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.