"It is now the time to end, not extend, the privilege of the legal institution of marriage in order to recognise true equality by abolishing the privilege of certain citizens on the basis of relationship status."

Quite so; but you forgot to say that since that's not going to happen in our lifetimes, the next best thing is to extend the legal right to marry to any and all consenting persons over the minimum age.

They even had to steal our word gay & desecrate it for crying out loud. Now they want to steal our word marriage as well & pervert it. By all means do what you think you have to do but do it behind closed doors, don't throw it into our faces all the time.

Bravo. Great article. The best I have seen in 5 years on OLO.

The State should not be in the business of registering private consensual sexual relationships, nor of conferring privileges on some and disabilities on others, simple as that.

While the whole debate turns on the notion that marriage is whatever the gumment says it is, this is a completely unhistorical notion. The first Marriage Act was not enacted until the 19th century. But obviously marriage existed before then.

The common law *recognised* (but did not claim to constitute) marriage from about the 13th century until the Marriage Act. It took its concept of marriage largely from canon law, which is where the one-man-one-woman bit came in. But obviously marriage existed hundreds and thousands of years before the English common law, or even the canon law.

In any event, why should we be ruled in our most private and intimate relations by the moral precepts of long-dead mediaeval monks of *the* most sex-negative religion in the history of the world?

Therefore this line is not correct:
"This special status [marriage] can only be conferred on couples through the legal recognition of their relationship by the state."

In the absence of statutory, or even common law recognition of monogamous heterosexual marriage, it would most likely attain the same special and orthodox social status simply by virtue of being the predominant sexual and reproductive arrangement of the majority.

But that is not any reason to confine everyone else to the same box, who do *not* choose it!

Obviously all the same arguments for "marriage equality" of homosexuals apply equally to the marginalised sexuality of the polyamourous, and even moreso, because gays are no longer at risk of being imprisoned for their sexuality, as the polygamists are.

The start should be the repeal the criminal law against bigamy and polygamy.

Then the Property Relationships (formerly known as the De Facto Relationships) Acts, which actively impose the status of marriage on people who never asked for or voluntarily undertook it!

The Marriage Act and the Family Law Act should be next to go.

We already do argue if heterosexual couples can or should marry!
Just try and marry a Christian to a Muslim, and see the resistance in some circles, or witness the compulsion to accept Islamic labeling.
Not all that long ago, this result would have been quite familiar in the christian tradition! Indeed, not all that long ago mixed race marriages would have been equally illegal or ostracized!
I believe it is time for the usual obfuscation to end, and for those with a powerful religious bent and or self conferred judgmental rights, to get their obnoxious noses out of other consenting adults bedrooms. [Get your own backyard sorted before you start worrying about the neighbor's]
If we were bound by esoteric Christian tradition, there would be no church ceremony, just a formal handover of a bride and the exchange of wealth or sheep or cattle along with the consumption of much wine?
Same sex couples would have just kept company, much in the manner of Jesus and his Apostles? Monks and or Nuns in Monasteries?
Perhaps if some of these people had been allowed to marry the partner of choice, we wouldn't have seen the emergence of all those horrid stories of endless centuries old, child sex and or physical abuse?
Church ceremonies or marriage/holy wedlock are a fairly recent man made revenue raising phenomenon, not much more than 200 years old?
If any religion feels honor bound to refuse to marry same sex couples, that ought to remain their right, as are their preferred religious convictions, be they founded on fantasy or verifiable fact!
Nonetheless, same sex couples ought to have the same rights as any other loving and committed couple.
This selective discrimination in law, has to finally end!
If we need to sort something, then maybe it is the inherently flawed or crossed wiring, that creates same sex attraction in the first place?
Or indeed, any other seemingly unnatural sexual aberration?
Rhrosty.

Marriage is a moral and social construct rooted in the ancient mysognist texts where women and children were regarded as chattels. The utterly immoral and dysfunctional Augustine formalised the Church's rituralisation and dogmatisation of that ancient practise.

Marriage in the traditional form, one on one, whole of life, is rarely successful today. It will become less workable in future.

What is required is a reassessment of the morality surrounding relationships and particularly a rejection of the tradition marriage as the epitome and ultimate relationship aspiration.

Cheers. The author of this article is on that pathway.

I couldn't agree more. Thanks for this article!

Dear Jon J.,

<<since that's not going to happen in our lifetimes, the next best thing is to extend the legal right to marry to any and all consenting persons over the minimum age.>>

For those of us who are really old, this may not happen in our lifetime, but for those of us who are in our middle-ages and younger, it probably will.

The very pressure for "gay marriage" is able to turn the tide and make the word 'marriage' and all its derivatives be erased from all Australian legislation (Saudi Arabia will take somewhat longer, I suspect), so let's not dissipate this wonderful energy by adding another second-best legal patch.

The nub of the article is its statement that "The regulation of marriage draws the state into the realm of family and sexuality, which, by the definition of the liberal state, are private matters that deserve protection from the state not regulation by it".

The problem is that children are the end result of most heterosexual marriages, and it is the well-being of these children that make conventional marriage very much a matter for public concern and legal regulation. The same is not true of same sex relationships, and the article's argument for the abolition of marriage as a legal institution unwittingly provides a case for not legally recognising same-sex relationships.

Reference to marriage equality is a furphy. Men and women of all sexual orientations already have similar rights to marry a member of the opposite sex, if they so choose and are able to find a willing partner. Many bisexual or homosexual people indeed do get married in the conventional sense to an opposite sex partner, though they may not always find the role fulfilling.

Dear Bren,

<<Many bisexual or homosexual people indeed do get married in the conventional sense to an opposite sex partner, though they may not always find the role fulfilling.>>

Such people have none but themselves to blame.

They could marry one of their own gender, but they chose otherwise.

- Why did they do it?

- Did they, perhaps, want to receive the government's blessings?

If you go to bed with bugs, then don't be surprised to be itching in the morning!

Dear Yuyutsu

I don't know about receiving the government's blessings but I agree that social approval of some sort could certainly have been a consideration.

Bren

", and it is the well-being of these children that make conventional marriage very much a matter for public concern and legal regulation"

Bren, the fact that the well-being of children is concerned, does not automatically justify governmental regulation of sexual relationships, nor the conferring of privileges on favoured forms, and disabilities and penalties on others.

Besides, most governments have themselves legislated to try to delegitimise legitimacy; again they won't recognise their own marriage laws.

The fact that children exist, and have welfare needs, does not of itself justify any governmental action, which should be limited to protecting them from abuse of their person or, in a necessary case, neglect warranting alternative care. But that's not what the marriage laws do. And the divorce and child protection laws go far beyond that limit, purporting to take over and to better the function of the family. The result is no end of every kind of meddling by the nanny state, which is all too incapable of managing its own affairs, let alone pretending to be better at parenting than parents.

Yet again the missing concept in this mess is the very concept of liberty, which seems to have been forgotten in the rush to forcible improvement of others by the feminist and Christian fascists hell-bent on shaping everyone else in their own image by intrusive hypocritical anti-social legislation falsely parading as morally superior.

The state is still able to interfere in the lives of de-facto couples as it is and homosexuals can have children now if they want to, abolishing the legal definition of marriage won't change anything.
I favour the introduction of a generic stat dec form which notifies the government of the marriage of two people, you fill out the details, get it witnessed and notarised, pay the stamp duty or whatever and then have the wedding of your dreams.

Bren wrote 'Men and women of all sexual orientations already have similar rights to marry a member of the opposite sex, if they so choose and are able to find a willing partner.'

But Intersex people do not. There aren't many of us, but no, current law does not allow us to marry.

Perhaps you can explain why preventing us from marrying anyone is of such vital importance? According to Senator Bolkis, the new Attorney-General, it's a "moral issue". It goes against some people's religious beliefs that Intersex people be permitted to live, let alone marry.

Zoe

Apologies. I had forgotten about this very rare condition. There was a case in Australia in 1979 that found that inter-sex people (such as hermaphrodites) cannot legally marry because they are not legally regarded as either man or woman but are a combination of both. In many overseas jurisdictions (but not here) impotent males cannot legally marry either.

I don't think that the legal situation for this group came about due to moral concerns. More likely this minority was forgotten about and affected more by accident than by design.

Personally I see no problem with legally recognising committed relationships outside the traditional male/female marriage. What I do have a problem with is people (often hostile to traditional marriage) seeking to redefine "marriage" to simply gain social status for their own relationships. In my opinion referring to same-sex "marriage" is like saying that three people can validly make up a quartet!

Bren

I think Bren's attitude expressed in his/her last post sums up much of the non-religious, non-homophobic attitude against same sex marriage.

Bren sees marriage as a social privilege, or a manner to gain social status, and does not want to lose this exclusive privilege he/she currently has. Even though most people do not answer the question when asked questions such as "Perhaps you can explain why preventing us from marrying anyone is of such vital importance?", I believe this is the real reason

And if society did redefine marriage to a lifelong commitment between two adults, then exactly how would that be detrimental to heterosexual marriages at all?

There is a basic tenet to the discussion on same sex marriage, and that is the “right” to marry the same gender. But what of the practical reasons for same sex marriage?

The automatic transference of assets to a surviving spouse is a big one. The registration of a marriage by the state gives the surviving spouse immediate control of all assets unless a will decrees otherwise.

Homosexual life partners have no legal status and the scenario of a life partner being turned out of their home by a relative ten times removed is not fiction.

Do I believe in homosexual marriage....carrying the connotations of heterosexual marriage.....no. They are not the same and can never be the same because “procreation and social stability“is the base reason for the concept of monogamy and marriage.

But a legal ceremony that brings with it the right to estate, separate from the existing marriage act is an option that could appeases both sides of the fence.

It is about the perceived gold standard of marriage. That is all.

Gay activists have always trashed marriage and 'breeders', as do the 'Progressives' and feminists who push gay marriage. In the same breath as they demand gay marriage they also condemn marriage as a worthless, outmoded institution.

Australia has just voted and one hopes that the time of the Parliament is not going to be wasted again. Of course there are always those who cannot accept the democratic decision.

Sonofgloin, there are many marriages that don't 'procreate' already.
Do we condemn those who are infertile or too old to have children to never being suitable for marriage?

How will society become 'unstable' if gay people are legally able to marry?

>>In the same breath as they demand gay marriage they also condemn marriage as a worthless, outmoded institution.<<

I don't think marriage is a worthless, outmoded institution. I just don't see why gay people shouldn't be allowed to participate in it.

>>Of course there are always those who cannot accept the democratic decision.<<

No there are not. Every commentator I have seen, read or listened to on the topic seem pretty convinced that if the ACT allow gay marriage the Federal Government will not respect the ACT's democratic decision and seek to overturn it in the High Court. Why can't these people respect democracy?

Cheers,

Tony

Your own example does not disprove what I said. You are possibly the one exception to the rule.

There is some grandstanding going on in the ACT. It is a federal law.

Suseonline>> Sonofgloin, there are many marriages that don't 'procreate' already.
Do we condemn those who are infertile or too old to have children to never being suitable for marriage?<<

Suse I only stated the "reason" for the concept of marriage, and that is monogamy and ownership of each other to stop men fighting like dogs over pussy. Combined this with procreation to keep the gene pool alive and you have the “original” reason for a formal union.

Suse>> How will society become 'unstable' if gay people are legally able to marry?<<

I never said that....but marriage as it was conceived is not for homosexuals. A union that gives same sex couples the right to each other’s goods and chattels is the equalizer....not placating some psychological want to be deemed as the same as heterosexuals

Is homosexuality a birth defect?

>>Is homosexuality a birth defect?<<

No.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony, why you answer in the negative (though expected of you)?

>>Tony, why you answer in the negative (though expected of you)?<<

Because it's the correct answer. I know we're not getting marked for this or anything but I don't like dispensing erroneous information.

Cheers,

Tony