yuyutsu,
If we're to retain a state and a legal system we still need some recognition of marriage as a legal partnership so some formal documentation would still be required, even if we did as you say which we might call a Libertarian solution I'd bet most people would still want some form of nuptial contract to secure their financial interests.

Suse,
I can't explain it in simpler term than I have, all the people whose ideologies support Gay Marriage also supported the U.S/NATO proxy forces in Libya, Egypt,Bahrain, Morocco and now Syria, the colour revolutions, FEMEN, Pussy Riot, Kony 2012 and all the other imperialist PR exercises. Gay Marriage is a meme, in the true sense of the term,it's U.S imperial propaganda.

J of M, you are making the mistake of assuming that support for gay marriage an ideological package. People these days pick and chose their causes and don't swallow whole ideologies. For example, I am in favour of gay marriage because I regard it as a social justice issue, don't think it will harm anyone. I also believe that the west shouldn't mess with the Middle East. Pussy Riot is just a news item to me and I had to look up FEMEN and the colour revolutions to find out what they were.

Dear Jay,

It is no secret that I would like to reduce government interference in our lives to the minimum.

Nevertheless, if you believe that the state of Australia should provide a service of backing and enforcing "legal partnership" arrangements, then why not make it just that?

The advantages are enormous: anyone who currently cannot legally marry will be able to use that "legal partnership" service (or whatever else you like to call it), including same-sex couples (with no opposition!), brothers and sisters and already-married people (including people who married in another country where they cannot obtain a divorce or be punished if they did). Moreover, such a partnership could be entered by more than two people, so for example a Kibbutz could thus enforce the financial bond between its members.

Also, that releases de-facto or even married couples who are not interested in a financial partnership from having one enforced upon them. I knew for example a lady who had a lover, both in their 70s, that was very careful never to sleep more than 3 nights a week in her lover's place - for otherwise she would lose her age-pension. They had a romantic, but not a financial relationship, so what right had the government to jump into their bed?

@ Jay Of Melbourne

The reason gay marriage is now seen as a major issue is simply because the majority of heterosexuals support it. John Howard was only able to ban gay marriage because back then roughly only 38% supported gay marriage. Twenty years ago I would have laughed at anybody who even suggested the idea of men marrying men. Also another reason why gay marriage is now an issue is because more people accept homosexuality as a natural thing, and understand that people are born gay. Finally, when Coalition/Greens supporters realised that Julia Gillard was against gay marriage, Coalition/Greens supporters then turned gay marriage into a major issue to make Julia Gillard look bad because at the time Tony Abbott had admitted on National TV that he was threatened by homosexuality. Now that Tony Abbott is PM, expect the issue of marriage equality to be virtually invisible in News Limited newspapers.