>>The argument is not that words cannot change their meaning<<

No: it is that they SHOULD NOT change their meaning.

Why shouldn't they, Chris? They've changed in the past and it doesn't seem to have caused many problems. Why - in general or in this specific instance - should they not? What meaningful problems do you foresee arising from this linguistic (d)evolution? Will it just be a matter of updating the relevant texts (most of which are probably digital and easily altered with a few keystrokes); or can you foresee significant problems arising from a slight broadening of the definition of a single word in the English language? What sort of problems?

>>there is no reason to change the meaning of marriage<<

Except that some people want it changed. And they have good reasons for wanting it changed: unless it is changed they will be treated unfairly because of their sexual orientation which is just as (un)reasonable as treating somebody unfairly because they're black.

On the other hand there are people who don't want it changed. But they can't provide any good reasons for not wanting it changed. Instead they present daft reasons like 'words shouldn't change meanings (no reason why they shouldn't, they just shouldn't)' or 'but if we let gays use it they'll get it dirty'.

>>the argument is never presented as one for changing the meaning of a word but rather is presented dishonestly as one of denial of equal rights<<

I think EVERYBODY knows that in order to give homosexuals equal marriage rights as heterosexuals the word 'marriage' in the Marriage Act needs a slight broadening in definition. There is no deception or dishonesty taking place; the reason some people present the argument in terms of rights and liberties rather than semantics is because rights and liberties are more important to them than semantics.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony Lavis, "to give homosexuals equal marriage rights"

Nonsense. If homosexuals were being denied any rights or 'equality' as you put it the Human Rights Commission would have been onto it like a fat kid onto a packet of Smarties.

You might want to get the number of posts up but this matter has been done to death in the federal Parliament and the present Marriage Act has been confirmed.

Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and
proper, and usually as God given as well. Much
of the current concern about the fate of
marriage stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.

If we assume that there is only one "right"
family and marriage form, then naturally any change will
be interpreted as heralding the doom of the
whole institution. It is important to recognise,
therefore, that there is an immense range in
marriage, family, and kinship patterns, that each of
these patterns may be, at least in its own context, perfectly
viable, and above all, that the family and marriage, like
any other social institution, must inevitably change
through time, in our own society as in others.

According to recent surveys over 60 per cent of
Australians approve of same-sex marriage. I also feel that it
is a question of not "if" but "when."
And I am sure that if a Referendum was held today on that
issue, or if Mr Abbott allowed a conscience vote to his
party members in Parliament - the results would surprise us
all. The present Marriage Act was forced on us by John
Howard. He's gone - and the Marriage Act should be altered
accordingly.

Dear Zoe,

<<Current law says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's the law. Those who are Intersex are excluded.>>

Therefore, current law would not recognise your wedding-ceremony as marriage - big deal. The important point is that if the word "legal" was not mentioned, then no fraud was committed, or any other criminal offence. Your marriage then, as far as the state is concerned, never happened - but who cares? Your marriage is still valid before God, before your religious order (if you have any) and before your family and friends. What's more to ask for?

<<"I am satisfied on the evidence that the husband was neither man nor woman but was a combination of both, and a marriage in the true sense of the word as within the definition referred to above could not have taken place and does not exist.">>

Big deal. The judge is paid to read the paper of the law with his/her eyes and brain, while God sees to the heart!

<<Is the marriage voidable? Probably yes, given the leading case above.>>

The law of the land cannot touch the law of heaven. So long as your bond and commitment with your partner is true, no earthly court can shake it.

>> Therefore, current law would not recognise your wedding-ceremony as marriage - big deal. <<

Actually, yes it is. And I think if you asked any of those married people so against legally recognising same sex marriage what their reaction to having their own marriages declared illegitimate, null and void, would be, they'd think it was a "big deal" too.

>> Your marriage then, as far as the state is concerned, never happened - but who cares? <<

We do. Our son does too - for not all Intersex people are sterile, though as with our case, the usual method of conception was physically impossible. I didn't have all the right bits for that. We were both in our 40's when medical science finally was able to help.

Other people who care - immigration officials when we travel overseas. Insurance companies. Banks. Courts of Probate should I die. Hospitals when determining next of kin.

>> The law of the land cannot touch the law of heaven. <<

In which case, those of religious belief can have no earthly reason to object to the legal recognition of same sex marriage, can they? It wouldn't matter to them.

You are right that we will always regard ourselves as married, no matter what. You're wrong if you think that having our marriage publicly declared a sham, a nullity, wouldn't be heartbreaking to us. I dare say most married couples would feel likewise.

We tried to do the sensible thing, you see. There are all sorts of legal and practical difficulties in our situation. It would only be sensible to split and for both of us to make fresh starts, to seek the men of our respective dreams. But every time we mentioned the D-word, we both burst into tears.

>>Tony Lavis, "to give homosexuals equal marriage rights"

Nonsense.<<

Sh!t, homosexuals are allowed to get married now!? When did that happen? I don't read the front page of the paper because I turn straight to the letters page - and I find it hard to believe that none of the letter-writing public of Australia would have something to say about gay marriage.

Are you quite sure that gays are allowed to marry? In Australia? It's just that the House of Representatives hasn't sat since the election and won't sit for the rest of the year: kind of hard for them to pass ANY new legislation. Can I assume you only ever got your Pioneer (red) badge in Citizenship?

>>the present Marriage Act has been confirmed.<<

And is thus set in stone for all eternity; inviolate and unchangeable. Man hath never seen fit to alter the laws He hath lain down since ancient times; nor shall He ever. Sic semper erat, et sic semper erit.

Cheers,

Tony