Dear Poirot,

<<I suppose it's for exactly the same reason as that enjoyed by heterosexual couples....official recognition of the union.>>

'enjoyed'?

If I were Chinese, I would probably word it that such 'official recognition' by the authorities brings bad luck or poor Feng Shui to the relationship.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The Marriage Act as it currently stands only legally
recognises unions between a man and a woman.
In other words the state does not legally allow
consenting adults to be able to make(legally)
any union they wish. The law denies same sex couples the
fundamentals of adulthood and choice - change of this
legislation is therefore warranted because the principles of
liberal democracy holds that consenting adults shall legally
be able to make any union they wish. Currently the law
prevents them from doing so. Quite simple really.

I can't make it any clearer for you and if you still
can't understand this - then that's not something I can do
anything about. Although I suspect that you understand
only too well - and you're simply stirring.

In any case I shall leave you to it.

Dear Lexi,

Repeating the same words three times doesn't help to clarify, so I can understand your point.

To the best of my knowledge, in Australia, nothing legal prevents either heterosexuals or homosexuals from forming a couple, building a nest and even bring and raise children in that nest. There is no legal requirement to register one's union - or else perhaps 30% of Australians would have been breaking the law regularly.

Moreover, if what you write is true, then after a year of living together, the law 'rehabilitates' such unions and considers them 'de-facto' rather than illegal.
(that being a separate problematic issue if the couple is not in agreement about that status)

Sorry, but I sincerely have no clue what law(s) you are talking about.

Poirot, "I suppose it's for exactly the same reason as that enjoyed by heterosexual couples....official recognition of the union"

Twaddle. What gay activist or political 'Progressive' doesn't sledge State involvement in relationships, saying that the State should keep out of people's bedrooms?

It is noteworthy that gays haven't been breaking down the doors of Centrelink to notify it of couple status.

In the Netherlands where gay marriage has been available for years, few gays take advantage of the opportunity to marry. That makes it a few percent of the few percent of the community that the overturned marriage law advantaged, and the numbers show that many of them have since separated.

The whole ethos of the gay culture is and has always been diametrically opposed to complying with the 'breeder' culture, the weddings dress, small breeding box in the 'burbs and so on. The self-respecting queers of yesteryear would be rolling in their graves at how easily the feminists who are down on marriage and family, and political 'Progressives' who are all for State control of simply everything have been able to manipulate the media and sell gays a pup on this one.

By way of example, gays used to be able to form and change their relationships at their choice and through their own judgement. Presently, after years of interference by feminists and political 'Progressives' it is State bureaucrats who presume to tell gays the status of their relationship, which courts rule on, and any independent decision on income and assets post-relationship has similarly been taken out of their hands for lawyers and courts to decide.

So much for that free-wheeling queer lifestyle outside of regulated 'breeder' society. All the while, the big joke on gays is that feminists and 'Progressives' think that marriage is *bleep* anyway, epitomises everything they love to hate and they are beavering away at dumping it.

Honestly, just look at the articles and comments on this site alone, where it is those who are most critical of marriage and would shaft the institution tomorrow who are the most ardent supporters of gay marriage.

Lexi: "It is time for a Referendum on the issue."

Indeed!

Politicians should represent the whole of their constituencies, not just the homosexual lobby group that has been pressuring their consciences, when voting on such a vital issue as the definition of marriage. In fact, such a vote should not be undertaken until there has been a voter-wide referendum.

It is difficult to understand why Australians for Marriage Equality spokesman Rodney Croome vehemently opposes a referendum, particularly when he goes around propagandising that the majority of Australians support same-sex marriage.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The Marriage Act prohibits same-sex couples to
marry. That is the law as it currently stands
in Australia. Only marriage between members of
the opposite sexes is recognised in this country.

You can Google the Act for yourself.

Dear Raycom,

A Referendum is a sensible way to go.
Let the people decide.

Talking about Mr Rodney Croome ...

Here's a link that may be of interest:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2778326.html