The issue is not to “legalise gay marriage” as it is not illegal in the first place. It is non-existent, in the same way that carnivorous vegetarianism is non-existent. Marriage is the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman. If gays wish to form an exclusive and lifelong union of one man and another man or of one woman and another woman, they are free to do so, but such a union is not marriage. If gays wish to have formal recognition of same-sex unions, they should have it, but it is still not marriage. It is beyond satire that this attempted word theft is still being dressed up as a human rights issue.

If gay marriage was sustainable it would've started thousands of years ago. The entire gay marriage campaign is simply "first world problems", or more precisely, shows the extent to which civilisations struggle to cope with peace and prosperity, and how they seem to get to a high point, and then go about attacking itself.

"Word theft", Chris C?

>>It is beyond satire that this attempted word theft...<<

Let's take a look at your own personal definition for a moment.

>>Marriage is the exclusive and life-long union of one man and one woman...<<

So in your lexicon, what word would you apply to the ceremony undertaken by two divorced people?

Here's a hint: most people describe it as a marriage ceremony. Following which, they are described as being married.

How also would you describe the status of two married people, one of whom has been unfaithful to the other? Or indeed, in which each has had an extra-marital dalliance?

Here's a second hint: most people would describe their status - for the time being at least - as "married". Possibly even "married, with children".

On these two instances alone, your personal definition fails the test of being exposed to the real world, as opposed to existing only in some fantasy nirvana of your romantic imagination. Marriage does not, I'm afraid, come with a guarantee of lifelong exclusivity.

The corollary of this is clear. Either you insist that divorced and unfaithful folk should be re-categorized by government decree (possibly also with the label "Failure" tattooed on their forehead? just a thought...), then you need to come to terms with the idea that the word "marriage" is far more flexible and adaptable than you would have us believe.

Oh please Valerie, surely your not so deceived that you now say gay marriage is about the children. How twisted and warped can one's view be that a child is better off being denied a father or a mother. Valerie wants decade long trial to validate her postions. Just open your eyes to tribal living where kids rarely grow up with their natural mum and dad together. The results are clear for anyone not wanting their social engeering hobbies exposed. When are the homosexual lobby ever going to honest? Never I suppose because the truth is to painfull. Kids come last in their eyes.

I second Chris in pointing the logical error - it is impossible to legalise something that is not illegal!

What the author is probably asking for, is to broaden a government service, but marrying and divorcing people should not be the business of government in the first place and the number of bureaucrats should be be reduced, not increased.

There are already several churches that conduct gay marriages and certainly there are numerous secular celebrants who are not shy of the task, but for the author this is somehow not enough, she wants none other than Big-Nanny (state) to approve of the marriage. What would Freud have to say about this complex?

A lovely compassionate article - thanks Valerie. Probably the most valid point is that it is a better a child have two parents than one, even if they are the same sex. (I'm just helping a single mother at the moment who has had an operation and can't do anything to care for her sons - it's a nightmare). And a public wedding is a public announcement of a couple's love and commitment - let there be more of them!
But if the church feels strongly that a "marriage" is only between a man and a woman then let the marriage of a homosexual couple be called a "civil union" with all the legal rights such as superannualtion etc. (I'm still reluctant to include adoption in those rights but, there again, if the alternative is an orphanage then better a loving homosexual couple.)