Dear Dan,

We are fortunate indeed that the issues we face are miniature in comparison with the Nazi crimes.

"What the gays are requesting is a redefinition of marriage."

Of course I do not support this, what a joke! The government attempting to define and redefine reality? They are already in that habit and everything they say turns out the opposite anyway!

As I said, I hope the government drops the word "marriage" (and many other words) altogether from their book of laws. I do hope they make this book much leaner. But as it stands, they have ALREADY overloaded the language, so lets get it straight:

1. The government has decreed that certain people are in "Category M".
2. Being in Category M carries certain privileges.
3. The requirements for membership in category M are minimal (nothing in comparison with the requirements of marriage, for example).
4. Specifically, no religious or spiritual affiliation or belief is required in order to register for membership in category M.
5. Entry into category M is not automatic - although many people in the community fulfil its conditions, one must formally apply.
6. Membership in category M does not expire, even when requirements are no longer met, except at the explicit request of members.

The question arises then, why should only certain people be allowed to register into Category M, benefiting from its privileges, and not others?

Why for example, should a person who became celibate BEFORE attempting to register into category M be disadvantaged in relation to a person who became celibate AFTER registering? Why should the second celibate have privileges which the first celibate is denied, given that both lead a similar lifestyle?

Finally, why should such a ridiculous 'Category M' concept be listed in the book of laws in the first place?

Thanks for making that straight. 

Why should marriage be listed as a category of law? 
Because marriage is an honourable institution, and the government does well to honour it and support those who enter into such a union. The institution of marriage helps give strength and wellbeing to the community in general.

I know the PM doesn't fully understand this, but some of her colleagues are helping to guide her.

Dear Dan,

"Why should marriage be listed as a category of law?"

That is a hypothetical question - the government will never list marriage as a category of law, if for nothing else, because they cannot obtain the information whether one is married or not. Being truly married is something which one can only tell in their own heart of hearts (and quite a few deny that truth even from themselves). They can and do of course have their "Category M", for which they confiscated the word "marriage", but you wouldn't count that as anything, right?

"Because marriage is an honourable institution, and the government does well to honour it and support those who enter into such a union."

If I were to be honoured by this government, I would flee into my hole and dig my head in the sand in shame.

"The institution of marriage helps give strength and wellbeing to the community in general."

- I disagree here. It is not the INSTITUTION of marriage, but MARRIAGE itself which does that.

I stand corrected - 
It is good marriages which help make society strong, and so the reason why it benefits, even necessitates, the government to facilitate and uphold the practice of marriage. 

"the government to facilitate and uphold the practice of marriage"

- Like a gold ring in a pig's snout (Proverbs 11:22)!

Firstly they are simply unable to do it, they have no means of distinguishing a real or good marriage, because only One is said to be
"The Lord of hosts, the one who tests the righteous, who sees kidneys and heart" [Jeremiah, 20:12].

Secondly, even if they could, the stench of government will stick to marriages as well. People would say "Ah, marriage=government, that's their next trick to control us, so let's rebel, lets trick them back and have a bad marriage".

It is much better to associate good marriage with credible religious and spiritual leaders who also demonstrate a high personal example. They should be the ones to facilitate and uphold the practice of marriage.

Yuyutsu
You think laws on marriage are next to useless, and have little respect for the law makers. You view doesn't appear to be many steps away from anarchy.

Government is likely to always carry some degree of corruption due to the nature of the fallen human beings whom we elect. But this has gone away from the topic at hand.