Dear David F.,

The law isn't about justice though is it.
The law is the law. And who's going to be
the judge on whether someone's reputation
is good or bad? AS I stated earlier - it's
a fine and difficult line - but the law is
all we've got.

Foxy, "AS I stated earlier - it's a fine and difficult line - but the law is all we've got"

LOL, you run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds. For example, you are all for trashing the Marriage Act because you want homosexual marriage.

david f is right in what he is saying and it deserves something better in return than a dismissive, 'Suck it up and never you mind'.

1) I am not for thrashing the Marriage Act.
What I would like to see is to have the
clause removed that was added by John Howard
that marriage was between a man and a woman to
the exclusion of all others. There is a distinct
difference between holding these views and
wanting the Marriage Act thrashed.

2) I respect David F., too much and value his
opinion far too greatly to tell him to "suck anything up."
And as David F. has said, "One way of arguing is
putting words in other people's mouths."

3) The Law is the set of enforced rules under which a
society is governed. It is one of the most basic social
institutions, and one of the most necessary. No society
could exist if all people did just as they pleased,
without regard for the rights of others. Nor could a
society exist if its members did not recognise that they
also have certain obligations toward one another. The Law
The Law thus establishes the rules that define a person's
rights and obligations. It also sets penalties for people
who violate these rules, and it states how government
shall enforce the rules and penalties.

However, the laws enforced by government can be changed.
In fact, Laws are frequently changed to reflect changes in
a society's needs and attitudes.

Foxy, "I am not for thrashing the Marriage Act. What I would like to see is to have the clause removed that was added by John Howard that marriage was between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. There is a distinct difference between holding these views and wanting the Marriage Act thrashed"

Trashing is what I said. While you play with words, the fact remains that marriage always was and is between one man and one woman (as well as other conditions). PM John Howard acted to preserve that and protect the community's understanding, interest and expectations of the institution of marriage. As you are aware, it appeared that activists might try endless legal suits and manipulation to take advantage of what they saw as a possible loophole that could frustrate the will of the people.

You don't like that, but it is being less than honest to claim that John Howard did anything but preserve what was already there.

It is going to be a long 6+ years for you.

Dear otb,

Marriage has not always been between one man and one woman. In the Bible which is the basis for the religions most Australians who have a religion follow Jacob was married to both Leah and Rachel. Jacob, Rachel and Leah were legally married according to the law prevailing in that part of the world at that time. At some later time most European nations adopted monogamy. However, monogamy was a change from a previous polygamy. The definition of marriage is not fixed but changed with the social situation and what was accepted. What is accepted may become legal. As more and more same-sex couples pair off they want the same recognition and legal protection that heterosexual couples have. Religious institutions may set whatever standards they wish for those who they decide to marry. However, civil marriage is another matter, and marriage as defined in civil law can be extended to same sex couples.

Dear David F.,

Thanks for that.

Just a bit more information on what the then Prime Minister
John Howard did in 2004 - the Marriage Laws that were in
existence at that time did not define marriage. It was
Mr Howard who wanted to make it very plain what their
views were on marriage and he ended up not only imposing their views
on the country - he went much further - including the adoption
of children:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html