Onthebeach, my children were denied British citizenship because they were 'illegitimate' under Australia's Marriage Act and because Britain's Nationality Act did not recognize claims for automatic citizenship on behalf of illegitimate children. Had my wife and I been married, our children would be 'legitimate' and would have been granted automatic British citizenship because their father (me) was born in London. The British Nationality Act was amended to remedy this around 2007 (?) but the amended law was not retrospective. Had the Marriage Act not defined 'legitimacy', it would not have been a problem. But then why have a Marriage Act if it doesn't define legitimacy? But then why define legitimacy in terms of a certificate from the state telling you that you are married.

byork,

It was not Australia deciding citizenship, as you say you had to meet the British Nationality Act.

You don't feel that your own choice had any bearing on it?

"I would have thought that with over 90 per cent of people getting married at some stage in their lives, and groups like same-sex couples wanting to get married, the case for a Marriage Act of some sort is compelling."

That is not any case for a Marriage Act. People, including gays, can do that without a Marriage Act.

The Marriage Act also provides no substantive protection in law that is not otherwise available on the basic of the facts of a marriage-like relationship.

"Other reasons for a Marriage Act include providing a means for secular people to commit to a marriage...

The Marriage Act does not provide a means for secular people to commit to a marriage. This argument is based on a mistaken concept of what marriage is. You are confusing marriage, with the registration of marriage. This invalidates your argument.

"and a need to facilitate public administration in areas of social security, taxation, child support and family breakdown."

The Act does not facilitate public administration of those areas. All those areas of law ignore the existence of registration of marriage and look to the substance of the matter, not the form.

No-one has established any valid reason in support of the Marriage Act.

The mistake in their reasoning is to think that the Act make marriage possible, or facilitates it. This is flatly incorrect, and not even the Marriage Act claims that or has ever claimed that.

The Marriage Act does not constitute any marriage. It provides for the *registration* of *pre-existing* marriages brought into being by the act of the parties in exchanging vows. This fact disproves all the arguments that have been made in this thread in support of the Marriage Act.

byork, may I ask, did you and your wife ever exchange promises in the nature of marriage? For example, to be true to each other and share finances?

JardineKJardine, my wife and I didn't at any point do anything formal or devise a set of vows or draw up a legal contract. We made a commitment by talking things through when we knew we were in love. We considered a ritual to share and celebrate our commitment to one another, and probably would have had some kind of event with family and friends - had our families and friends not been spread so far along the east coast. The big decisions were to live together and then to have children. Looking back over 28 years together, we've done it by talking things through and by willingness to compromise and change. Oh yes, and our philosophy of our relationship is that it's good if it allows both individuals to pursue their ambitions and desires and to develop as individuals. And good times are essential!