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.