It is unnecessary for the Federal Government to separately continue to regulate marriages.

Commonwealth corporations law is sufficient to deal with personal relationships...

In this way those who so wish can incorporate a partnership complete with articles of association detailing the requisite items of joint decision making, share holdings, asset acquisition and distribution. It should also clearly deal with potential disassociation.

Flexibly, any future expansions or takeovers (hostile or otherwise) could allow for mistresses or cicisbeos to become junior partners and shareholders. A hedging position or derivative activity to the core business, as it were.

Any children could be regarded as a dividend or a rights issue and accounted for as both an asset and a liability.

Also, at one fell swoop, we would do away with the oxymoronic concept of the 'family trust'.

Those of a religious bent could still have unions 'blessed' as per their faith's rules.

At last a logical comment from a gay-marriage advocate: “By advocating for states legislating over marriage, they are essentially saying that ‘marriage’ is inherently heterosexual”.

Marriage is inherently heterosexual: it is the union of one man and one woman and always has been in our society. The ACT is pretending that “same-sex marriage” is not “marriage” at all, but something completely different, thus getting away from “marriage” being a federal power. Strangely this seems to be acceptable to most gay marriage advocates, yet having a state or territory legislate for civil unions or civil partnerships or anything that is not called “marriage” is completely unacceptable. Just add an adjective and the states and territories can do what they like! Let’s have Victoria set up its own army by calling it the “local army” and thus not be in conflict with federal power. Let’s have NSW set up its own customs and excise taxes and call them “same-state customs and excises”. Then if federal law creates same-sex marriage, Queensland can create a special “traditional marriage” for men and women and decide it is not on conflict with federal law. It’s bonkers.

I suspect that ACT is just indulging in some posturing and it will be delighted when the High Court strikes its law down and all those “same-sex married” under it have their “same-sex marriages” declared invalid and become fodder for the media to focus on their status as victims of a heartless Tony Abbott.

< Gay marriage must happen and will happen >

Commonsense would lead one to agree. But… there’s got to be commonsense present in our leaders. And therein lies the problem!

Our leaders show the most glaring lack of commonsense when it comes to very high immigration, the obsession with growth and the continued rapid momentum away from a sustainable future.

If they can show the opposite to commonsense on something of this importance, then they can do the same with much lesser issues.

So we shouldn’t be waiting around for the Feds to act on gay marriage. If states and territories wish to push forward with the issue, then they should!

No we don’t want a country with some states not having gay marriage laws and other having them but with some differences. We want it to be uniform.

Well hopefully if the states act, it will get the Feds’ arses into gear a bit quicker than they might have…. and develop a uniform law for the whole country.

Ludwig:

...Obviously Ludwig, you either have not read the original version of the “Gay Manifest.. 1970”, which was air-brushed for acceptability in 1978, or your starkers!

The gay manifesto: (not the Terrorist version of 1970)

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/glf-london.asp

No Dan I haven’t read that.

Sorry, but I’m not sure what your point is in bringing this to our attention.

The third reason is quite wrong. Marriage is not a right at all. The same sex marriage lobby would be far better served asking for acceptance on the basis that people should be nice, rather than demanding acceptance on the basis of some legalistic notion abstracted from a UN treaty.

Better "solutions":

1. Federal plebiscite.
2. Repeal all marriage laws (no state regulation/registration).
3. Abolish the state governments.

Of course, the activists won't campaign for those.
A plebiscite might fail, and "the fight" will stop dead.

2 and 3 are too difficult and long term ("Progressive" activists can't stand long term. When do they want it? Now!).

Better to "take small bites", one state at a time.

"Gay marriage must happen and will happen".

Nothing "must" or "will" happen.
Laws, regulations and all social/political phenomena are *choices* we make.

I'm so sick of hearing people voice their personal *opinion/preference* as if it's written on stones from Mount Sinai.

Wouldn't it be a lot more simple if government got out of marriage altogether, and we each defined it for ourselves, it's 2013. The concept of a group of pols defining our most scared beliefs is medieval.

...Well Ludwig...I only speak truth as I see it. But this will be a reality of Gay Marriage, most people don't consider:

...The husband of your daughter and Father of her children, sues for divorce to facilitate a marriage to his new boy friend.

...You want that ignominy for your daughters, you go for it!

The "Gay Manifesto's" are very enlightening: Here is a link to the 1987 version, (But only if you can overcome your prejudice towards heterosexuals that you display by supporting the nonsense of gay marriage).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65RGfRlSoH8

Well Dan, with reference to your link - I got half way through that load of drivel and turned it off! What a load of bizarre twaddle!

Look, it really is simple. Homosexuality has always been with us. It is inherently harmless. It is innate in many of us. And it is a choice in some of us… and there is nothing wrong with that.

Our society has come to accept gays as a legitimate part of society and homophobia as deplorable. It just automatically follows that gay marriage should be formally accepted and enshrined in law.

It ain’t difficult territory.

Ludwig, "It just automatically follows that gay marriage should be formally accepted and enshrined in law"

No it doesn't, any more than it "automatically follows" that there should be multiple partner marriages or minors being married.

Few care how may partners anyone has. However the Marriage Act 1961 applies in the case of marriage.

Ludwig "It just automatically follows"

Again with the claims of inevitability!

We are not robots. We *choose* political/social outcomes, they don't just "automatically" happen.

A greater tolerance for gays does not mean law X or policy Y "must" follow.

<< Again with the claims of inevitability! >>

No Shocka, I’m not claiming that. It is not inevitable.

But as a point of logical argument, it automatically follows that gay marriage, or something closely akin to it under another name perhaps, should ensue.

I said; 'should' be formally accepted, not will be.

Ludwig "something closely akin to it under another name perhaps".

It is the redefinition of the term "marriage" that's half the controversy!
Some other name isn't "marriage".

Yes, one thing should "logically" follow another.
But since when are human beings, let alone politicians, logically consistent?

People can live with all kinds of contradictions with apparent ease, like the Lefties who are both pro-gay *and* pro-Muslim, all with a straight face.

<< It is the redefinition of the term "marriage" that's half the controversy!
Some other name isn't "marriage". >>

Agreed Shocka. By definition some other name isn’t marriage. But if it is essentially the same thing, then that would be fine by me.

Whether gay unions get called marriage or not should really be of no consequence, just as long as they are essentially the same thing with the same sort of legal ramifications and the same level of respect that our society extends to conventional marriage.

You and I can agree that another option is acceptable, but the activists with the megaphones won't.

It will be just one more slap in the face from the "fascists".
Something to hold a grudge about, rather than celebrate.