MPs are elected to represent their constituencies, not their consciences and not their parties. In a genuine democracy the member for East Sydney would vote in accordance with the views of East Sydney. Since that obviously doesn't happen, and the majority of the occupants of Parliament simply fill seats and do as they are told, there seems to be no reason for their leaders to trust their individual judgement on this issue any more than they normally do on any other.

The whole purpose of democracy is to replace futile and subjective discussions over what is 'right' and 'wrong' with a mechanism that simply does what the majority of people want. And the majority of Australians clearly want gay marriage legalised.

Jon J

I frankly believe parliamentarians have more urgent issues at hand than to invest precious time in consideration of homosexuals perceived rights to share a matrimonial bed.

While I am personally pro marriage equality, it irritates me when hysterical and incorrect terminology is used.

Family law has changed so significantly, that de facto partnerships and civil unions have all the rights and obligations as a marriage contract, so much so that a marriage contract effectively puts a stamp on the relationship. This makes claims that marriage equality is a civil right is a little spurious.

I do think that eventually it will come to pass, but presently there is still a large section of the voters that have strong feelings on the issue. They typically reside in marginal constituents, and with a hung parliament, neither labor or the coalition are in the mood to alienate such a large chunk of swing voters.

In a decade or two most of these voters will no longer be with us, and we will look back and wonder what the fuss was about. Until then, expecting labor to drink from poisoned chalice is a little naive.

"The whole purpose of democracy is to replace futile and subjective discussions over what is 'right' and 'wrong' with a mechanism that simply does what the majority of people want. And the majority of Australians clearly want gay marriage legalised"

(1) It is not clear to me that the polling indicating said majority has been properly conducted, particularly with respect to the phrasing of questions.

(2) If it is true that the government should do what "the majority of people want", we should, for example, bring back capital punishment, as the majority of Australians clearly want it under certain circumstances - the Bali Bombers #1 being an example.

Try taking a poll shortly after a 5 year old blue-eyed, blond haired girl has been raped, tortured and murdered as to whether the perpetrator should be executed.

The vast majority of people want cheaper petrol, which can be provided by the government changing excise/taxation laws. Etc, Etc.

People seem to really care about this, from gay activists to churchies to the conservatives to the human rights lot.

Me, not so much.

But I invariably rail against empty symbolism, especially from minority groups. I'm actually doing those people a huge favour by doing so. You see, to remain relevant, they need an injustice to fight for and a cause to grandstand about and shout phrases like 'human rights!' It's a hot tub of bubbly rightousness that gets people out of bed and makes them feel intellectual at dinner parties. Seriously, what are they going to do when gays have EVERYTHING they ever wanted and there is a quota of affirmitive gay action and we have a national day of mourning every day about every gay person who ever got called a nasty name. They'll be totally lost. Maybe they'll have to form a support network for advocates with nothing to be shrill-on about.

As posted by SM, the rights of gay couples are practically the same, and also for de-facto (Though as I've said many times, it is against my Human Rights! that the governmnet married me off when I have made no such commitment). If not, I don't think anyone would care if they made them exactly the same pronto.

'But we want to be called 'married'', not' defacto', I hear the gay people, those that are even interested, cry. Well, I wish I could have babies. I cant. Such is life.

Symbolism? pft!

Calling me a mother doesn't protect my civil rights, but allowing me to be a father to my children does. I may not get the societal recognition and acceptance as a nurturing carer that the label 'mother' would bring, but, stuff-em I say, I will show that even though I'm only a father, I love kids just as much.

There's the spirit.

its a pity a few more things were not decided on conscience vote. Anyone without a seared conscience would not even consider robbing children of a father.