at all to the government if same sex couples marry. It is none of the government's business.

You write: "I worry about how easy it is to take the worst examples of church polity and behaviour and then draw the worst conclusions. We can use that exercise to blacken the name of any social entity. When it is applied to the church it simply becomes hysterical and insulting"

I'm at a loss as to know what other conclusions can be drawn from the global revelations of child sexual abuse in the churches. Is there something worse yet to be revealed?

Your attempts to minimise these crimes, and your attempt to denigrate those who object to them, are sadly typical Christian reactions.

Let me repeat again what Jesus said: “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he be cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones”.

It would seem that your Christ took crimes against the little ones extremely seriously.

Or was he being hysterical too?

Hi Pericles,

Correctemente! Dumber than dumb. An example of the ramifications of same sex marriage - foresight required please.

As far as I understand it (info about it, is very scant), the two Progs on the birth certificate actually apply to both the natural parents and the same sex couple. Unbelieveable, I know. Christians in particular were outraged and protested, naturally. Would not you. Under a Socialist government - think about it. I did'nt exactly know what progenitor meant. Thanks. Bit of a LIE isn't it? But then socialists and contemporary human rights activists are like that - as they seem to be addicted to LYING all the time. Human rights ain't what it use to be - they have really lost the plot in today's world. Also, a bit off the subject, I have seen a Pakistani birth certificate where the mother is not mentioned at all.

The same sex marriage issue is all about ME ME ME and the children do not have any rights. And maybe in the not too distant future, nor will natural mummy and daddy.

The Pacos are now a bunch of WACKOS.

WWG, your question is very easy to answer. Same sex couples want equality,choices and respect in life, that you enjoy, and not be treated as first class taxpayers and second class Australians

Winli (few posts up)

What was that Winli? You want to wear ugboots to the gay mardi-gras? Methinks you on wrong channel with good doctor!

Constance, are you saying That Spain should go back to the days of Franco?
As I can assure you, the Spanish people do not want too!

Kipp, do have chip (on your shoulder)? You know very well you're not treated as second class citizens, it's only a matter of personal opionion. The author mentions hijacking - this is what same sex marriage is doing. Wouldn't it be much more groovy to be a bit underground anyway? Like the main character in Queer as Folk said to his mate who had a gay marriage - which he couldn't understand why he wanted to get married. I have gay friends and that's how they like it (living on the edge) and they think the same sex marriage thing is complete farce (and hijack).

Jennifer,

Mother Theresea - and who else was there for the dying? Cheap shot, really, J.

Constance, though you and your "Gays" friends do not believe in Social Justice and Human Rights, it will prevail.
To substantiate your personal put down, you need to walk a kilometre in the shoes of a GLBTI person, then see who has the chip on their shoulder.

"Mother Theresa - and who else was there for the dying?"
Posted by Constance, Friday, 10 September 2010 8:54:01 PM

Mother Theresa was more about suffering for preparation for the after life than relieving it. She siphoned off funds for religious institutions rather than use them for her "patients". The standard of care in her facilities were so poor, she flew overseas to the best hospitals for her own treatment.

Kipp

Kipp, you mean manipulating social justice and abusing (and luxuriating in) the human rights issues - that's what you're on about. I've met and publicly greeted a Nobel Prize winner for Human Rights. Believe me, I know what it genuinely means. Oh please, another damn ubiquitous nuisance acronym - what the hell is GLBTI?

McFony (sorry, I just had to),

Yes, sound like you've been reading the Catholic-Bashing media rants - easy targets aren't they? She lived in India so did not want to run a western-style charity. You know, when in Rome do as the Romans do. Well, she was quite a treasure afterall for all that self-less work she did. So being particularly special - don't you think she would have deserved the best treatment - you know like it may have been quite a loss without her around. Oh, you seem really mean-minded.

briar rose, "when the government passes legislation that states marriage is a union only between a man and a woman, then the government is interfering in sexual relationships."

Plainly what you are doing is imposing your own values and judgement to determine when a gay person's rights should be overridden by the State.

No-one allowed gays choice when the de facto provisions were extended to apply to them. Mind you that came as no surprise because heterosexuals were similarly ambushed by an elite who think that they know what is best for everyone else.

If you do want an example of the State interfering in homosexual (and heterosexual) relationships, why go past family law affecting de factos, where a person can be deemed to be in a de facto relationship without even knowing it let alone giving his/her consent. Worse, even with a lawyer on hand to advise it can still be contentious if a relationship is de facto or not and again, regardless of the lack of consent of one or more of the parties involved.

Government bureaucrats routinely decide the status of 'relationships' between or among people and government agencies can disagree, which is not surprising given that forty or more 'indicators' can be used to make a decision. Gone are the days when students sharing digs could decide their own relationship status.

In fact it is possible for married person to be deemed to be in a de facto relationship with one or any number of others, again without the small matter of consent. Incredibly, any or all of the de factos can make a claim on the assets and income of the marriage.

contd..

contd..

Regarding the Marriage Act, it is deceitful to pretend that the Act did not apply to one man and one women previously. All that the Parliament did and with a clear majority, was to confirm its meaning as understood by the electorate and deter frivolous actions to frustrate it. The Australian Parliament has confirmed the Marriage Act twice in recent years, the first by PM Howard and the second in the failed attempt by the Greens to hijack it in the Senate. If there is to be a third challenge to the Marriage Act, it should go to the people as a referendum. However, given the expense of that it should coincide with an election, where the policies of minor parties like the Greens can be examined and put to the vote.

Personally, I don't mind which way the electorate might wish to go on marriage. However, like a good many others I do object to the lack of direct consultation with the community that has been a feature of recent changes to very significant legislation that affects the most important choices a person could make in his/her lifetime. It is incredible and intolerable abuse of a citizen's rights that his/her relationship decisions can be second-guessed and overruled by a State bureaucrat. Suck it up or lose a small fortune in the courts.

Are gays happy to lose their previous free-wheeling and flexible lifestyle? Many wouldn't be, but they continue to be howled down by those who know what is best for them.

An excellent article that made a lot of sense to me Briar Rose.
You gave some excellent examples of crazy church teachings that were the main reasons why I am no longer a Christian.

Some apparent 'teachings' of Jesus and the Catholic church have changed over the years with no say-so from the man as far as we know!

People in most countries used to be banned from marrying people of other races or skin colours by the Christian churches.
Now they 'allow' these marriages in churches.

"Christian beliefs about marriage change, as the above example demonstrates. Presumably, this is as a consequence of god changing his mind, and somehow relaying that change to the faithful who then update the law." Indeed.

What possible harm can letting two gay men or two lesbian women get married do to the average person in Australia?
If you don't believe in gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the opposite sex!

Funny old world. It also seems that marriage promotes devorce, where defacto has a longer shelf life. See marriage imho, makes you feel locked in, and your sence of individualism has be sold to someone in the long term, you may not feel the same when the love spell wears off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

http://www.lifesip.com/marriage.html

http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/vismarr/marr1.htm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/getting-bored-of-the-rings/2007/07/20/1184560038730.html

and dont forget the rediculus cost of marrage, which funny enough, the church would like to see more of.......... and I wont get into that one. $10.000 and thats just the tip of the check book with no 100% the relation-ship will work.

Again! its horse for corses.

TTM>

It's funny how a century ago the church was at the forefront of human rights, but is now fighting against further human rights.

There are two conflicting forces in play here: the Religious one which is trying to keep its control over its gullible flock and the Gay and Lesbian one which is trying to change all the rules in society so that it can feel it has some legitimacy.

The bottom line is that all religion is based upon a fraud and there is not one shred of evidence to support any of it. And even if gays and lesbians change all the laws and marry and adopt dozens of children, they will never be accepted by mainstream society because they are clearly atypical.

Let the arguments rage. They mean nothing anyway!

http://dangerouscreation.com

It is absurd to say that government registration of marriage is a "human right".

Gay couples have the same right to marry as heterosexual couples.

Cornflower, if the Marriage Act did mean a union between men and women only, why did the Howard government go to the lengths of changing the legislation?

Legalising gay marriage isn't the same thing as forcing gays into marriage. It's extending the same freedom of choice to same sex couples as everyone else has.

A Galaxy poll result showed that 60% of Australians are in favour of same sex marriage.

I don't know how you get into a non consensual de facto relationship. I don't know how you don't know you're in a de facto relationship. I really think the onus for being informed on these crucial matters has to be with the parties involved.

Sorry about the grammar concerning posts on the 11th as not wearing my glasses.lol

p.s The red wine didn't help. smile.

The evolving changes of the human mindset will always be an ongoing development concerning our own evolution.
Like I've said before, the church is going to have to realize and change with the times or before long it to will find itself extinct.

I simply cant understand why the christian institution can not see or adapt to the winds of change.

TTM

briar rose, "if the Marriage Act did mean a union between men and women only, why did the Howard government go to the lengths of changing the legislation?"

Again you pretend that the Act meant something different whereas it did not. The common understanding always was that it referred to one man and one woman and the proofs as if any were needed are:

- there was never a marriage under the Act other than between one man and one woman;

- a very large majority of parliament confirmed its meaning; and

- there was no groundswell to challenge the passage Parliament's view.

As you very well know and it was announced by PM Howard at the time, the Parliament acted solely to confirm and protect what existed, there was no change in meaning whatsoever and no action would have been necessary were it not for lawyers trying to weasel other meanings as you are trying to do.-

BR, "Legalising gay marriage isn't the same thing as forcing gays into marriage."

Again the challenge I put to you, if the de facto changes were not Big Sister deciding what was best for gays (and heterosexuals) what was? It is common law marriage, yes?

The fact is that an interfering elite has managed to make a complete hash of de facto regulations. No-one is sure of their status regarding the de facto provisions and no common person can say without fear of being overturned, when he/she is in a de facto relationship or not.

There was no groundswell of demand for the changes to the de facto arrangements, for the changes by an elite that obviously did not want nor see the need for proper community consultation, nor for the extension of the arrangements to gays, whose choices and lifestyles were obviously at odd with those conditions and interpretations - as can be now seen from the problems caused to them.

As was made obvious in the recent federal election, the electorate is highly critical and distrusting of policy by focus groups, or through deals done in back rooms.

contd..

"You know, when in Rome do as the Romans do."
Posted by Constance, Friday, 10 September 2010 10:10:28 PM

So why did she proselytise Roman Catholic Christianity to dying Indians - in India - who were hardly ever Christian, and concentrate on their suffering in preparation for a Catholic Christian notion of an afterlife, as opposed to the Indian notions of re-incarnation? how about "when in India, let Indians do as the Indians do"
.

contd..

BR, "A Galaxy poll result showed that 60% of Australians are in favour of same sex marriage."

A little academic independence and frankness would reveal the limitations of that survey wouldn't it?

Also, academic independence and less blind advocacy would support what I propose: direct consultation with the electorate on such a significant social change. Put it to the voters at an election in the form of a referendum if you believe what you say. There are reasons why minor parties like the Greens are very coy about their social policies.

BR, "I don't know how you get into a non consensual de facto relationship."

Easy peasy, it is something you don't agree to or state is not your intention. However that isn't adequate to protect against being deemed to be in one is it?

You would want a person to be adequately informed before entering into a serious contract, that there be informed consent obtained in advance, yes? But that is not the case.

Worse, what if the conditions were as vague and murky? What if even government agencies, those who are most likely to affect the involved parties, might differ on the final decision or reasons for tat decision?

BR, "I don't know how you don't know you're in a de facto relationship."

You need to talk with the people for whom you are making rules. For example, many people, especially young people, do not understand that they can be deemed to be de factos even where they do not live together. Social policy should not set booby traps.

BR, "I really think the onus for being informed on these crucial matters has to be with the parties involved."

It is never good enough to put through half-baked laws that create more problems and discontent than they are supposed to solve. What about you come up with a few simple, practical rules so that people can understand where they stand with de facto regulation? Government agencies seem thoroughly confused by it and the electorate is at odds with it too.

Cornflower, I don't really think social change can be reduced to people trying to "weasel other meanings."

The legislation on the definition of the Marriage Act was passed because the Howard government had a Senate majority. There was a huge groundswell against it, but it was passed because of the government's senate majority and because the ALP did not object.

60% of Australians is not, in my assessment a "focus group."

If there is a desire for change to current de facto legislation then people need to organise themselves into campaigning for that, just as gay activists and any other activists for social change have to do.

I have no interest in de facto legislation, I'm not seeking to make any rules about that or anything else. I'm seeking to remove rules that prevent people doing what they are perfectly entitled to do. So we are on the same side, really,because I gather that is what you want too.

"Common understandings" are challenged all the time, and so they should be. Because they are common understandings doesn't make them right, or true, or honest, or fair. The common understandings of today can be completely different from the common understandings of the past. Society changes. Once it was commonly understood that some criminals would be hanged.

"I'm seeking to remove rules that prevent people doing what they are perfectly entitled to do."

You are embracing a fallacy that marriage is something that government does or grants to people. This is factually incorrect.

Gays have as much right to, in their own terms, "marry" as anyone else. They can exchange undertakings to take as husband or wife etc., and they can hold ceremonies to celebrate the making of such commitments, that are in every way substantively the same as heterosexuals; indeed moreso because of the legislative restrictions on heterosexuals.

Gays can settle their property as between themselves without hindrance. And so far as their property relations are caught by the de facto relations legislation, substantively the same legal regime applying as to a marriage, and is even litigated in the same courts.

What gays can't do is register their unions under the Marriage Act. But neither could heterosexuals until the 19th century. Does that mean that, until then, the government was "preventing them from doing what they were perfectly entitled to do?" Poppycock!

The question is, *why* do gays want to register their relationships under the Marriage Act?

In practice, registration under the Marriage Act would actually restrict the rights of gays even more than now, since
a) it precludes 'polygamous' (poly-anal?) relationships
b) it imposes restrictions on freedom of property settlements, and of dissolution that do no apply now.

Clearly the gay marriage movement is motivated by *symbolic* reasons. Exactly like the Christians before them, they want to use the state to bully everyone else into granting vicarious recognition, through the state, for their moral opinions of their sexual proclivities, even, and especially, as they know that many or most people do not agree.

Appeal to a majority is utterly empty. If a majority were in favour of persecuting gays, or against gay marriage, are you saying that would settle the question, would it?

Thus the argument is
a) factually incorrect
b) illogical
c) facile, and
d) every bit as pious, bullying, chauvinist and hypocritical as the Christians they accuse.

Chill, Jardine K Jardine.
Nobody is trying to bully you into recognising anybody. You can ignore whomever you choose and for whatever reason.

There are some heterosexual proclivities that really upset some people. Anal sex is one of them. "Promiscuity" is another. Teenage pregnancies. STDs. Prostitution. Adultery. Pornography. The list of possible heterosexual offenses is long.

The right to enter into legal marriage is granted to hetero couples by Federal government legislation. This is factually correct. Marriage is a legislated state.

The other agreements you describe are private and do not involve the state, and the state does not recognise them as marriage, but as de facto arrangements.

And de facto relationships are subjected to similar property settlement requirements in the event of dissolution as is marriage.

I imagine the answers to your question about why gays want legal marriage are not very much different from why heteros want it. Public commitment,mutual responsibility, an undertaking to be monogamous, a legal framework in which to build a family, and because they love one another. And because marriage in our society is still important to some people.

I'm not sure what the reference to the marriage requirements of the 19th century has to do with anything, given we are now well into the 21st.

There are many things in any society that are disliked by some members of that society. Doesn't mean those things should necessarily be forbidden.

I guess you don't want same sex couples to be recognised, and you'll feel bullied into recognising them if the state allows them to be married. But you don't have to agree with the state, do you? There must be a few things you already disagree with the state about.

I guess you just don't want to live in a world where gays are allowed to get married and you're mad that you might not be able to control that.

But your life doesn't have to change one tiny bit if some same sex couples are allowed to marry. You probably won't even know about it.
Jennifer.

I thank you all for your inputs and the world is changing faster than most can keep up, and the bottom line is we are all human and we are all natures creatures and to hell with the past mindsets. What this means we are simply one species, but unfortunately humans seem to pride themselves higher than the value of the collective organisms that make us and with our ignorance will probably break us.

I do rant on don't I, but much of what i say is very very true to the terms and conditions to making a civilized and heart meaningful post, and don't forget (and Tony Abbott said don't listen to university opinions, and how does this give faith to our younger people which will inherit what these 19th century leaders have put in place for you, which as irony would have it, they want to teach you the future, but have no clues themselves. Bottom line if you are in love get to work.

I always believe that the simple things in life are often the best.

All the best

TTM

Chill, Briar Rose

"The right to enter into legal marriage is granted to hetero couples by Federal government legislation. This is factually correct. Marriage is a legislated state."

That is not correct. Marriage pre-dates both church and government. Legal marriage exists even without federal government legislation, because the common law recognised marriage for hundreds of years before the Marriage Act ever existed - and still does recognise it. Thus the right to enter into legal marriage is not "granted" to hetero couples by Federal government legislation, and such marriages are not a legislated state.

As I have already said and you have obviously not understood or ignored, the Marriage Act *registers* a pre-existing marriage which the state, by registering it, recognises for its own purposes, but does not bring into existence, and does not claim to bring into existence.

So you are factually wrong.

You are playing fast and loose with the concept of state and society. They are not the same thing. If it was true that gays want *social* recognition, they can get it in exactly the same way as heteros did before the Marriage Act.

But as it's *state* recognition they seek then don't try and deny that they are trying to blackguard everyone else into extending a vicarious recognition via the state whether they agree or not. And that is obviously exactly what the agenda of the gay marriage movement is, otherwise they would be satisifed with their *greater* factual marriage rights under the status quo.

If it's true that what really motivates you is concern for equal recognition of difference, then why do you not equally support polygamous marriage? And if it doesn't concern you, then why should gay marriage concern anyone else?

Briar Rose, a couple who enter into a common law marriage are legally married, even without, or before, any registration under statute. Marriage is not something created by the government, it is created by the couple in exchanging commitments.

Privately this song helped me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvIAyxpjEuc

It's your world, and this is how we saw it. And if gay marriage is our rightful mindset to the planet, who above or below should dictate how we feel and live upon this planet. I know all must have many many questions upon this issue, but this time has gone past tolerance and intolerance and who are you too subject your so called higher values on a principle contexts without understanding the modern relative values of this day and age.

The bottom line is this is a mixed valued earth and not one is right but not the many is wrong. To simplify, the next time you walk down the street and you meet someone or stranger, what do you see?
I see a human! What do you see?

p.s. My Boston legal will show my tolerance.
All the Best

TT

'To simplify, the next time you walk down the street and you meet someone or stranger, what do you see? '

A fallen human being in desperate need of a Saviour.

The first comment says it all, really.

Why should the government confer special rights and responsibilities on people, on the basis of their sexual behaviour. The bedroom is the last place the government should be. Isn't that what gay rights campaigners have been demanding all along? But now suddenly they want Julia Gillard in the corner of the room cheering them along?

This is the point that has been missing from the whole gay marriage issue. No I don't support government recognition of gay marriage. I also don't support government recognition of straight marriage. (And yes I am a married heterosexual.)

For crying out loud -

We live in a society where our marriages are registered by the federal government according to the Marriage Act if we want legal status for those marriages.

De facto relationships do not have to be registered, though if they break down, parties have legal obligations to one another.

The Marriage Act (since 2004) defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

According to some of your arguments, this Act should not exist at all. Maybe you are right. But the reality is, it does.

The Act's definition of marriage discriminates against same sex couples who wish to register their relationship with the federal government, because they can't.

Why they wish to register is their own business.

If you are a hetero who is against the concept of the state forcing you to register your marriage, then campaign against it, just like everybody else does when they are opposed to some perceived intrusion by the state. That is a whole other issue, and nothing to do with same sex couples who want to have what you regard as intrusive.

The issue is discrimination against same sex couples, and why that discrimination exists.

The question you need to ask yourselves is why is it so necessary for you to encourage and retain discriminatory practices such as this one against same sex couples?

As for polygamous marriages - I have no strong feelings about them, one way or the other, and I don't think they are any business of the state. Like same sex marriage, they are unregisterable because they contravene the accepted social order and are considered to be "immoral" by the law makers.

Arguments about what marriage is and isn't are furphys in this debate. We are talking about, as everybody knows, the right to register a relationship under the Marriage Act, a right that is denied to gays, and polygamous people, and extended only to hetero couples, many of whom, it would seem from these posts,don't want to have it anyway.
Jennifer.

It's not a whole other issue at all.

You are campaigning to expand the scope of legislation some of us would like to see abolished completely.

They are very much related and competing purposes.

McReal: Defending MT again - the best hospital care..... Which hospital care did Mr Rudd choose, public or private? And not a wiff of criticism so if you can, why not?

Kipp: Thank you for your response. Gays want - equality, choices and respect in life and not to be treated as a first class taxpayer and second class Australian. Gee whiz, the rest of us are wanting this too.
Believing a change in the marriage act to include same sex unions will give equality, choices and respect is a false dream. The marriage act doesn't give this heterosexual couples; so it won't give it to same sex couples.

Same sex couples in Australia have equality and they have choices. They have the freedom to be in a union; a freedom that is denied in countries where other religions and communism are the major influence. Choice results in consequences. Same sex couples knowingly enter into a union that precludes them from producing offspring.

Briar Rose: Thank you for your response. The crux of the matter may lie in your comment that same sex couples want 'a legal framework in which to build a family.'
Do 60% agree that same sex couples should have access to IVF and the right to adopt? Put those questions separately in the next survey, publish and openly debate the response

WWG, if you consider you are also missing out, then you ,must agree that there is inequity in Australian society. Though in your penulimate paragraph, appears to indictate otherwise in respect of same sex couples.

Russell,
Abolishing the Marriage Act altogether is one way of addressing its discriminatory nature.

However. There are many heterosexual couples who for a variety of reasons want to register their marriages.

It is so important to them to be able to do this, that even if they are already in de facto relationships, they still want to register their marriages with the state.

Many heterosexual couples feel that registering their marriage with the state is formalising a private commitment, and is not, as you describe it, an invasion by the state into the bedroom.

It may be symbolic to register the marriage, and if so, it is powerfully symbolic to these couples. What right do you have to tell these couples that they can't do that anymore because you want the legislation abolished?

Same sex marriage advocates are not saying, "because we can't register nobody should be able to, so abolish the Act." We recognise that it is too important to too many people to try and get rid of it altogether.

We are saying, make the legislation non-discriminatory, as all legislation should be non discriminatory. Make the legislation inclusive.

In this sense you are nothing like the gay marriage advocates because you want to deny a process to everyone, no matter how important it might be to them, because you feel it is an intrusion by the state.

Nobody makes you register your marriage. You will not be disadvantaged if you stay de facto. So what is your problem with letting people have their own perceptions about the state's role in marriage, and going down that road if they want to?

Why do you have to attempt to exert control over something that doesn't have to affect you at all unless you want it to?

briar rose,

So although you might see marriage as deeply flawed (discriminates against women, yes?) and the Marriage Act ought be trashed (hey it is only that hated Christian symbolism, right?), you nonetheless want it all kept for the moment because its 'powerful symbolism' is useful and convenient for the equality of gays?

However your support for marriage is conditional upon gays being part of it, right?

Also, you wouldn't object to other changes too such as polygamy, yes?

As long as all understand where you are coming from, that intrusion by the State is OK where you agree with it, but it is not OK and always 'discriminatory' where you don't. In your land it was quite OK - good even - for the State to enter homosexuals' bedrooms to define their relationships for them and for the Family Court to make decisions concerning their assets and income. Big Sister dong what they as adults were perfectly capable of sorting out for themselves before. That is not discriminatory because presumably it serves another goal you have in mind. So those gays who led perfectly happy and carefree lives, flexing their relationships to suit their lifestyles and choices can go suck it up, they in their thousands are collateral damage.

Now you and the Greens want to set the bull loose in the China shop as far as marriage is concerned, despite Parliament ruling otherwise twice and you see no need for a referendum or process to directly involve the electorate in the decision? Is it time you reckon for another another back door deal that excludes the people affected, which is contrary to what you say, the whole electorate? If not, why don't you support a democratic resolution?

The end justifies the means, huh?

briar rose, far out, where do I start? It's not the government's place to be pandering to some people's authoritarian leanings. (Good lord, how does registration with the state make a union more legitimate? Do these people have Mao-style paintings of our fearless leaders on their bedroom walls?)

It's not so much the registration that's the issue, anyway. It's the special treatment that goes along with it.

Russell, I did not suggest that registration makes a union more legitimate. A de facto marriage is legitimate.

I said that to some people the symbolism of publicly registering their marriage can be very important.

People are not necessarily enslaved by authoritarianism if they choose to register their marriages. There are practical reasons for registering, such as wanting to make a public record of their union, just as births and deaths are recorded. Or do you think we shouldn't be doing that either?

Where do you start? By using your imagination. Some people want to make a public, recorded commitment to each other by registering their marriage. Just because you don't understand this desire doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or is invalid.

People who don't want to do this don't have to.

I don't know what "special treatment" you mean.

CORNFLOWER:
1. I do not see marriage as "deeply flawed" and I never said that I do.
2. I did not say that marriage discriminates against women.
3. I did not say that the Marriage Act "ought to be trashed." Quite the opposite.
4. The Marriage Act should be inclusive of same sex couples, is what I said.
5.I have no political position on polygamy. Personally, I don't think I would like it.
6. Gays do not HAVE to register their marriages if the Act is changed to include them, and neither do heterosexuals. It is entirely voluntary. So there won't be hordes of collaterally damaged same sex couples if the Marriage Act is changed to include them.

"There are practical reasons for registering, such as wanting to make a public record of their union..."

What sort of practical reason is that? What difference does it make in practice?

Even if that is true, why don't gays just set up a public record of relationships, and then every time a couple want to make a public record of their relationship, they can register on it?

Because that's not the reason gays are urging for the definition of marriage to be changed to enable registration of homosexual relationships under the Marriage Act, is it, Briar Rose?

By the way, don't think it has gone unnoticed that you are wrong about the legislative status or marriage. Ignoring the truth doesn't actually make your argument stronger.

If the argument is about "discrimination", the same Act discriminates against every other form of sexuality. At common law, people could be married as young as nine. So the Act "discriminates" against such relationships too. It is no answer to say that such are abusive. The reason homosexuality was criminalised for so many centuries is because it was considered abusive too. Similarly the reason polygamy is now criminalised is because of the Christian heritage of prejudice against other forms of sexuality.

You are only begging the question why governments should be in the business of registering sexual relationships. And you are blowing hot and cold on the same point.

Why should homosexuality accede to an exclusive privileged status that gays themselves are ready to deny to others forms of sexuality?

How is your position vis-a-vis other forms of sexuality any different to that of the church vis-a-vis homosexuality?

Apart from the desire for a public record, what are the other reasons why homosexuals might want to be able to register relationships under the Marriage Act?

Jefferson –
Most of your points I’ve addressed in earlier posts.
In addition:
1. Much family is history is traced through public records of marriages, births and deaths.
2. Sex with children is a crime.
3. Homosexuality is not.
4. The legislative status of marriage: registered marriages acquire a legal standing that requires a legal process of divorce to end them. It’s illegal to have more than one registered marriage at a time. De facto marriages do not require divorce to end them. It is not illegal to conduct more than one at a time. (This could be the solution for polygamists).
5. I am consistent in my position on government registration of “sexual relationships.” Marriage is only one expression of sexual relations. Marriage is not solely about sexual relations. Legislation on marriage, if it is to exist, should be non discriminatory.

Many posts on this topic have been little more than a torrent of angry demands that same sex couples justify their desire to register their marriages. Perhaps it is time for someone to put forward a cogent and coherent argument to substantiate the extraordinary opposition to this understandable wish for and right to equality.

Maybe it would also be a good idea to consider just exactly how same sex marriage would in any way disturb your lifestyle, and why the possibility of it arouses so much irrational emotion in opponents.

In answer to your last question, why shouldn’t homosexuals register their marriages? I’ve given plenty of reasons why they should be able to. Over to you to tell us why they shouldn’t.

Same sex marriage will probably improve public health. Sexually transmitted disease is spread by sexual promiscuity. Marriage whether homosexual or heterosexual encourages exclusive sexual relations. I support same sex marriage for its potential in cutting down disease as well as other aspects.

McReally!

They are not all Hindus in India. I particularly know this as I did spend 6 mths there. Yes, I guess if they were Christian, there would have been less chance of them dying in the gutter alone. The Sisters of Charity also dressed like Indians, blended with their own habit. Proselytising, well that's a bit of an overstatement, isn't it? That's all she knew - her own faith, and she was there for the dying out of LOVE when there was nobody else. Love - believe it, or not. You know - you need to chuck all your cold cynism out and believe there are actually some special people in this world who live and work to serve in a positive way. I don't think it would have been too practical to fit in Hinduism - it was her gig afterall. And maybe they might have less chance of being reincarnated as frog, who knows. Right or wrong, she gave comfort. Actually, I have no idea what death rites she performed but I'm pretty sure she didn't use duress.
.

“Most of your points I’ve addressed in earlier posts.”
No you haven’t. You haven’t given any valid reasons. You rely on non-facts about marriage. You urge non-existent practical reasons. You fail to address the central issues: a. why government should be registering private sexual relations in the first place, and b. how registering gay “marriages” would avoid discrimination against other forms of sexuality.

“Much family is history is traced through public records of marriages, births and deaths.”

So what? What’s stopping gays from making public records of their relationships?

“Sex with children is a crime.
Homosexuality is not.”

So what? You are trying to argue from what is, to what should be. If that were valid, it would end the question to point out the fact that governmental registration of gay “marriages” *is* not possible. It’s nonsense.

If a majority voted for homosexuality to be illegal, would that settle the question for you?

“The legislative status of marriage: registered marriages acquire a legal standing that requires a legal process of divorce to end them. It’s illegal to have more than one registered marriage at a time. De facto marriages do not require divorce to end them. It is not illegal to conduct more than one at a time.”

So what?

“why shouldn’t homosexuals register their marriages? I’ve given plenty of reasons why they should be able to.”

(We’re still waiting for a valid one.)

“Over to you to tell us why they shouldn’t.”

You have got the onus of proof back-the-front.

“Legislation on marriage, if it is to exist, should be non discriminatory.”

1. Why should it exist?
2. Why should homosexuality accede to an exclusive privileged status that gays themselves are ready to deny to others forms of sexuality?
3. How is your position vis-a-vis other forms of sexuality any different to that of the church vis-a-vis homosexuality?

No people should tolerate Government, or any other religion, defining marriage and dictating its practices anywhere.

Humans can define themselves.

'To simplify, the next time you walk down the street and you meet someone or stranger, what do you see? '

A fallen human being in desperate need of a Saviour.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 12 September 2010 12:17:04 AM

LOL runner! You might want to bite your lip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests

http://thelasttradition.blogspot.com/2010/07/catholic-priests-caught-on-film-having.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/feb/06022706.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ_endorses_same-sex_marriage,_largest_Christian_denomination_to_do_so

And the lists goes on,on,on runner.

Its a changing world my friend.

Runner! you know the best things about gay people, they don't breed.

Punt intended.

( remember what one believer said here....." we will just breed you non-believers out.

TTM

runner and think than move

"If we assume that all of the estimates are of equal validity, then about 33% of priests have a homosexual orientation -- about one in three."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

"It would seem that about 50% of present-day seminary students may have a homosexual orientation."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm

runner and think than move

think than move

obviously their is a large portion of Catholic priests who are also sinners in desperate need of grace. Unfortunately their 'religion' blinds them from that.

The author, as commentator, says:

>>60% of Australians is not, in my assessment a "focus group."

The word "weasel" was aptly applied. That was 60 per cent of a sample, not 60 per cent of the population of Australia. You're either deliberately misleading or profoundly ignorant.

And since I haven't seen the questions, I'd have to hold judgement on whether the survey was a valid one, anyway. Little things like sample selection and question format have a lot to do with the responses.

Jefferson, you sound really worked up about this, a little aggressive even.

I refer you back to the article, from which you seem to have strayed far and wide.

Most of the points to which you are demanding sound byte answers are at least of essay length, and many of them could be better answered someone other than me.

I am not really very interested in an argument about why the government "registers private sexual relations in the first place." I am working from what we currently have in place.

There is probably a case to be made for the abolition of government intervention, but I am not the one to make it, and that was not the object of my article.

I believe that you can answer most of your questions yourself, and you are being a little disingenuous in your strident efforts to make me accountable for the number of issues you've raised. Which of course I am not, and couldn't ever be.

I would point out to you that you are perfectly capable of writing an article for OLO in which you discuss the aspects of the argument you feel I have neglected, or inadequately addressed.

Questions such as "why can't gays make their own public record" are not , in my view, honest questions, they are more a petulant complaint that gays can't have ours, they have to make their own.

I suppose I could persist in this futile exchange with you,and I'm well aware that if I refuse to do this, you will interpret this as some kind of victory.

But when you make stupid statements such as "voting to make homosexuality illegal," which is not on anybody's agenda, except perhaps yours, then its hard to continue to treat your questions respectfully.

Jefferson, writing an opinion piece carries a certain degree of responsibility for responding to reader comments. I feel I have more than fulfilled this responsibility towards you, and I think you and I must now agree to differ.
Thank you for your engagement with my article.
Jennifer.

KenH, the poll was conducted by Galaxy, and I'm quite sure they will inform you fully of their methods if you are troubled by the results.

My understanding of polling methods, which I admit is limited, is that results are extrapolated from a chosen group to the wider population.

They aren't referendums.

But as I said, it is not my area of expertise.

Thank you for engaging with my article. I am sorry the thought of 60% of Australians being in favour of sane sex marriage caused you such outrage.
Jennifer.

Can those who oppose same sex marriage, explain what affect same sex marriage will have on them.

briar rose
It's you who's personalizing the argument not jefferson. it's dishonest of you to say you need government to make a public record when obviously you don't. And how can you talk about gays "reclaiming" marriage from the christians. The gays never had it in the first place so what are you talking about? What makes your preference any less of a hijack than the christians? You are trying to have it both ways, saying a fact 'just is' if it's in your favour, but not accepting that it just is if it's against. how would it affect you if gays couldn't register their relationships?

Sienna
1. I don't recall suggesting that Jefferson is "personalising" the argument. Whatever that means.
2. I did not at any time say that I need the government to make a public record of anything, least of all marriage.
3.I did not talk about gays "reclaiming" marriage from Christians. The article is about non Christians reclaiming marriage from Christians, including gay non Christians and possibly even gay Christians. I state quite explicitly that marriage is for everyone. Perhaps you have not read the article.
4.My "preference" does not exclude others from marriage,my "preference" is that everyone is included in the marriage registry, if that is their choice, on the grounds that they are human beings, rather than on the grounds of their sexual orientation.
5. I have not at any time said a fact "just is." I don't subscribe to that form of logic.
6. Gays cannot currently register their relationships, and this does not affect my personal life in any way at all. I do, however, have the right to express my objection to discrimination.

A hijack means you take something away from someone else and deny them the right to have it. My position is that every couple, same sex or hetero, should be allowed to have a registered marriage if they want that. Therefore I am not seeking to take something away from someone. I am seeking to include people who are currently excluded.

It is unfortunate if my argument for inclusion of same sex marriage on the grounds of our common humanity is offensive to you. You will just have to deal with that, as we all have to deal with things we may not agree with.

As I suggested to Jefferson, you can always write an article for OLO disputing my argument. You have just as much right to express you views as I do, and OLO is exceptionally good at publishing many points of view.
Thank you for your interest.
Jennifer.

"The gays never had it in the first place so what are you talking about?"

But they DID!
Heck even one of the Emperors of Rome was married to another man. Same-sex marriage was outlawed only in Rome after the Christians took over. Same-sex traditions even including marriage in much of the world only became outlawed with British Colonial Law. Hindu Gods even had same-sex marriages.

Despite concerted attempts to destroy and erase same-sex and Transgender traditions including amongst the Indigenous people of Australia and our surrounding neighbours of Polynesia we still know they existed and some still remain intact.

Hi Briar Rose.
Could it be heterosexual couples only register because the Government requires it (and charges a fee for this registration)? If same sex couples have to register it merely adds to the coffers of Government. Why would anyone want this?
In a Christian marriage, the couple want God sanctify the union. To then have to register with the Government is complying with the laws of the state. And it takes a fee to register this union.
In a non religious secular marriage, the State alone sanctions the union. And it takes a fee to register this union.

Dear Kipp, I could respond if I could be bothered getting out the dictionary to work out the meaning of 'penulimate' paragraph. Are you showing off

You can have same sex union, but not same sex maarriage. We don't want wooly woofs infiltrating marriage.

Kipp,

Look at my Spanish example. They took away "mother" and "father" on birth certificates. What do think about this? It's these sort of ramifications that takes away the rights of heterosexuals.

Kipp, et al?

Sorry, left out "you". Again - What do you think about the Spanish birth certificate issue? Doesn't anyone care about the repercussions of this same sex marriage thingo? Are there any deep thinkers out there who can handle truths? Before other people's rights get hijacked?

This silence says it all.

I have nothing against homosexuals at all - just the small minority who wish to exploit and change for the worse long-standing heterosexual traditional conventions. Children's rights, please!

I don't have time right now to write a proper response but this article needs some research. Particularly with regards to our democracy ensuring religious freedom. where did that idea come from. we don't have human rights legislation in most states (and in some it is limited like the AD Act in nsw where you can claim based on only a few heads, religion not being one of them and even then proving a case is near impossible (see about a billion articles, an easy one to follow being "reflections on the onus and standard of proof in anti-discrimination complaints" by Hennessy. Find out the difference between the terms "christian" and "catholic" before you write another article where you jump from talking about Christianity to the catholic church. and get an understanding on human rights law before you say something as ignorant like "our democracy ensures religious freedom". That couldn't be further from the truth (including with sex and sexuality based discrimination, racial discrimination) and I have been for many cases where homosexuals and transexuals have been wrongly discriminated against. But don't make the mistake that talking about important social issues = discrimination. I'm sure that homosexual couples could be very loving parents and children should be able to be adopted by loving homosexual couples (and gay and straight singles), but your kidding yourself if you don't think that all things being equal, it isn't best for kids to be in a family with a mother and a father (yes that goes for singles wishing to adopt as well). I'm all for homosexual rights on many issues, but when it comes to adopting kids, the only rights that matters are those of the kids. If adults come off second best as a result, gay straight pink blue whatever, too bad.

Part 2: And with marriage, all for homosexual rights to marry and have equal rights in relation to tax, next of kin ect. But don't right off christian or catholic values because you don't like how the catholics handled the child abuse atrocity (and I say that as a Catholic). Christian views have defined much of what is good in our legal system and political system (you might be forgetting that after terra nullius was declared (ie what we did to the aboriginals) this country became an Anglican based state (hence prayers in question time and anglican religion being taught in state schools). There was also a period of persecution against Catholics in this country. The good the bad and the ugly are all a part of our history. Prefacing your article with "I don't want to throw out the baby with the bath water" and then going on to do exactly that is just dumb.

Constance,

The silence is a result of your argument being irrelevant and therefore not worth responding too.

Your Spanish anecdote is an example of a poor choice of words and probably political correctness gone 5-6 steps too far. I agree, it's stupid. But it is not an inevitable result of giving equal rights of marriage to gay couples.

You are seriously grasping at straws.

Constance, since when as the love of two people been confined to only hetrosexuals, as history will tell you otherwise.
Go to Wiki which you use often to try a make a point, and all will be revealed.
nb: Pleased that your homophobia only applies to a "small!" section of the gay community, and even more pleased I am one of them!!