John, As I see it marriage is all about property and possessions for any thing two people ( (M+F), (F+F), (M+M) ) can do outside marriage can also be done inside marriage. Marriage is no guarantee for happiness. As far as the law goes I believe that it needs to be changed for all combinations. I do not say this in jest but if 3 or more people ( in any combination) should choose to live together then a " marriage contract" should be allowed, by law, to allow the suitable division of property should this relationship come to grief.

Good luck in getting the law changed and I would certainly vote for it to be changed.

PS. If the gay community know something about happiness in long term relationships that the rest of us don't know please publish it.

Kilmouski ( my Russian Blur cat).

I think the article confuses the issues. I also get the impression that the author's expressed support for local rather than national marriage laws is at least partly based on his support for same-sex marriage, given greater support for this at state/territory level.

Three main issues arise here. The desirability or otherwise of same sex marriage per se. Secondly, the legal issue as to whether the ACT's Marriage Equality Act is over-ruled by existing Commonwealth legislation. Finally, the general issue of whether it is desirable for each state/territory to have its own marriage laws.

The first (divisive) issue is separate from the other two and is not the intended subject of my comments.

The primacy of Commonwealth marriage law over ACT law is a matter for the lawyers. As a simple matter of logic, I do have difficulty seeing how same-sex marriage can occur as long as a valid Commonwealth law exists saying that marriage must be between a man and a woman. The Court will decide.

I also see little public policy merit in each state/territory having separate marriage laws. This would mean that a couple could be legally married in their home state or territory but could move interstate and find themselves unmarried. This could cause havoc in terms of inheritance and other family matters.

Overall, if marriage laws are to be changed, as a matter of public policy, this is best done by changing Commonwealth law. I suspect there may be room for states/territories to recognise same-sex unions, given existing Commonwealth law, provided this is not done under the label of "marriage". This would be a second best solution, uniform national laws (of agreed content) are more desirable by far.

Bren
You are correct in separating the issues.
Gay marriage really is a non issue
I can see little merit in having any separate state law.
I would like to see state and local governments abolished and replaced with a provincial type of government that would use umbrella legislation and better represent local issues via local regulation and rid us of the doubling up of laws and waste of financial resource

Bren
you say "a couple could be legally married in their home state or territory but could move interstate and find themselves unmarried".

Not necessarily. By convention, marriages are recognised if they were legally conducted and sanctioned in another jurisdiction even if they would not be legal when the couple (or more!) move elsewhere. For example, all the wives of polygamous migrants to Australia are recognised as such, even though polygamous marriges are not permitted here.

Personally I think there's nothing wrong with different marriage laws in different states. It allows the more progressive or adventurous states to experiement while the more cautious ones wait and see if it works - an important benefit of the diversity of a federal system.

Rhian

You are correct in using the words "not necessarily" but you are drawing rather a long bow nevertheless.

I am very doubtful that states/territories, not in favour of same sex marriage or "sitting on the fence" regarding the issue, would rush to recognise such status granted interstate. Uniform national marriage laws are the way forward even though we may not all agree on their detail.

Bren

If I hear interracial marriage brought up again I'll spew up. These C19th laws assumed what marriage is, they just didn't like it. That is, that children were the natural fruit of marriage - they didn't want miscegnation. You people follow in the same tradition as the racial bigots of previous centuries. That is, you well know what marriage is you just don't like it.

We're not having it.

Children cannot in any moral universe be *deliberately* deprived of their mum or dad, their biological inheritance, their bodily tradition. Whatever techniques used to ape the natural family make no difference. We pay, the plutocracy make out like thieves. We pay and while a 'Brave New World' is built. This is and will always be profound evil and the political class need to find some other way to make their domination felt.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/08/the-elite-project-of-gay-marriage

Every Australian with rightly ordered sentiments should feel nauseous at the proposal to make all our marriages 'gay marriages' (non sexed, and blind to procreation and the rights of children) by, lets talk seriously, ALPGreens fiat.

Wake up.

The federal government's stance on homosexual "marriage" is a reflection of the electorate's attitude. It is probably another reason why Labor lost so badly and the Liberals won so convincingly.

But if this author disagrees, I will back a referenda on this topic and majority wins. But this author knows that his side will lose, that is why he is more concerned with so called "rights" than the democratic process.