There would probably be a sudden loss of interest in gay "marriage". The whole thing would lose its 'let's-drag-society-to-the bottom' effect.

Privatising marriage is matter of when, not if. Australia has the opportunity to lead the World by getting the State out of the marriage business.

The proposal appears to be a very prolonged and round-about way of getting to the same end as to what was just achieved in Ireland.

It would take years to achieve 'privatisation of marriage' and for very little real benefit. Wouldn't it just be easier to broaden the definition of the word marriage, and then get over it.

It is obvious a lot of smart people (probably well paid academics on government grants) have been thinking about this and they went to a lot of trouble to explain their theory but let's get real, that's never going to happen, especially here in Australia.

I've been saying this for ages man.

It would then be legal to cohabit without the government deciding you are 'de-facto' married.

It's quite a bizarre state of affairs when the government enforces two people to be obligated to each other financially when the two people involved have never made any such commitment, agreement or contract.

The article contains: "In many countries including Australia, religion is privatised. This is commonly known as the separation of church and state."

The above is not true.

If a country has separation of church and state the religion of the citizens is no business of the state. Very few countries have separation of religion and state. The Marxist countries did not have it. The governments promoted atheism. The Marxist governments made religion the business of the state.

Australia does not have it. What is called religious education in the schools is really indoctrination in a particular religion. Religious education in a country with separation of church and state would simply tell about the different religions and those who reject them all without recommending any course of action. A country with separation of church and state would not have chaplains in the public schools or subsidise religious schools. None of the cost of religious schools would be provided by government if there were separation of church and state.

I would like to have such separation in Australia. We do not have it.

yep I doubt whether Bill Shorten or others would want the simple facts of how unhealthy sodomy is. To promote it to our kids is sick indeed.

The government should get out of the marriage business and that should be the long term strategy. The government should know only what it needs to know in order to distribute welfare or services equitably. Most people who are married never need government involvement in their relationship. It generally stops and ends with the signing of their certificate. If and when the government need to define their relationship then they have that right to do so but that relationship does not have to be defined as a marriage. They now rely on the definition of a couple.

Marriage is not an institution – it is a type of relationship. Everyone is free to define their relationship in any way they see fit. Everyone else is free to define someone else’s relationship as they see fit. Governments should take no notice of a relationship until they have to so they do not need to define relationships until such time as they come under their ‘jurisdiction’. That is the only business they should be involved in. They are spending huge amounts of taxpayer’s dollars administering relationships that they do not need to administer. This is wasteful and irresponsible and politicians should be made to answer for this waste.

If governments rarely need to define the relationship of two people then private contractors need to know even less.

Whilst the government does not need to be involved and there are no practical advantages for same-sex couples in having a government issued marriage certificate it seems that same-sex couples want them to be involved. They are not looking for the practical advantages that they claim heterosexual couples have – they are looking for emotional advantages. They are looking for the affirmation of their relationship by an authority as big as the government. That is the only possible thing that such a certificate can offer. The only reason why you would want someone else’s affirmation would be to cover up the insecurity you have about that relationship. It is not the business of government and taxpayers to help you hide your insecurities.

Yes, I've also been saying this for ages.

I'd go a step further: government should not involve itself with civil unions either.

What a difference a day can make! And isn't a week a long time in politics?

Who would have thought extremely conservative Irish Catholics would lead the way!?

If we are to fight the terrorists in our midst, we need as much as possible to strip them of potential devotees/ammunition!

That being so, then ending all the current discrimination and or unequal treatment is part of that task!

And starts with Gay rights/a bill of universal rights/a republic/true majority representation; and ends with fair and equitable taxation treatment!

As opposed to simply and mindlessly entrenching/expanding privilege/prejudice/bigotry; and or, Gerrymanders/misrepresentation/tails that wag dogs, supported solely by a maladroit and patently misused (minorities and minority views win) preferential voting system!
Rhrosty.

Absolutely right Runner. The elephant in the room ! The very nature of sodomy and all its health issues. Can't help thinking this when I see Warren Entsch making a fool of himself rabitting on about it, being annoyed that Plibersek and Shorten are taking the credit for it..when good ole Warren has been on about it for ages. "Credit"? For promoting this to children? Without even a blush? Dolce and Gabbana don't want SSM. And Germaine Greer is outraged at what it means for women and their unique role of motherhood. Surely children are best conceived in an act of love...not a petrie dish ? "From bridal chamber to laboratory bench " as one bio ethicist so memorably said...But The Greens Hanson-Young doesn't even try to disguise their intention... to force Christians and other religions into doing what is against their consciences...by insisting they will be made to perform SS weddings.I suspect Plibersek and Hanson- Young have jumped on to Hillary Clinton's latest band wagon, that Churches "must" get with it and update their teachings to coincide with Hillary's beliefs...not those of the Founders of the Great Religions! To which people have a right surely to adopt for themselves ?
" Who the Gods would destroy, they first make mad " Sophocles...??

Advocates of same sex marriage don't see things this way, the marriage equality movement is about political power, having your cake ie Gay separatism and eating it too. The left claim to want a world without distinctions but their first response to every scenario is to divide everyone up into groups, radicalise some and demonise others.
The proposed changes to the marriage act are a pointless solution to a non existent problem based on a bogus campaign, the only lesson here is that your politicians will betray you, that they stand for nothing.
Can we also please stop talking about the Irish referendum as evidence of a mood for change, only 37.2% of the electorate voted for a change to the constitution, the result was akin to a forfeit, not a victory for the Yes campaign, the vote was passed only because 40% of the electorate abstained from voting.

Denny,
Looking at the figures available for the states where same sex marriages are recognised about 75% of the weddings are between two women and studies routinely find that Lesbian relationships are the least stable and most prone to violence and dysfunction.
http://mainweb-v.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml
Opponents need to get over their "Adam and Steve" argument because only a tiny number of Gay men, figures suggest 2-4% will ever tie the knot, so we're talking a few hundred couples Australia wide with a divorce rate of about 17% as opposed to a Lesbian divorce rate of 50% or more.
In that light the gay male marriage issue isn't so important, men are also less likely to abuse or neglect children than women so theoretically kids will be at a far elevated risk of violence, poverty and neglect in a house with two mothers.
There's an interesting graphic doing the rounds on Facebook:
http://cdn.nomblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Regnerus-Study1.jpeg
It'll also be interesting to see how single mother households compare to two mother households in the long run, my feeling is that the majority of single mothers will be able to provide a safer and more stable environment for children than two Lesbians.

oh dear
Jay of Melbourne there is nothing you could say that anybody would believe. Logic is not your friend.

Denny when you find yourself agreeing with runner its' time to take a good hard look at yourself, you've clearly lost your way.

Runner what has sodomy got to do with same sex marriage? Why are you so full of hate?

Lastly Jonathan you just can't help yourself can you. Got to make the childish remark no matter what your talking about.
Citing an article written 8 years ago is down right dumb.

Hi there RUNNER...

I was discussing (in part) the merits of Gay Marriage with another individual who was clearly a homosexual, and he was berating me for my 'obvious' bigoted attitude, when I was a copper, towards gay people ? I relayed to him a conversation I had with a Pentecostal Minister who in part, described the homosexual act as, '...against the laws of God and of nature...'. I notice you also draw a comparison, with that of sodomy when you say '...sodomy being a unhealthy act...' ?

Whatever one personally and privately thinks of homosexual practises in our community, or the whole question of Gay Marriage for that matter ? As often uttered in a Court of Law, 'res ipsa loquitur' - the thing speaks for itself - ?

I hope that, when marriage is privatised like the churches, my own gets the tax exemptions that churches enjoy.

Marriage 'privatisation' is not a 'novel concept', through most of history, marriage, except for the rich, was a private affair, a couple simply decided to live together. Husband and wife were recognised as a married couple by the community and the Church in the Middle Ages, and pre-Christian times, the relationship did not require the imprimatur of the state.

Cobber,
That's the typical reaction when pro Gay research is quoted back to a pro Gay poster, religious types don't have a leg to stand on if they insist on using their tired, parochial talking points, if they really want to score some points they need to start using academic sources.
On the basis of the available evidence a child will have the best start in life in a home with both biological opposite sex parents present or a house with two Gay men followed by a home with a single mother or father and the least favourable outcomes appear to come from homes with two Lesbian adults present.
No reputable source denies the generally poor mental health, substance abuse and interpersonal dysfunction among Lesbian and bisexual women or that their problems are far worse even than those found in the Gay male population.

by definition, in Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code in the Philippines, marriage is considered one of the most sacred social institutions and "a contract of permanent union between a man and a woman", so that one of its essential requisites is "the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female."

Article 46(4) considers that concealment of homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage is a sufficient enough ground for annulment of the marriage.

Article 55(6) considers homosexuality or lesbianism itself as a ground for legal separation even if not concealed.

As attorney Jose C. Sison writing in today's Philippine Star puts it, there is a petitioner for same sex marriage here in the Philippines who avers that banning same sex marriage violates the rights of homosexuals and lesbians to due process and equal protection of law - Sec 1, Art III; to "decisional and marital privacy" - Sec 2, Art III - and to found a family in accordance with their religious or "irreligious convictions" - Sec 3, Art XV.

Sounds like common sense to me, but not if you're dealing with a person who has a closed mind and is suffering from invincible ignorance.

Or how about this: my religious conviction as a fundamentalist and faithful Mormon allow me the right to have a harem of at least 365 concubines, so what's wrong with that?
(so why did the U.S. federal govt give the Mormons such a hard time over this?)

'I hope that, when marriage is privatised like the churches, my own gets the tax exemptions that churches enjoy.'

Asclepius

and I look for Asclepius to secularist spending a little of their own money to do a tenth of the charity that churches do. Not likely though as secularist love to bang on about their good deeds in spending tax payer funded projects usually with a great failure record.

Jay of Melbourne is that the same source that has led you to believe the NAZI Jewish genocide didn't happen?

//and I look for Asclepius to secularist spending a little of their own money to do a tenth of the charity that churches do. Not likely though as secularist love to bang on about their good deeds in spending tax payer funded projects usually with a great failure record.//

I guess you haven't heard of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They've given over $30 billion to charity. Can you name a church that has donated that much? No, I can't either, because they don't make their finances transparent. What's up with that, runner? Why do secular charities have more transparent finances than church charities?

Cobber,
No the LGBT health promotional material released by western governments typically steers clear of the topic of WW2 civilian casualties, it's quite a good source of information on the health issues affecting homosexuals though.
Why? Did you specifically want to talk about WW2 propaganda for some reason?

Good news JoM and other interested parties!
Gay men can now access the medication that can prevent HIV in Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-28/prep-five-perspectives-on-the-hiv-prevention-pill/6502124

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could eradicate HIV by 2020, as is the plan?
Now, when Gay men get married in Australia, there will be even more reason to celebrate.

Suseonline:

Why is getting married a reason to celebrate? Many people do not see the need to celebrate and just move in together and begin living as a couple. Why is this sufficient for some but not for others? What do you think?

Marriage is not merely a matter of living together. Two people rcognised as a couple legally bound have certain rights due to that formal commitment. eg. If a person is in a hospital with visitors limited to only immediate family members a spouse may be admitted while a mere live-in partner may not be. I see no reason why a caring same sex partner should be denied like recognition.

Gay "marriage" is just a fad, as is being gay itself.

Well given Gay bashing has existed since the dawn of organised religion, and has failed to reduce the percentage of gays in the community one whit; it seems to be just a little more than a mere fad?

I as a normal Heterosexual male, am made to feel extremely queasy/uncomfortable at the sight of two grown males kissing; but not so where it is cultural custom?

And isn't that odd?

But then I'm made to feel similar discomfort when an obviously sexually aroused Heterosexual couple are engaged in similar gymnastics, and almost oblige me to say, get a room!

And yes, I'm more than happy to keep my nose out and not worry about what consenting adults get up to, in the privacy of said room!

I mean anal sex is just not limited to homosexual couples, for heavens sake!

And in some countries either normal practice or accepted as effective birth control?

Even so, where people regardless of the normal created by nature sexual orientation/aberrations, fall in love as they do, they should be accorded the same rights as family, in hospital rooms, retirement homes or in law!

Moreover, I have yet to see just one example of a disapproving minister, priest or church being ever required to perform a ceremony for anyone.

There are abundant enough civil celebrants, more than willing to assist any couple exchange vows and have their names recorded in an official ledger.

And often for a smaller fee than any so called christian church may charge, along with an obligatory list of religious demands/controls!
We're so over that!
Rhrosty.

Ttbn you say

“There would probably be a sudden loss of interest in gay "marriage".

If you were a politician of any stripe, would you hang your hat on such an assumption? Or would you ready yourself for a vote on the topic?

After all, has the issue not moved from one of policy to one of politics?

Progressive Pat

You say “Privatising marriage is matter of when, not if. Australia has the opportunity to lead the World by getting the State out of the marriage business”.

Agreed, the simplest way is having everyone unite in a civil union rather than aping Eire and allowing everyone to marry.

ConservativeHippie

You say “The proposal appears to be a very prolonged and round-about way of getting to the same end as to what was just achieved in Ireland”.

Not quite.

Under the “privatisation” scenario, everyone (gays and non gays) must have a civil union for their “marriage” to be legally recognised.
If anyone wants a church wedding thereafter, they are free to do so. But the Crown will not recognise the latter.

Under the Irish model, everyone can now get married. Problems will arise when some folk will not take “no” for an answer from their preferred church. And while the church will have an “out” from such weddings, many folk will feel insulted.

In order to marry they will need to find another more accommodating church or they will need a non-religious ceremony.

This could lead to a two-tier marriage train carriage. On one level will be those whose legally recognised marriage took place where they wanted, whereas on the lower level will be those who married where they were allowed.

The beauty of the privatisation – as opposed to broadening the term “marriage” - is that in civil unions alone will be legally valid in the eyes of the Crown. In addition to a civil union, if a couple want to pop to a church to wed, that’s fine. But that ceremony will have no legal standing.

Houellebecq

Exactly.

Doesn’t the government have enough to do without sticking into nose in essentially a private matter?

David f

You say, in relation to the separation of church and state, “Australia does not have it. What is called religious education in the schools is really indoctrination in a particular religion”.

I agree, there are religious courses at schools and this would not be permitted under s strict separation.

Even though s116 of the Constitution states

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

If we don’t have strict separation, perhaps we should blame our courts for exhibiting too little spine when compared to their American counterparts.

Yuyutsu

You say “government should not involve itself with civil unions either”. So tell me, how will government be able to ingratiate itself with say “united” citizens as opposed to single or uncoupled folk, when framing budgets to appeal to one sector of society over another?

Or are you hinting at a novel idea of treating ALL taxpayers the same regardless of age, dependents etc?

Jay of Melbourne

You claim politicians “stand for nothing”. I respectfully disagree. I think they will do everything they can so that they are re-elected. Everything.

Cobber the hound,

You say “ Jonathan you just can't help yourself can you …Citing an article written 8 years ago is down right dumb”.

I don’t think it is “dumb” to remind readers that Plibersek under Rudd was hostile to gay unions and under Shorten she is in favour.

Some voters may legitimately ask: “will the real Tanya please stand up”?

Mac

Agreed. “Privatsiation” is short hand for returning to what marriage was before government got involved.

Rhosty

In a nutshell (for same sex folk) you’re advocating equal rights, equal obligations and a manner to do so that does not negatively impact on organised religion?

If so then we’re on the same page.

Dear Jonathan,

<<Or are you hinting at a novel idea of treating ALL taxpayers the same regardless of age, dependents etc?>>

At least it's not a criminal offence to WISH!

I knew a lady in her 60's and her lover in his 70's:
They loved each other and wanted to live together, but she was careful not to sleep at his place more than 3 nights a week, lest her age-pension be withdrawn.

(just consider the effect on house-pricing and electricity bills)

I've always expressed my support in a universal and unconditional, preferably flat, negative income tax, to replace all other forms of welfare.

When in comes to the alleged superiority of Church charities most overlook the overwhelming number of secular charities doing far more for the community.

The truth is that the money spent by many of these Church charities are a drop in the bucket compared to the vast wealth they represent.

It's like the recent debate about tax concessions to Sporting clubs because of their community involvement. Those clubs spend far more on advertising than on their community work and - like the Churches - are also subsidised by the taxpayer.

Charitable activity is little more than lip-service paid to maintain an image and recruit more members.

It's no coincidence that the Mormons are the largest land holder in at least one of the states in the USA and the Catholic church has the funds to end global starvation tomorrow if it chose to do so.

Spare me the self-righteousness about charity - the Churches spend more on themselves than on anything else.

Also, why don't the exploding divorce rate, the infidelity, the abandoned children and the domestic violence of heterosexual marriage threaten the concept of marriage, but only the gays?

Marriage has turned into a business and has lost any of its original or religious emphasis (if it ever had any of these) and is simply now commercial. I was very turned off, when being told some churches charge $1000 or more for a wedding ceremony, when I thought this was a community service.

A relationship based on a solid ground, really doesn't need any type of marriage at all - but for too many people it's simply about the luxuries that go along with it - so in reality it is very expensive and plastic. Why would somebody want that?

The main reason, I believe people would not support removing marriage (in terms of government and law) is that they would have to face up to the 'truth' in terms of their relationship.

If a government has 'law', versus 'no law', there are issues to face - but many people, in terms of marriage wouldn't even want to talk about them.

With marriage law there are protection elements that protect the people and those people involved in the future. So marriage 'law' in that context takes fear out of people's minds re the future.

There can be a negative to that. In terms of say a relationship that may break down in the future, this could have been avoided if a good plan for the relationship was planned from day one - and this can be done privately, and then move to any type of ceremony religious or not of that nature. It may also mean that two people decide not to stay together (from the start) or realise their relationship needs more time to develop, before moving to some to some type of formal connection.

Divorce is very expensive, emotional impacts are very serious (on all involved - including children) and with better relationship planning such breakdown may decline. Unfortunately such planning, could frighten some and doesn't fit in with the elements of rosy style wedding ceremonies.