"Though Republican extremists may be conflicted and given to creatively crude statements, they nonetheless intuit, like Dowd's timorous judges, one crucial fact: institutions are ultimately powerless to mediate on moral truth."

Of course, another way of looking at the issue is that marriage equality proponents are merely redressing interference and mediation by institutions before now, on so-called 'moral truths'.

On the basis of your article, Mark, you demonstrate "the self-evident truth that personal belief is irreducible to reason alone" since so much of your reasoning is reducible to the equivalent of a three-year-old's insistent justification for everything as, "Because… Just because."

You certainly don't demonstrate why "it's impossible to intellectualize what matters, only experience it as a shared transcendent value."

"The stated goals of civil society – freedom, equality, happiness – are unrealisable politically, which is exactly why they're so special, why Jefferson resigned American democracy to a "pursuit" – and yet without later efforts by others to intellectualise and work towards politically achieving space for those freedoms Jefferson's 'pursuit' may have been limited to that of his slaves seeking escape from his estates, if not his bedroom.

As the world moves inevitably towards a nuclear holocaust what is the issue that fills the minds of the people?

Whether same-sex couples can be married and call each other 'husband' or 'wife'. WTF! Surely this is equivalent to strumming a musical instrument while Rome burns.

Another issue which seems to be a mind-filler on OLO is the 'Is There A God' question which always gets frantic arguments going all of which follow the same basic format and all of which are devoid of evidence. Yawn.

Then the Singer chimes in and flogs the Israeli issue, ad nauseum.

God Help Us! How much longer must we suffer?

Has any government, before legislating for same sex marriage, fought an election on the issue or held a referendum to find out what the majority of electors feel about this issue?
DIS

Well no, just one leader with the testicular fortitude to take a stand one way or the other, no if, buts or maybes! And taking that position to an election, as official policy, just might?
And indeed, might also swing the election decisively, one way or the other; but particularly, for someone with a reputation for being able to be persuaded by logical rational argument; and or, changed circumstances, to be able to change her mind!?
Currently, Julia apparently doesn't believe in true equality?
Tony might some day, just not yet!
And all of this prevarication, flies in the face of overwhelming support for marriage equality, or the inherent right of every human extant on the planet, to seek and find true fulfilling happiness.
Suppose some extremely virtuous, moralising pulpit pounders, had successfully outlawed de-facto relationships?
It is simply not good enough to give one group of relationships the official seal of approval, yet deny it to another, due to nothing more than an accident of birth, (natural aberration) or irregular gender bias!
It is no different to discriminating against folks, on the basis of colour! (What they were born with!)
As one speaker put it, different strokes for different folks.
It's not your role or mine, to be the final arbiter of what those strokes should be, or their limits.
We do need to get our noses out of other peoples' bedrooms and back squarely and fairly on our own morals or moral ineptitude.
No catholic Cardinal, or so called Christian, should pound the pulpit and lecture us on morality, unless and until they have cleaned out all the paedophiles in their ranks, and surrendered surviving offenders to proper judgement! Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar's!
And much more appropriately compensate surviving victims, if only to ensure, in the most appropriate way possible, that they the victims, finally understand, that they were in no way to blame!
Rhrosty.

"True equality"? You mean there is discrimination against gays? Bollocks!

The Gillard government has already staked its claim to removing all discrimination against homosexuals with over eighty laws changed.

Either Julia Gillard, Jenny Macklin and other senior ministers of the Gillard government have lied, or what they claim is true, that all discrimination has indeed been removed. Like most others, I believe the Gillard government on this. The proof is that the Marriage Act as it is and should remain is not discrimination according to both the government and the Human Rights Commission.

The push for gay marriage is coming from political 'Progressives'. The numbers of gays and of gay activists seeking gay marriage are few. The few homosexuals who can look forward to pesronal financial gain are few (examples being through family law and superannuation), but they are very vocal and assertive (they can afford to be!). All homosexuals have lost already through the State becoming involved in determining their relationship status through defacto 'initiatives'

As far as the broader community is concerned the Marriage Act is not broke and should not be changed. If some gays want a similar arrangement then fine, have another law and secular title to suit the purpose.

The elephant in the room is that gay marriage is being pushed for the secondary agendas of political 'Progressives', and it is just a convenient stepping stone for other social change.

IMO it is perfectly OK for gay's to marry, cohabit or whatever they like but it should be an accepted law that it takes two people of opposite sex to adopt children.