Dear Yuyutsu

I must have missed part of this story. Whilst the gubmunt muppets are wont to stick their beaks in things that are, as far as I'm concerned, none of their business, I haven't encountered anything about six months incarceration for not 'solemnising' a union. I fully realize a lot of gubmunt muppets believe they are high enough up the pecking order to give orders to the Almighty, but this 'solemnising' bit is well over the top. Unless you concern yourself with 'render to Caesar', what could they possibly do if you just told the clowns you were in a defacto relationship ?? When its all said and done, that probably what homosexual couples do. Mind you with a federal election looming, no politician would risk incurring the wrath of the homosexual lobby. An interesting point, apart from 'a man shall leave his father' & a couple of mentions of wedding feasts, (remember these were in relation to mediterranean folk who tend to have ginormous family gatherings) there is precious little of consequence in the bible about wedding protocol or format. Some theologians believe that a man and a woman are married in the sight of God after consumating their relationship (this tends to fit with Old Testament logic), however John 4 tells a completely different story. The Samaritan woman had by her own admission slept around a bit yet its clear that JC didn't consider her married to any of the men. Depending on your individual beliefs or membership of whatever religious 'franchise', you may or may not equate JC & YHWH, but whatever, their views on marriage wouldn't differ.

>>Judging from the historical perspective, the odds are well against ANY referendum getting up (from what I can see, around one question in fifty gets up), consequently there would need to be a lot of EXTREMELY effective evangelizing required to make a dint on the odds.<<

For all of those of you calling for a referendum, please read this link:

http://parliamentflagpost.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/quick-guide-to-plebiscites-in-australia.html

Referendums are hard to get through because to pass a referendum it must achieve a 'double majority': it must win the majority of votes nationally and also win in a majority of the states.

But referendums are ONLY for constitutional matters and gay marriage isn't a constitutional matter. If there was to be a public vote on gay marriage it would be a plebiscite which is closely related to a referendum but not the same thing. Plebiscites only require a simple majority to be passed, not a double majority.

This makes it more likely that plebiscites will be passed but plebiscites - unlike referendums - aren't binding. Regardless of how the public votes the Government is quite free to ignore the plebiscite result and pursue its own preferred outcome through the Parliament. And if the Mad Monk has his hands on the levers you can guarantee they will do exactly that.

>>from what I can see, around one question in fifty gets up<<

Who taught you math? Since Federation 8 out of 44 referenda have passed: that gives odds of 2 in 11 - somewhat shorter than 1 in 50.

Cheers,

Tony

How refreshing, finally, that someone actually understands what referendums are for (Tony). Governments are elected to govern...you know, make decisions. It is a weak government that would run to the people each time a decision had to be made. And in the case of same-sex marriage it is not the divisive issue many, on both sides, make it out to be.

Each time I see the debate it is the same old hacks making the same old noises. The issue divides a minority and the majority are blase about it. Yeah, polls do support the claim the majority approve of same-sex marriage but it is not a game-breaking issue. It won't decide elections.

Same-sex marriage will eventually be a reality in Australia. And guess what, the institution of marriage will not collapse or be corrupted. I'd bet that the vast majority of people will never be affected by gay people getting married. After all, they make up around 2% of the population. Some people really do have an unhealthy obsession with others having sex though...that is the truly worrying aspect of the debate.

Dear Lexi,

Thank you for your warm greetings.

With great relief, we received advice that there is no legal problem with holding an unofficial religious marriage sacrament in Australia, provided that the word 'legal' (and derivatives such as 'legally') are not mentioned anywhere in the ceremony (and provided of course that we find a priest/minister who agrees to run it).

I presume the same holds for gay couples.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Therein lies the problem. Unlike yourself -
same-sex couples do want their marriage recognised
legally. They want the same rights as other couples
have in Australia. The right to marry - with that
piece of paper attached. They want the freedom to
have that particular choice that's open to others
but not to them.

Once again the lie that gays are somehow being denied their rights.

It is balderdash isn't it? Because if it were true, activists would be beating a path to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

No, the truth that is the opposite applies. The Gillard government has declared that it removed all discrimination against gays by over 80 law changes taken some years ago. The Australian Human Rights Commission does not believe that the Marriage Act discriminates against gays.