Why are we still discussing this?
Every human being extant on the planet has certain basic rights.
After life, liberty and the freedom of speech, we all have a universal and fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness.
In a democracy there are no second class citizens! Not for nothing does justice wear a blindfold!
Let's simply and finally end the excuses for inaction; and the petty fogging discrimination, and be done with it!
Perhaps its also time we finally had a bill of rights, basically to prevent extreme autocrats from over-reaching their powers, or conferring on themselves, the right to selectively discriminate!
Rhrosty.

"...we all have a universal and fundamental right to the pursuit of happiness," claims Rhosty. Is that so?

Happiness involves different strokes for different folks. Some folk get happiness molesting children as the ongoing enquiry into the Scout Movement and Religions attests.

Some folk get their kicks by dragging women off the street, sexually assaulting them then killing them as happened recently to the ABC employee in Melbourne.

Some parent's get a thrill out of sexually abusing their own children. May they burn in hell forever!

Given that most humans are motivated by their genes to find aspects of depravity exciting, no human has a right to pursue and satisfy whatever makes them happy! To make such a claim is absurd!

Rodney doesn't point out the downside of homosexuality and its negative affect on society. No, he presents a blissful picture of domestic bliss and normalcy enjoyed by gays and lesbians.

He distorts the reality mightily. When will we, the public, get to see the dark side of homosexuality?

Dear Rhrosty,

<<Every human being extant on the planet has certain basic rights.>>

Indeed? Care to explain or justify that assumption?

(and if so, why only humans?)
(and why exclude astronauts?)

I don't have any rights, I don't want any rights, I don't want a bill of rights: if you don't try to rob away my God-given freedom in the first place, then you don't need to refund me with 'rights' as small change.

Take this area of marriage: had there not been a restrictive marriage law in the first place, then no need would arise to 'allow' same-sex marriages.

<<In a democracy there are no second class citizens!>>

Oh Really? consider for example those under 18, who get no vote but are forced to attend school!

It's all slogans mate, including that "justice wears a blindfold" - you have been conned, my friend.

"Rodney doesn't point out the downside of homosexuality and its negative affect on society. No, he presents a blissful picture of domestic bliss and normalcy enjoyed by gays and lesbians.
He distorts the reality mightily. When will we, the public, get to see the dark side of homosexuality?"

I think it is you David G who is distorting reality. What is the "downside' of homosexuality? I havn't found it yet after 40 odd years of being gay. It might also help if you would define "negative affect on society".

My partner and I along with many freinds enjoy domestic bliss and a happy, normal life. Our relationships have the same ups and downs as male/female couples. The thing is David we are all human beings.

The ACT and some of the states are indulging in a bit of grandstanding. Section 51 of the Constitution gives the federal parliament power over marriage. Section 109 says federal law overrides state law where they disagree, and it can override any territory law. Federal law gives marriage the definition it has always had. I expect Coalition and Labor MPs and senators to vote together to override the ACT’s interference in federal powers. I expect the Greens to make the most of the opportunity for even more grandstanding from the major parties’ upholding of the Constitution. Should a state pretend to create gay marriage, I expect the federal government to go to the High Court and have such a law declared unconstitutional.

The whole issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with equal rights at all. It is the most absurd campaign to be taken seriously in the last 40 years, relying on the false name of “marriage equality”, emotive language, pretend infringements of human rights and abuse of its opponents to disguise its illogic. It is a campaign to change the meaning of a word, which if successful, will remove from the language any word that means the lifetime and exclusive union of one man and one woman. It is as silly as a campaign for parents going through the process of adoption to be described as pregnant on the grounds of pregnancy equality.

Gays have the same rights as non-gays, including the right to marry. Why they want the word that describes something they can have but do not want to be used to describe something else they can already have and do want is a mystery.

I support marriage equality on two grounds:

The first, similar to Rhosty’s rights argument, derives from the principle that society, and more particularly government, should not interfere with the freedom of citizens to do what they wish unless the prohibited actions harm others.

This was famously articulate by JS Mill: ”The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

This clearly allows us to separate gays’ freedom to marry from the abusive sexual preferences in David G ‘s examples.

Second, I believe it will deliver a significant social benefits. We already recognise the benefits of marriage for society as a whole – creating a mutually loving and supportive family unit. All of the social and economic benefits of heterosexual marriage are equally applicable to homosexual marriage.

I recognise that not everyone shares my views, but Rodney’s proposal of State-based legislation would allow us to test them is an appropriately Australian way, through experimental Federalism. Let (small-l) liberal States such as Tasmania lead the way. If the experiment succeeds, as I expect, more conservative States will follow. If not, they won’t.

My own (non-lawyer’s) understanding of the constitution is that States’ powers on this issue should prevail, but given the history of pro-centralist decisions by the High Court, I wouldn’t bet money on them upholding States rights. It would be a bitter irony if the High Court, which forced Tasmania to decriminalise homosexuality in the 1990s (the last State to do so), should prevent it from legalising gay marriage in the 2010s.