WmTrevor,

I am not “pretending” to be pedantic. I am not even being pedantic.

GrahamY and prialpang,

I suppose we can go all Alice in Wonderland. We have a current word, “marriage”, with a current meaning. While it is arguably unconstitutional for the federal parliament to redefine it, given that parliament cannot simply make its powers under section 51 cover whatever it wants them to cover (as this would be the end of the federal system), it is certainly within the purview of everybody else to make up new words and redefine old ones and find new words to denote old meanings. Of course, none of this has anything to do with human rights or equality, which is why I find the whole gay marriage push so silly. However, what is the case for removing from the language the meaning “the exclusive and lifelong union of one man and one woman”? None has been presented. If gays want legal recognition of exclusive and life-long same-sex unions, they should invent a word to describe them. I’d do so myself, but I think the word has to come from the gay community to be accepted by the gay community.

We have legal recognition of marriage for historical reasons. Changes to law over decades have extended the rights and responsibilities inherent in marriage to other relationships, though we do not yet legally call de facto relationships marriage, any more than we call geoluhreads oranges. The law is not going to vacate the field of relationships because there are children and property involved.

Houellebecq,

I hope you are not working on a plot to get presents on Mothers’ Day as well as Fathers’ Day.

"find another word, as the Marriage Word is taken."

It might be taken but for many the thing it's taken by does not seem to bear much in common with a life time loving relationship.

R0bert

Perhaps, R0bert, *marriages* should only be recognised in retrospect.

Perhaps a union (of anybody) might only be (provisionally) recognised if all parties adherent agree after some specified period as to what it is or was.

Two divorced people might specify later they were in fact married, or shackled, or convenienced or that it was not a "marriage", merely a "disaster".

Any description short of Death or Divorce is obviously already merely provisional and/or anticipatory, regardless of current perceptions, we could recognise that in law and tax dis/advantages could be withheld pending a final assessment.

Rusty

Rusty, maybe "Cruel and unusual punishment" might fit for some.

R0bert

Yes, its a trivial issue made into a political arguement for all the wrong reasons. I support gay rights, the same way I support women's rights and other sections of our national community who all contribute significantly to our sense of diversity and the especially our cultural competence to accept difference as being a normal part the human condition. We should see this issue as an opportunity to grow, not regress and rely upon beliefs founded on insecurity and prejudice - which at the end of the day - stunts our collective intellectual growth.

'Australia will have embraced it'

Here is your problem.

You acknowledge, 'most Australians don't really care about this issue'.

I am one of those and I'm not inclined to embrace anything when it is promoted by a very small minority using as justification the 'rights' of that minority.

That smacks of rule by minority.

While governments do define marriage, that has only occurred because a majority of citizens once wished that be the case.

That was rule by the najority.

Until a majority of people actively 'care' about this issue and there is overwhelming displayed ans acknowledged interest then I'll not 'embrace' anything.

That's my right... and everybody's right. To abuse or label people simply because they oppose or are indiferent to your cause is hardly an effective way to change the law... and minority rule won't do.

If I had a position then it would probably be to have all who wish to have partnerships be required to register as Civil Unions and then leave 'society' to use whatever words they want, until common usage, develops different word labels for the great variety of partnerships ... even those between a man and his boat.