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?