To her credit, the PM kept her pre-election promise to not support same-sex marriage. Ms Gambaro acted logically and responsibly to oppose it, reflecting the view of the silent majority.

The author fails to acknowledge that the homosexual community has campaigned successfully in its quest for civil rights. So clever has this strategy been in diverting attention away from homosexual behaviour, that it has convinced many that homosexual relationships are virtually the same as heterosexual relationships. This is simply not the case.

No case has been established for socalled marriage equality. It is illogical to claim that the unnatural, dysfunctional, sterile homosexual act is equivalent to the pro-creative heterosexual act. Furthermore, a same-sex partnership requires an external agent such as surrogacy or sperm donor, for the generation of children.

Legalising same-sex marriage is contrary to the interests of society and the family.

There has been no vote against “marriage equality”. There has been a vote against gay marriage, a concept that makes as much sense as carnivorous vegetariansim, or, in the deceptive language of spin, meat equality.

Representative government is more democratic than dictatorship, but it is not democracy.

Representative government means the majority elect them, special interest groups push at them, and (worst) corporate sponsors buy them wholesale by buying their parties.

Only binding citizen-initiated referenda (BCIR) as in Switzerland and some American states such as California are democratic in that the people rule. This is because the people make the important actual decisions, don't merely elect proxies to misrepresent them. "-ocracy" means "rule by" and "demos" means the people.

Does the author think we should also have a referundum on the carbon tax or capital punishment?

Marriage between a man and a woman was first legalised in the religious
rules laid down in the Jewish Torah this wise law was later adopted by the Christians and the Muslims. Christanity grew and became the dominant religion in Europe, hand in hand with responsible government.
Governments evolved and passed secular laws based upon previous religious laws and beliefs. The Marriage Acts of various parliaments in various countries followed. Same sex unions were never contemplated as a normal occurring event, although the practise of sodomy was well known. Marriage was always defined as between a man and a woman and rightly remains so to the present day.
The vocal same sex minority who for very selfish and abnormal reasons desire society to officially acknowledge their union by allowing same sex marriage ceremonies should realise that the authorities, secular and religious, in view of the above long history can never allow such marriages to take place. So advisedly settle down and accept the status quo.

Does the author think we should also have a referendum on the carbon tax or capital punishment? (Posted by Runner)

If a substantial enough number of people sought it, yes. I for one wouldn’t be a signatory, but would certainly sign up for a referendum on the GST, and on any “trade treaty” being negotiated in secret such as the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement?

Jack from Bicton, you may not be aware but we live in a secular democracy in Australia. Thats why we went into WWII war against facism, and those that would deny the right and equality of each and every person in Australia

You have equality kipp, by law, just not nomenclature. Well I'm sure there are a few laws left, and I would be keen to see them rectified.

When I get recognized as the mother of my children...

Anyway you've heard that one before I'm sure.

Given that you did say have every single legal entitlement of marriage, but it was called something else, what would the addition of the word marriage do for you in practical terms?

You even have equality in that a gay man can marry a woman, and a straight man can marry a woman. They are treated equal before the law. Similarly a straight man cannot marry a man, and a gay man cannot marry a man. So, equal again.

Female parents are called mothers
Male parents are called fathers
Homosexual lifelong commitments are called Civil Unions
Heterosexual lifelong commitments are called marriages

People who are attracted to the same sex are called homosexual
People who are attracted to the opposite sex are called homosexuals.

Why are you not looking for equality in homosexual couples to be recognized as heterosexual BTW? You don't have equality there, the heterosexuals should allow you the use of term heterosexual, as well as the term marriage shouldn't they? It's discrimination!

I agree with the author that politicians should listen to a majority number of their constituents on major issues such as gay marriage, euthanasia and capital punishment.

Members of political parties are elected to follow the wishes of a majority of their constituents, and should therefore be allowed conscience votes on all major issues.

The leader of the party should not be allowed to gag his or her members so that they have to follow his wishes alone...especially if they are religiously motivated.

Clarrie Burke’s thoughtful and well-written article omits discussion of one important question: are politicians representatives or delegates of their electors? The duty of the former is to serve the interests of constituents while the duty of the latter is to do what electors prefer, regardless of the consequences, or the rights of a minority.

In a modern, representative democracy it is difficult to defend the idea that political leaders should act on popular opinion, especially in matters of financial and economic policy and foreign policy. Many commentators belief the European financial crisis is in part a consequence of governments lacking the courage to rein in spending - this is just one example of public opinion compromised by ignorance, self-interest or prejudice.

Edmund Burke, the most famous exponent of the representative theory of political duty, insisted that politicians act on their own judgment and conscience rather than on popular opinion; but it is also clear that, were he alive today, he would strongly support the view espoused here by his namesake, that elected members act on their own judgment rather than the opinions of party leaders or caucus.

The underlying question is still the one posed by this great conservative political philosopher - why should any politician defer his or her judgment on an issue of moral principle to any other person or group of persons, or even to the community at large? It is not (as my paper argues) a requirement of democratic theory, however much it serves the interests of major political parties.

The author avoids mention that homosexuals comprise less than 2 percent of the population.

He does not reveal that virtually all of the sexually active members of that minority are promiscuous.

That means that those who are likely to remain faithful in a same-sex relationship make up only a very small percentage of the 2%.

Furthermore, same sex couples can enter into civil unions that accord them virtually the same rights as married couples, except that they could not use the word "marriage" to describe their relationship.

It is clear that the author and homosexual activists grossly over-state the number that would be likely to "marry" should socalled same-sex marriage be legalised.

I am sure referendums would result in far less minority groups hijacking the media and claiming a mandate.

Kipp, I fully understand the reasons for WW2 as I served in the armed forces for four years said to be fighting for democracy.
Democratic secular government means to me government making laws and decisions for the majority of its public.
In Australia the vast majority of the Australian public are heterosexual, a small(vocal) minority homosexual.
In order to win votes this homosexual minority has been pandered to by the various political parties and been granted legally equal partnership rights in law, this is apparently not enough, they wish to have the present Marriage Act( implemented almost from the biblical time of Adam and Eve to legalise the union of man and woman) amended or redrawn to embrace the legal union of homosexuals. For the vast majority of the Australian public this is just not on, I would make therefore make this observation, be satisfied with the status quo and gracefully acept the situation as it present exists.

Jack from Bicton, What you are saying is that the Australian hetrosexual "majority" citizens only have the rights, and minority group Australian citizens must abide by that "majority".
That is not democracy, that is mob rule and facism; and why over 30,000 gay germans where exterminated in the concentration camps during WII.
You may not undertstand that there are other people on this planet, that are not of the same being as yourself, but accept that you have no moral right to deny the same equality to them, that you enjoy and that will have absolutly no affect on you.

Kipp,
What you do not accept is that there is now equality. Any person can marry another person of the opposite gender. A homosexual person can marry another person who is homosexual, but of the opposite sex. A hetrosexual person cannot marry another person of the same sex irrespective of whether he or she is homosexual or hetrosexual.

There is no restriction of any person marrying another person of the opposite sex, providing they are of age.

If two people of the same sex want a civil contract or union they can do so, they just cannot call it a marriage. A mmarriage is a union between a male and a female.

Think up another name for your union if you want.

@Banjo,
>>> "What you do not accept is that there is now equality. Any person can marry another person of the opposite gender. A homosexual person can marry another person who is homosexual, but of the opposite sex. A hetrosexual person cannot marry another person of the same sex irrespective of whether he or she is homosexual or hetrosexual."

What you do not see or is that there is not now equality, despite your attempt at sophistry. Look... A man may marry a woman, but a woman may not marry a woman. Men and women are not being treated equally.

But your argument is fatuous anyway, because the obvious inequality is that gay couples can't get married whereas hetero couples can. That you're even prepared to play word games to try to get around that fact reveals that you've either little understanding or care of that what you're adamantly against.

>>> "If two people of the same sex want a civil contract or union they can do so, they just cannot call it a marriage. A mmarriage is a union between a male and a female."

...or a million nuns and a Deity. I assume you're equally against all those Catholic "Brides of Christ" being "married" to God. If that's of no concern to you, then I suggest to you that your appeal to dictionary definition is just a smoke-screen behind which to hide a more honest (but unspeakable) reason to oppose gay marriage.

>>> "Think up another name for your union if you want."

Keep whinging when your generous offer is declined, if you want.

Female parents are called mothers
Male parents are called fathers

The obvious inequality is that men can't get recognized as mothers whereas women can.

It's discrimination!

A possibility for you, Houellebecq...

http://theconversation.edu.au/hes-my-mother-motherhood-across-gender-boundaries-9623

And this was written by a Research Fellow, Dr. Jennifer Power, who is a fellowette.

This article highlights the lack of political reform in Australia. Whilst we have been hell bent on pursuing economic reform over the last 50 years the political system remains virtually unchanged. The huge increase in education over the last 50 years, new technologies etc mean that now, more than ever, we need to rethink our political system just as we have rethought our economic system. I find it hard to fathom that people would think that a century old political system is still meeting our needs.

What's missing from the article is the idea that public opinion is swayed by the power of minority lobbies - for example the same sex marriage lobby. This action, at least according to Skocpol, 'diminishes democracy' especially when the 'minorities' are part of the polity. Public opinion is fickle. I'd like to see an election where same-sex marriage is a key policy issue. Then we'd see how the public vote.

I find 'Emperor Julian' closer to my perception of reality but not completely. Our government is simply not democratic. The Westminster system was never intended to be either democratic or representative by nature. Please refer to the Federal constitution, its like playing cards with a stacked deck. What we do have, I think, is akin to 'delegated dictatorship' and there is little we can do about it. Politicians will continue to ignore the electorate and promise to be better during their next term of office whilst remaining just the same, 'ad infinitum'.

>> @HOELLEBECQ re: "Female parents are called mothers. Male parents are called fathers"

There are legions of people in the church who don't have children (many still virgins!) but who nevertheless demand to be addressed as "Mother" and "Father".

Sometimes they like to be called "Sister" or "Brother"... and they're not even related to each other!

"Mother" (with an implied further two syllables) is an insult, and the Den Mother is not actually the parent of any of the Girl Scouts in her brigade.

The "Mother" of all battles would simply be the biggest one.

Words have different meanings all the time, yet HOELLEBECQ is so so upset about the use of one specific word, "Marriage"??

I don't think so.

I rather think these dictionary games are HOELLEBECQ's way of arguing around the fact that he simply doesn't like poofs. It's so hard to make a cogent argument when prejudice and hate is all you've got.

Who says its a majority for queer marriage ?
The most I see in recent years is the promotion of a trendy fashion,
aimed at young people.

Jimmy Jones,

You are incorrect.

The government does not recognize me as the mother of my children. Perhaps it does recognise these religious fathers in a totally different context, but in the context of the parent it DOES NOT.

Does anyone know if on the birth certificate they are asking whether you are a mother of the church? I always thought hey were asking who the female parent was.

Just because a word can be used metaphorically for other purposes, doesn't mean it should be used literally for other purposes.

I have no ill will towards homosexual people. I see from the tone of your post you are such a seething ball of hatred, that you just can not comprehend that anyone could possibly be indifferent to the cause of a group of people seeking official government recognition of their relationship with a particular word, the particular word bizarrely being the most important aspect.

As I have stated, I fully support homosexual couples having every right heterosexual couples have. To be honest I really think the government should scrap the marriage word altogether and use civil union for all, because for the government's purposes it's really a contract. A contract that, living in a defacto relationship with children, I am FORCED into.

You cannot silence me with your bigotry, I maintain my right to be flippant without being labeled and my political and social beliefs being wrongly inferred!

BTW: Why are you not looking for equality in homosexual couples to be recognized as heterosexual? You don't have equality there, the heterosexuals should allow you the use of term heterosexual as well as the term marriage shouldn't they?

'yet HOELLEBECQ is so so upset about the use of one specific word, "Marriage"??'

Wrong again!

I am also upset about the misuse of Misogyny, if you look through my recent posting history.

And also upset about the American misuse of the word Momentarily.

You can also look that up in my posting history.

I think you should marry up your evidence with your accusations.

Hear, hear, Houellebecq.

I demand that evidence have the right to marry accusations, a right which is currently denied it, despite your flippant use of the term "marry".