Ho...hum...Here are THE two percent of society making enough noise to over-ride the remaining ninety eight percent again!

Chris C is completely wrong when he says it's not a matter of Equality. He's technically correct when he says that "Gays have the same rights as non-gays, including the right to marry."

Somehow I think though that if only same-sex marriages were permitted, and opposite-sex ones forbidden, I don't think Chris C. would think he was being treated equally.

Also - Intersex people cannot marry, regardless of whether they're Gay or Straight. They can't marry anyone. Their children are denied the ability to have married parents. They are treated unequally.

This Bill well worded - and directly applicable to me.

It covers all those couples who cannot get married under Federal law, or, and this is the point relevant to us, whose marriages may not be able to be proven valid. As I'm Intersex, that certainly covers us, due to caselaw that says

"The wife was contemplating immediately prior to marriage and did in fact believe that she was marrying a male. She did not in fact marry a male but a combination of both male and female, notwithstanding the fact that the husband exhibited as a male;
... further, the definition of "marriage'' as understood in Christendom is the voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life and a marriage in the true sense of the word within that definition could not have taken place and did not exist."
-- In the marriage of C and D (falsely called C). (1979) FLC ¶90-636

I was diagnosed as an Intersex male in 1985, 4 years after marriage. I "exhibited as male" at the time of our wedding. I was rediagnosed as an Intersex female in 2005. In view of these facts, and the facts of the leading case, an argument that I am not "a combination of both male and female" for the purpose of marriage would not be guaranteed to succeed.

Diver Dan that about the same percentage of aborginals in this country what's your point?

Dear Rhian,

<<society, and more particularly government, should not interfere with the freedom of citizens to do what they wish unless the prohibited actions harm others.>>

I absolutely and emphatically agree.

However, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand:

Nothing in the current Australian law prohibits gay people from marrying. They may already do so in any way they like without any change of legislation. Yes, the government wouldn't provide them that service (nor would they have to pay the government a fee) and wouldn't recognise such marriage, but what's the big deal about that? If anything, I would consider the government's non-recognition as a source of pride and a testimony to the authenticity, strength and purity of the marital bond.

And dear Zoe, intersex people CAN marry just as well. Nothing stops you from celebrating and sanctifying your marital bond, in the presence of God, your family and your friends. Simply don't invite those bastards from government to your wedding - I certainly won't invite them even though I'm heterosexual.

Diver Dan
You do not speak for "the 98%". I'm a middle aged straight woman who has been married for 27 years. I see no reason to prohibit gays from access to the same status I have enjoyed (well, mostly!).

Diver Dan - You appear to not comprehend the meaning of the world "Equality".

It doesn't mean treating some more favourably than others because they're in a majority. Quite the reverse - it means treating everyone with equal favour, regardless of whether they're in the majority or not.

How exactly others being able to marry "over-rides" your own human rights escapes me.

You may reasonably argue that some, through the skin colour they were born with, or their sex, or their aristocratic ancestry, should be treated more favourably than others. That "Equality" is not desirable, and should be discouraged. Historically, that idea has been more often put into practice than not, with the "divine right of kings", slavery, denying women the right to vote or own property and the like.

If that's your argument - make your case. If not - then you have no rational argument to make based on whether someone is in a majority or not. Equality is for all, not just some.