So David are we to assume that you'd support the removal of the marriage act? If so you'd get my vote and I've been an abstainer since 1996.
Good luck with de-regulation, the so called "Gay Rights" activists are hostile to that idea because they want authority over other people and to be able to force their definition of marriage upon the churches and schools.

...The war waged against society by homosexuals rages....These are the "real terrorists"!

Yes, marriage is a private matter and the state should not be in the business of defining private matters, either narrowly or widely. The state should not tell us who is married and who isn't. The state should neither endorse nor oppose marriages. The state should not register marriages at all and let the word 'marriage' and all its derivatives be erased from all legislation.

Gay marriage is a moral imperative because equality so shut up.

If you dont shut up you are a h8er, so shut up even more!1!

David's argument for it is pathetic. The government forces us to choose opposite-sex partners, and this awful compulsion is bad? Somehow trapping us all - like insects in amber!

But David, why should we expect more freedom from your ideas when the newly-invented moral imperative seems to be that we have to line up to affirm gay lifestyles as equal or even better than ordinary ones.

That would not be Liberty outcome at all. When the mere standard of causing someone to take a huff remains illegal under 18c, vindictive activists can smash individuals with lawsuits and proudly display their invented new morality backed by the power of the state. Its already happened over choices of race identification.

The challenge to freedom is not the tension of innovative social arrangements being called marriage, but the form of debate that creates an arbitrarily invented moral rule and shuts up anyone who wants to question it.

You have that all ass about David.

We for various reasons have developed the version of mirage we want over millennia, & our governments have passed laws to enshrine our wishes in stone.

It is not the other way around, we have what we want. Most can see no reason to change our wishes on what mirage should be, & will thank you to mind your own ruddy business.

It is time to discard the noisy wheel, rather than oil it with what it wants. If homosexuals don't like it, tough!

I disagree. The choice of one's partner in most developed countries is a totally private matter but the legalisation of that choice - marriage - bringing with it a range of government-provided benefits is very much a public matter. Why? In my view, marriage is an institution designed to protect the children that arise from the union of a man and a woman. Children are totally dependent upon adults until well into their teens and marriage is or should be about how the adults accept the responsibilities associated with the production of their children.
In other words, marriage is never about the two adults who have chosen to share their lives with each other. That's a very selfish view, regardless of whether same sex or opposite sex partners are involved.

For people who think that our side are being silly consider this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
The Gay agenda relies on the use of force and punitive powers available to the state, like all "Progressive" movements it cannot exist otherwise.
The goal of the Gay marriage movement is to raise children to be homosexuals, to teach homosexuality in schools and to lower or abolish the age of consent.
The Newton/Truong case showed exactly what this process looks like, it's wrong to describe them as "Pedophiles" when they were actually "Gay Parenting", raising a son to be homosexual and introducing him to homosexual practices in the traditional manner:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cairns-couple-victimised-other-boys-according-to-authorities-20130703-2parh.html
Yet despite the candid way in which Peter Truong spoke to Four Corners about his sexuality and the process by which he himself became a homosexualised child the ABC are still apologising for them, still calling them "pedophiles" and slandering people who are not shocked by this case and who point out the obvious facts of the matter as "homophobes":
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-10/gorman-second-thoughts/4809582

This is fun watching all the pretend liberations duck a waive.

Jay pedo's come in all flavours but by far the majority are men raping young women so I wonder what your point is?

It could just be a sad pathetic dog whistle because you have no real argument, but maybe your shouting loudly in the hope of repressing some deep emotions of your own.

Bernie
two good friends of mine have just decided to get married. She is in her late 50s, he in his early 60s, way too old for kids. Are you saying their marriage will no be legitimate?

Rhian, sorry but I don't understand what marriage legitimacy has got to do with these friends of yours? If they wish to commit themselves to each other, that's wonderful, but I don't see what a piece of paper from the government has to do with their relationship. If they are looking at some formal and public way of showcasing their commitment to each other, then they can get married, regardless of the near impossibility of children, even though, in my view, the marriage they will be undertaking will have little relevance to them legally but obviously a lot of relevance emotionally. I assume the same emotional value would apply to same sex marriage, except that there is no legal opportunity for such marriages under federal law and I don't support changes to the law to allow such marriage. Your friends are using the law in a way that it was unlikely to have been intended when the first government somewhere in the world brought in marriage laws some 100s or 1000s of years ago.

If one is going for broadening the scope marriage, What about considering fixed term marriages such as 2 years 5 yrs 10 years etc. An alternative is a simple opt out clause.

There is no reason why if the definition of marriage is changing, why it cannot expand further.

Cobber,
I'm not projecting anything, just passing on links, people can watch the Truong and Newton documentary and make up their own minds, although he's pleaded guilty Truong denies that he's a pedophile and I find that reasonable and credible. Both men were primarily attracted to adults and still describe themselves as Gay parents, they were bringing up their son to be Gay as best they knew how.
Is it so hard to believe that Gay parents would want their son to grow up to be just like them, that rather than wait until he was in his early teens before letting other men have access to him they would start from a much younger age so that he wouldn't be traumatised or shocked by the behaviour?
Lowering or eliminating the age of consent is a key point of the LGBTI platform, according to the likes of Peter Tatchell or Tom O'Carroll the best way to eliminate child abuse is to give full sexual autonomy to children...which would be convenient for people who want to raise homosexuals from birth.
Cobber I'm not Anti Gay and I couldn't care less if Gays want to get married, what I'm against the LGBTI lobby having any sort of political power and based on my real world observations of Gays I don't think it's a good idea to let homosexuals adopt or raise children, in that I'm not alone:
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/la-joie-de-vivre-41-july-13-2014.html#more

Bernie

If gay marriage cannot be legally sanctioned because marriage is for children, then my friends’ (inevitably childless) marriage should not be sanctioned either.

While all cultures throughout history have had some type of marriage, its form and legitimation has varied hugely. Marriage is what society says it is. Protection of children may have been the main purpose of marriage before the 20th century. But nowadays, marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient to ensure protection for children. A third of marriages end in divorce, and about half of these involve children. 30% of children are born to unmarried parents. And many people, like my friends, marry without the expectation or even possibility of having children. For better or worse, the “standard” model is no longer “standard”.

The involvement of the State in determining who is or is not officially “married” is a comparatively recent phenomenon, probably eighteenth century in the English legal tradition. You may well be right that the need for State involvement rested on the legal and financial privileges and benefits that society confers on married couples. But as pretty much all of these nowadays apply equally to unmarried couples in stable relationships (including gay couples), that justification has evaporated too.

Perhaps it is time for the State to get out of the marriage business.

If marriage is/is to be a private matter then why can't there be three or more people in it? Or maybe a man or woman marry their dog, huh? I tell you what, the way things are heading society is going to the dogs.

Roscop,
I've asked the same question and the following variant:
"If two heterosexual men or two heterosexual women want to get married is that also equal to any other form of union?".
The LGBTI people don't usually reply.

Jay the fact that this couple are saying they were not pedos just gay doesn't mean they are right.

No gay person I know thinks having sex with kids is part of being homosexualailty. Do you think it's right to have hetrosexual relation with childern? that s normal part of heterosexual training is to have sex with your kids?

"attempt to fix in law a particular definition of marriage."

But that's what laws are: definitions.
At the start of every act is a glossary of terms and what they mean.

"Marriage" may have different definitions in different eras and cultures, but each *is/was* the accepted definition in that context.

"Legal definitions undergo a process of evolution, sometimes rapid, at the hands of the courts or Parliament."

And whenever there's a change, the new definition is "trapped in amber" and will not be amended until a further successful challenge.

"The simple fact is that Parliament can change the definition of marriage if it wants to"

Now you're getting it!
But it has no obligation to.

"And for those who perform marriages, religious or civil, there should be no obligation to marry those of whom they disapprove."

So they can refuse a mixed race couple or blind-sighted couple, if they personally "disapprove"?

Not with our anti-discrimination laws!
How about getting rid of those government-imposed "definitions" of what is allowed in our private lives?

"Minding other people's business" is exactly the *purpose* of government.
The only question is where we draw the line.

Shadow Minister, yes why is marriage defined as permanent?
Is Leyonhjelm going to repeal that oppressive definition too?

Rhian,

The involvement of the State in marriage is far from being recent:

"Marriage in ancient Rome was a strictly monogamous institution: a Roman citizen by LAW [emphasis added] could have only one spouse at a time. The practice of monogamy distinguished the Greeks and Romans from other ancient civilizations, in which elite males typically had multiple wives. Greco-Roman monogamy may have arisen from the egalitarianism of the democratic and republican political systems of the city-states. It is one aspect of ancient Roman culture that was embraced by early Christianity, which in turn perpetuated it as an ideal in later Western culture".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

I was referring to the English tradition on which our Australian law was based. It wasn’t until the 1753 Marriage Act that marriages became state-sanctioned.

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=aQKn3oa4VvQC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=state+sanction+marriage+1753&source=bl&ots=sqsBkqDBod&sig=mdi06oH-8ZMXTc7g5fY6CGx7_TU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KnjDU-WOJs6WkwWO_4DgBA&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=66&f=false

A lot of people seem to be using the word "gay" as in gay person or gay marriage/s. In orthodox marriages there are many who are gay(not in a sexual way) so its best to use the better desciptive words homosexual or homosexual marriage or deviant marriage instead of using a euphemism with different meanings.

using the word "gay" as in gay person
Roscop
I noticed how Ian Thorpe refrained from using the word gay. He referred to himself as 'not straight'. I have absolutely no problem with him feeling the way he does, it's no skin off my ugly nose but I did have a problem with calling himself a gay man. I would rather describe him as a homosexual male, which is the correct description. He should really hand back his medals because he is not a man as such. Perhaps we should have homosexual olympics after the Paralympics. Remember the furore of those Chinese swimmers when they got banned because others complained that they were more male than female ? Perhaps Transexual Olympics might also be warranted ?
Ah yes and, marriage is between a man & a woman. For males & females who behave contrary to their biological design we really need a different word. Perhaps Gayrriage or Homorriage ?

Rhian,

For your consideration:

"When the state started taxing marriage in the 1690s, the vicar of Tetbury in Gloucestershire carried out a survey of his parishioners to find out how many had been married in church. He was covering his back – clergymen who failed to ensure that their parishioners were officially married were penalised. He discovered that half of them had not been married in church, but clandestinely, making private vows to each other, or married in a private dwelling by some roving clergyman. They were living in stable, but irregular unions.
Given the choice, those unencumbered by property preferred to avoid the expense and rigmarole of an official church wedding and spend their money on drinking to celebrate the new partnership. Dodging the newly imposed tax and resentment at the state's interference in their private business provided further incentives to live in "common law unions" that had no basis in law and did not carry property rights. As long as a couple considered themselves "married in the sight of God" and was "reputed lawful man and wife amongst their neighbours" the forms of ceremony mattered little to them....Indeed, it was the case of one particular man-eater, the beautiful, litigious Con Phillips, whose busy marital and amorous career, involving one legal husband and seven others, which more than any other exposed the flaws in the system and convinced Lord Hardwicke to tighten up the law in 1753. The upshot of this was an exodus of defrocked clergyman across the border to Scotland, where clandestine marriage was still valid, followed by a steady flow of couples eloping to Gretna Green."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/6243761/A-history-of-the-English-marriage.html

Clearly the law was involved before 1753 and in fact the Law has always been involved in marriage in the English speaking world.
Henry VIII came up against the law when he had to change it to get shut of wedlock.

Very interesting discussion.

I think this is one on which the Liberal Democrats have totally confused liberty with its opposite. What they're trying to do is *extend* state registration and regulation of private consensual relationships.

It is simply factually untrue that gay marriage is "illegal" - unlike the situation with multiple marriage, which is a criminal offence. And it's also untrue that gays "can't get married".

The flaw in the argument is the idea that marriage is constituted by the state. Not even the state has ever claimed this. Statute law, canon law, and common law have always been agreed that marriage is constituted by the act of the parties in taking each other to spouse. What people mistakenly think of as state and church "marriage" is the *recognition* by church and state, for their own purpose,s of a pre-existing marriage constituted by the act of marriage - the exchange of vows.

The act of marriage is NOT the registration of it by a public official! Get your facts straight, ninnies!

Gays currently have the same right to marry as everyone else. What they don't have is the right to register it. But why should they? Why should anyone?

I have never been able to get any SSM advocate to answer:
- what *substantive* difference there is? (they are doing it merely to force their symbolism onto the community); or
- why the same arguments for "marriage equality" don't apply equally to polygamy?

The policy of the LDP should be to
1. repeal the de facto relationships laws - which *impose* marriage law on *non-consenting* parties
2. provide that a contract between the parties overrides the Family Law Act - making the FLA opt-in, not opt-out
3. repeal the Marriage Act
4. repeal the law against bigamy and polygamy - if people want to exchange VOLUNTARY commitments, what business is that of the state's?
5. repeal the laws abolishing legitimacy. Legitimacy of children is to protect *men's* human rights. Men are not to be exploited as money objects.
6. repeal the so-called child support laws.

I have heard some pretty creative arguments to support complete nonsense before, but David Leyonhjelm really did some metal gymnastics to come up with this one. His argument is, that since the meaning of words change, then we can simply dispense with any words in our laws that may be an impediment to the homosexual lobby's quest for social respectability.

Hahahaha!

Using the same logic, we could really have some fun with our laws and our Constitution. Sporting shooters could get their semi autos back by simply calling semi autos "bolt actions." Paedophiles could screw every kid they wanted to by claiming that the word "children" now meant "adults". The mind boggles. Every legally accepted noun or verb in our laws could be reinterpreted to suite some social groups self interest.

David Leyonhjelm must come from Orwell's 'Oceania" where he works in the Ministry for Truth. Davis wants to create Newspeak where words "mean just what I say they mean, nothing more, nothing less."

Next he will be telling us that WAR IS PEACE, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, FREDOM IS SLAVERY.

The Ministry of Truth knows the value of controlling language to prevent people from thinking straight, and David seems to be one of it's advocates. It is ungood in David's Insol (English Socialist) Newspeak language to think of homosexuals in any way than total equals, and any person who thinks other wise has committed a thoughtcrime and they should be re educated in joycamps.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH, FREDOM IS SLAVERY.
Lego,
You're plagiarizing the ALP doctrine.

individual, Ian Thorpe won medals for his skill as a swimmer.
His personality and any of its elements are irrelevant.

Should his preference for white or wholemeal bread also be considered?
What about beer versus spirits?
Which is more "manly"?

The sexuality of athletes is irrelevant.
They win medals because they're the fastest, strongest, most skilled, not the straightest.

I believe the Chinese swimmers got in trouble for using banned substances, not for being too butch.

Are we going to stop at sexual preference (not that you would know if they don't reveal it)?

Do we also ban heterosexual sissies and tomboys, for not being sufficiently gender-role compliant?

Women who don't remove their body hair?
Men with long hair or earrings?
Celibate or infertile athletes?

In case you haven't heard, there is an event called the Gay Games, an Olympics equivalent.

I'm sure it's fun, but gay athletes should also be able to enter the Olympics, Commonwealth Games or any other competition.

What does sporting prowess have to do with what you do with your rude bits on Saturday night?

Is Mise
Yes, the State always had a role in enforcing marriage contracts. But the question of who was allowed to marry, or what constituted a marriage, was determined either by the church or by private agreements. From the article you quote:

“Clandestine marriage led to all sorts of abuses, from the kidnapping, drugging, forced marriage and rape of heiresses by fortune hunters to under-age, same-sex, incestuous or bigamous unions. Bigamy was common in a society where divorce was denied.”

From the book I link I to (p.66):

“Secular marriage – the idea that marriage was a state-sanctioned rather than church-sanctioned institution - is a relatively new phenomenon.”

LEGO
What constitutes a “marriage” has varied over time and between cultures. In the past it has included same-sex marriage. Your argument is essentially circular – same-sex marriage is not permissible because marriage is between a man and a woman. But this begs the question of WHY marriage is only between a man and a woman

What is interesting is that 'marriage' for many decades was sold as a symbol of patriarchal oppression of females forcing women into unequal domestic slavery.

So how can same sex marriage be a symbol of equality, when for many years it was a symbol of inequality and oppression?

@Wolly B, Wednesday, 16 July 2014 9:49:27 PM

Heh, heh, you are right, but you are not expecting an answer to that one, are you?

Wolly B
The answer is pretty simple. For many centuries marriage really WAS an unequal and often oppressive affair. Women had fewer property rights, only men could initiate divorces, men usually got custody of the kids (now the inequality is perhaps the other way round), rape within marriage was not recognised, and wife-beating was legally and socially acceptable. Employment opportunities were unequal. Until as late as the 1970s, in many Australian organisations women could no longer work once they married. it was not just expected that their role was now in the home not the workplace; it was legally enforced.

Happily, nowadays marriage is a much more equal and less repressive institution.

The unfairness and inequality of treating gays differently to straights in relation to marriage consists, well, in treating gays differently to straights.

Rhian
Do you support marriage equality for polyamorists and if not why not?
Don't all the same unfairness/discrimination/marginalisation/sexuality/inclusivenessarguments apply?

Why are extreme rightwingers against love, which is beautiful in any form.
Over to you the LNP groupies for response !!

JKJ
Interesting question. I come back to the point I made earlier, that marriage is what society determines it to be. I think much, perhaps most, of society is ready to accept same-sex marriage. Polyamory is not there yet, in Australia at least. But I take the point about the inequality argument being equally applicable to any relationships voluntarily entered into by consulting adults.

There is nothing intrinsic to marriage that precludes polyamory by definition. In many past societies, and some current ones, polygamy is the norm - a Sudanese friend of mine was her first husband’s second wife (concurrent wife – in Australia these things tend to be done consecutively!). Polyandry is much rarer, but not unheard of.

Kipp, since when does marriage have anything to do with love?

If you are to grant marriage licenses based on "love", perhaps we need lie detector tests prior to exchanging vows.

That will weed out the marrying-for-money, marrying-for-citizenship, marrying-to-cover-up-homosexuality, marrying-due-to-pregnancy, marrying-to-please-parents couples.

And married couples should periodically be retested too, to annul the unions of staying-unhappily-married-for-the-kids, staying-married-until-rich-hubby-croaks, staying-married-for-the-prestigious-family-name couples.

Shockadelic, good one LOL