Michael might not see much value in marriage which I suppose highlights why our society has become so corrupt. The fact that you promise to love someone all the days of your life is now so conveniently interupted by selfishness. To ignore that a child is far better of with a father/mother committed to each other is just deliberate ignorance. Yep fathers/mothers no longer keep their word to love all their life and wonder why pollies or anyone else can't keep their word. Maybe in marriage you might learn to be a little less selfish and know you are not god on this earth.

Do we need a Marriage Act?

Yes, we do. In each society people
create social institutions to meet their
needs. Marriage is one such institution.
It is a socially approved mating arrangement
between two people. Social recognition of a
marriage is marked through some culturally
prescribed ritual, such as a wedding by a
religious official, a registration of the
union by a judge or other government servant,
and it legalises the union.

A marriage Act provides legitimacy in our society.

Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family and kinship as self-evidently right and proper,
(and usually as God given as well).

Much of the current concern about the fate of marriage
stems from this kind of ethnocentrism. If we assume that
there is only one "right" marriage form, then naturally any
change will be interpreted as heralding the doom of the
whole institution.

It is important therefore, to recognise, that there
is an immense range in marriage, family and kinship patterns.
That each of these patterns may be, at least in their own
context, perfectly viable, and that like any other social
institution, marriage will inevitably change through time.

For example it was our former PM -
John Howard who saw the need to make changes to the
Marriage Act in 2004,
amending the Act to read that Marriage was to be -
"between a man
and a woman... to the exclusion of all others."
And it is from the legality of those words that Marriage
has been excluded for same-sex couples.
Whether this needs to be changed in our country is a
decision for all Australians to make. And it is possibly
something that will in the future be made either by a
Referendum or by allowing a "Conscience vote," in
Parliament.

cont'd ...

We need a Marriage Act.
What we don't need are Mr Howard's
amended divisive wording changes that he imposed
onto the Marriage Act in 2004. That needs
to be taken out.

What we need from our authorities are Acts of decency !

Whether or not Australia needs a "Marriage Act" is a matter of opinion. The *possibility* of a Marriage Act has existed since federation because s.51(xxi) of the Constitution specifically empowers the Commonwealth government to enact laws about "marriage" (and "divorce" and other family matters in s.51(xxii)). It took 61 years for the Commonwealth to get its act together. Meanwhile, "marriage" and related matters were handled by the states and territories.

States and territories may still legislate in the area of "marriage," because that power is shared with the Commonwealth. However, state and territory laws about marriage will be invalid to the extent of any conflict with similar Commonwealth law(s). That is what happened with the attempt by the ACT to enact a law allowing same-sex marriage last year.

Some of the comments miss the point. The question is really: does society still need the state to be involved in 'sanctifying' marriage? People could still marry under whatever ceremonial conditions they liked, without a Marriage Act. Protections to individuals would exist under other laws. The harsh truth is that marriage was about property passing along the male line, in the days when women could not inherit. Part 9 of the Act, defining 'Legitimacy' is pernicious. My two children were denied automatic British citizenship because of it: ie, they are 'illegitimate' under the Act because my wife and I never married.