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.