Foxy, " the Marriage Laws that were in existence at that time did not define marriage"

So why were there no variations from one man and one woman? Why weren't homosexuals marrying? Apart from the simple fact that homosexuals always rejected the heterosexual's government regulated relationships and 'straitjacket' lifestyle, both of which homosexuals abhorred and made no secret of it either.

From what you and other activists for homosexual marriage would have everyone believe, there would have been thousands of homosexuals lined up to be married and asserting their so-called 'right' to do so.

If the demand was there and the facility, why not thousands of married homosexuals?

You fabricate, but the truth is in the last election results where Labor the lunar Greens were thrown out on their ears. The rubbish was put out in Canberra and it was a good thing too.

good point, onthebeach.
If there previously was no legal definition of marriage as heterosexual (one man, one woman) then technically gay couples could been marrying each other for years.

They didn't.

Try reading the news article cited earlier
from The Sydney Morning Herald. I'm just
quoting what then Prime Minister stated at
the time about what he did and the reasons
for it. These were his words, not mine.