"Gillard doesn’t appear homophobic."

If voting against equal rights for gays 'doesn't appear homophobic', then what does? True, Gillard may be playing political games rather than expressing her true feelings, but if the outcome is the same, what's the difference? 'Homophobia' doesn't have to mean hurling abuse at Gay Rights parades.

"Why are leftwing sexual minorities and their enablers so hungry for nanny Canberra’s approval?"

I don't know. Maybe you should ask some Aboriginals, or some women, what it feels like to be on the sharp end of discriminatory legislation, and regarded as a second-class citizen by the country in which you work, vote and pay taxes. I know that I wouldn't be very happy about it. But then I'm not gay. Perhaps they're more tolerant than I would be under the same circumstances.

But I hope not.

The gay marriage campaign is a fascinating illustration of so much that is wrong in our national debates. It moves us from a democracy to a victimocracy.

The campaign is founded on the lie there is an institution, marriage (i.e., the lifelong and exclusive union of one man and one woman), denied to gays when in fact there is an institution, marriage, that gays do not want.

It appeals to our deeply held value of equality even though it has nothing to do with equality but is no more than a demand to change the meaning of a word that has had the same meaning since it entered English from the French. It has infiltrated the phrase “marriage equality” into the conversation rather than the more accurate oxymoron “gay marriage”, a concept akin to calling people in the process of adopting children pregnant.

It constructs the debate as one of enlightened freedom-lovers versus homophobic religious bigots when it is really between those who think words can mean anything anyone demands that they mean and those who think that at least some meanings matter and ought to be preserved.

It has produced mass hysteria in the genuine distress of those disappointed that parliament has not yet fallen for the linguistic sleight of hand inherent in the proposition, but the distress is not the fault of those who voted in favour of the English language but the fault of those who invented the ludicrous campaign in the first place.

That such a campaign would be taken seriously by pontificating airhead Greens is not surprising. That it would subvert a major party to the extent that the majority if its MPs have now broken the promise they took to the 2010 election is sad.

A person, whether gay or not, is legally entitled to form a union with a member of the opposite sex or of the same sex. The first is marriage. The second is not. Demanding that the word currently used to describe the first of these be now used to describe the second is just silly

C'mon everybody. The answer is obvious. Gillard has no beliefs or holds them weakly while her wish to retain popular support and power is clearly her main concern. Its a losing issue, thats why Julia voted against it. If it was a winner, she would vote for it. Simple. Being an atheist she can change belief at will and being only interested in her own 'legacy' she does whatever is pragmatic at the time. Why people are looking for anything deeper is puzzling. Julia Gillard is only interested in on thing, the 'legacy' of Julia Gillard. Thats it.

What a load of erudite distraction. Biology has nothing to do with the legitmacy or otherwise of the current legislative definition of marriage.
Marriage is a social construction. As the patterns of relating within a society flow and develop, so do the patterns we define to hold those new patterns and modes of relating.
The legitimacy of both sides of this debate is obvious - we all constitute the society that is constructing it's institutions and defining it's norms.
I think it's reasonable for a marginalised group to feel their reality should be incorporated into the wider societies frame of reference and one way for that to happen is for their committed relationships to be recognised as legally equal to any other committed relationship.
Oh, "history" gets to reveal who's on the right side of it, not you. Sheesh.
Mikel Azure.

Julia Gillard was not mistaken in allowing a conscience vote. With the exception of items specified in the platform on which the party was elected every vote should be a conscience vote.

I don't think her opposition to same-sex marriage has anything to do with her beliefs except for her belief that it would be helpful in increasing her chances for election.

After reading this article thoroughly, including the linked articles, I have realised that the author makes no distinction between the word marriage and the word union.

The Dutch triad are not married. They are partners in a civil union. The Brazilian example, ditto. Yet the author makesm the illogical jump to a conclusion that union = marriage.

Well, it is not.

CONTINUED...

Couples, trios and whole mobs in Australia may form unions of any configuration they choose, under whatever private agreement they choose - or none. They may do this on a commercial basis (prostitution, organised orgies, etc) or privately, as party animals or as caring, sharing, long term commitments.

I am not alone in seeing a terminological difference between marriage and union, or civil union. They mean different things and probably always will, even if any particular author chooses to ignore the distinction.

Where my concerns lie is in matters such as rules of inheritance, health and property, including following dissolution of such unions. There is a clear need for superannuation, health insurance and the other social support systems which society offers to be available equitably to all, independent of sexual orientation and preference. There is a need for children of multi-party unions to have rights appropriate to their circumstances and which are morally and socially equivalent to those of two-person heterosexual unions, whether those heterosexual unions are short term, common law (undocumented or otherwise) or formalised via marriage and whether subsequently the parents have separated or not.

There is need for the rights of children of assisted pregnancies using donated sperm or ova or gametes or surrogate mothers to be established and protected, regardless of parental circumstances.

None of these matters has been discussed by the author, who is intent on charging blindly into a "union = marriage" argument without any consideration of what that means when it comed down to social and ethical fairness, including intergenerational rights.

Indeed, if the whole article was edited to remove the word "marriage" and concentrate only on characteristics of the various forms of union, it would have been a positive addition to the discussion.

In Ms Gillards defense (don't faint) she did have a special relationship with her dad. I would say she realises the importance of children having a loving father and mother. She is to be congratulated.

'If voting against equal rights for gays 'doesn't appear homophobic', then what does?'

homophobic is bandied about as much as misogynistic, such is the current climate of hyperbole.

I'm not sure I agree with same sex marriage 'rights', and I am agnostic, 'de-facto' biological parent, and I certainly wouldn't consider myself homophobic.

I think a lot of people are happy for the same practical 'rights' to be granted for same sex relationships, but just not calling it marriage.

I object on a few grounds.

1. On semantic grounds
2. On logical grounds
3. On tit for tat grounds as a man who is fighting for recognition of my 'motherhood' of my children.
4. On empty symbolism grounds
5. On the grounds that I don't believe it will be the panacea for gay acceptance that proponents think it will be.
6. On the grounds I would much rather nobody have their relationships called marriage, and the government stop putting people's inter-personal relationships in boxes.
7 On the grounds that the very act of a minority group achieving it's aims for 'equality' simultaneously robs the group of it's identity.

None of my objections have anything to do with a fear of homosexuals. More about being a pedant, with an aversion to symbolism and an aversion to special interest groups, the idea of 'human rights' in general, and the idea that people don't feel having every single practical right that married people have is enough and that they must be called the same thing.

But I will say that if gender is not relevant to recognition of romantic relationships, then so gender is not relevant to parent-child relationships. I am yet to find someone who can explain why gay people should have a right to be called married, and I not have the right to be called a mother.

I suspect it will be one of those things where the minute gay people are accepted and called married will be the minute after they no longer feel they need their relationships called the exact same thing as heterosexual relationships.

JohnBennets,

'There is a clear need for superannuation, health insurance and the other social support systems which society offers to be available equitably to all, independent of sexual orientation and preference. '

I think most people are happy with equal rights for these practical and pragmatic issues.

In fact, I think it much preferable for the government to ONLY accept explicit contracts for these very rights. Not called marriage, just civil unions for gays, straights and polygamous relationships.

I think even better if every area had an independent contract.

I, as a 'de-facto' partner, have been artificially and erroneously given responsibilities for my partner and her to me that we have not explicitly entered into.

I have been 'married' by the government against my wishes. If I had wanted to be married, I would have told the government I wished to enter into such a contract.

It is currently impossible to live with a partner for more than 2 years and not be responsible for them in the way a person who contractually agrees via marriage. This is constantly overlooked as a key issue; Marriage rights for those who do not wish to be considered so.

My 'human right' not to be married has been denied me, as the government has married me off as a 'de-facto'.

To blame are the feminists who infantilize women who didn't have the balls to ask for a ring or break it off, and the gay lobby who want marriage 'rights' and the conservatives and Christians who want to stop them.

I am a victim of the crossfire of all these groups, and the full gamut of relationships and different inter-personal obligations is legally restricted in our society as a result.

So to hold a different view about something, in this case homosexual marriage, is to automatically be "phobic" of that thing? Bizarre logic...

I also find it interesting that "marriage is a social construction" is use as though it automatically means it has no validity. We have many social constructions which people are quite fond of.

In my non-phobic opinion, civil unions, with the same legal and financial protections as other couples is the appropriate answer.

Ben you don't like Gays or lesbians, why not live your life and stop interfering in other peoples lives.
Hitler exterminated near 30,000 gay Germans, the persecution and brutality to gay people still goes on today in the 21st century, so what is it with extreme right wingers that they want the power and control over the populace.

Have social consertives actually given it a thought that perhaps Julia Gillard does not believe in marriage? This is not about her being homophobic or being an atheist, it's simply her against marriage full stop. However she will not likely admit that she's against marriage, but all the indicators suggest that the reason she against gay marriage is because she does not agree with marriage. Now there are other mp's and senators who are against gay marriage simply for political reasons, not because they don't support gay marriage. Then you have the senators and mp's who justify there vote against gay marriage because they claim to support civil unions, well I'm of the opinion that that's simply a diversion tactic. My reasoning is because when the civil unions in Queenland were repealed and converted into civil partnerships none of the federal mp's and senators who claim to support civil unions spoke out against the Qld LNP parties decision to repeal the civil unions. Some of the most socially consertives support marriage equality and yet some of the most left wing people are against marriage equality, just like some gays support gay marriage and others don't. Finally there are many opinion polls which suggest the support the same-sex marriage in Australia is over 60%, however the ACL donates thousands of dollars to the Liberal party so don't expect Tony Abbott to back a conscience vote anytime soon. It's so easy just to say no.

"So to hold a different view about something, in this case homosexual marriage, is to automatically be "phobic" of that thing? Bizarre logic..."

No; but to hold that citizen's rights should be denied to a minority group, without being able to advance a single credible reason for it, suggests that your viewpoint arises from something other than rational judgement.

Most of this mad scrambling for rationalisations results from the fairly recent realisation by the Churches that 'God doesn't like it' is no longer a convincing reason for anything, even for their own congregations. This has triggered a frantic search for something, anything, that can be used as an excuse to oppose gay marriage, no matter how trivial it is. What will they come up with next, I wonder -- that it fades the curtains?

So, Jon J, your argument is based entirely on personal opinion that marriage is a right. How's that superior to churches' notion that marriage is a rite?

This sounds like two kids bickering to me. Did you read my post, above?

"Marriage is a social construction. As the patterns of relating within a society flow and develop, so do the patterns we define to hold those new patterns and modes of relating"

This of course is by no means the end of the matter.

As a social construct marriage responds to biology, the way men and women are physically, emotionally, etc. The union of a man and a woman results in children. Marriage secures the well being of husband/wife, father/mother and that of the children. Marriage between men and women has been found in all cultures at all times. Airy views of "patterns of relating within society flow(ing) and develop(ing)" are nothing more than that - airy. To the extent that marriage has come under pressure through easy divorce or cohabitation only serves to highlight the superiority of the lifetime commitment that marriage entails - just ask yourself why so many people desire marriage, rather than casual and uncertain partnerships, loneliness or serial monogamy.

Even an atheist can recognise aberrant behaviour!

David P states "To the extent that marriage has come under pressure through easy divorce or cohabitation only serves to highlight the superiority of the lifetime commitment that marriage entails - just ask yourself why so many people desire marriage, rather than casual and uncertain partnerships, loneliness or serial monogamy."

I think you forgot to mention a couple of things on your pro marriage stance like, child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, financial disadvantage following court based decisions on settlement, and so many other things that make this whole arguement ridiculous and your premis so hypocritical, I am so glad the likes of you are not dictating to me on my own personal choices.

Has anyone considered our current Prime Minister may not have voted the way that they thought, possibly due to her being a homosexual herself, despite the current relationship she is in? To be in public life today and to get ahead in either the liberal or labour parties, one needs to tow the 'normal party line'.

Stew on that!

>>The union of a man and a woman results in children. Marriage secures the well being of husband/wife, father/mother and that of the children.<<

Sometimes: a lot of people take precautions against that sort of thing - myself included. Some of those people choose to get vasectomies - myself excluded. And we still let those vasectomied men get 'married' even though it is known prior to the 'marriage' that one of the parties is infertile so the 'marriage' cannot produce issue. Imagine that: two people getting 'married' just because they love each other and not because they want to rear any offspring. These people who want to change the very foundations of our society need to find a new word for these infertile 'marriages'.

Cheers,

Tony

Kolasinki's argument (below) criticizing the analogy between gay marriage and interracial marriage is what fails:

As Adam Kolasinski writesin The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage, “Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.”

Sexual reproduction is one of many functions of marriage. To argue that sexual reproduction is the primary or the only criteria upon which to judge the recognition of a union overlooks the many other functions that marriage as a cultural institution performs. The absurdity of Kolasinski's position is such that applying his criteria would lead us to deny the legal relationship between members of a blended family (that is, when two divorced individuals, one or both of whom has children from a previous marriage, marry and form a new family). If we make biological relatedness the primary or the sole criteria for assigning social status and legal rights, we must deny that the children of a blended family have any legal relationship to their step-siblings or step-parent. Similarly, if potential sexual reproduction between partners is the criteria for deeming the validity of a union, we must deny marriage rights to infertile couples, because they are physically incapable of sexual reproduction.

What Kolisinski has done is attempt to disguise a rejection of homosexuality in scientific language that turns marriage into a natural, rather than a cultural institution. It is an utter failure of logic to use sexual reproduction as a criteria for recognizing marriage, unless we are in favour of denying the right to marriage to infertile couples, and denying legal recognition to step-families.

Houellebecq (2.19:44pm, 27/9),

Given that “marriage” is a “social construct” and there is a lobby busily trying to remove the “opposite sex’ part from the “social construct”, there is of course a move to remove the “two”. Mostly, this is a prelude to a “three” or a “four”, but we really ought to think about the rights of single people and let in a “one”. Just as your human right as a father to be called a mother is currently denied by matriphobes or patriphobes or both, the right of single people to marry themselves is denied by uniphobes. Let us just abolish the word “relationship” and replace it with “marriage”