I'm sorry Graham but I tend to disagree!

When people are married they become family, with common property rights, the right to visit a family member in hospital, unite as family (husband/wife) under the family reunion act and a right to contest a will etc.

Some got around this by embarking on gender reorientation; and presenting at the altar as male and female?

And you (anybody) wouldn't know if you were't told!

As for leadership, we invariably follow other places, as dig your heels in as diehard ridged resisters, when it comes to equal rights; or just a bill of rights!

Everybody else is first! We just don't lead; just react, with often spectacular 180"s!

A bill of rights would enshrine equal rights before the law in all things, including the right to be born different/speak your mind.

Currently there are differences and different treatment; i.e., men and woman can live in defacto relationships, that are recognized for all practical purposes, as marriages!

Not so same sex couples!

On the other hand same sex couples can receive full single benefits/pensions each, even while cohabiting in the same domicile!

Not so defacto or married couples?

I can agree however, all we are using here is a form of words. Which could just as easily be represented by weddings and or the wedlock act! The contract and legality just as binding!?

With until death do us part, holy wedlock possibly replacing marriage in a church ceremony, and marriage the commonplace/universal name for same sex couplings or defacto relationships.

And possibly the best way out; given marriages can be and are performed in registry offices/before civil celebrants as common law civil unions; that are nonetheless registered as marriages!

At the end of the day, people who are unfortunate enough to be born different, have as much right to pursue their perceived happiness as anyone else!

We who are not so afflicted have absolutely no right to actively prevent or obstruct that!
Rhrosty.

Yes Don, a great deal of the welfare budget, & bureaucratic pensions, hang on whether people are officially married.

The same goes for inheritance & some taxation areas.

I am quite sure these facts are of more interest to many of the aspirants than anything emotional.

It's just a matter of time before marriage is privatised, it's inevitable. But after privatisation, Churches will no longer be able to rely on the government to support their congregations marriages, they will have to play a much bigger role in the Christian community because Christians will be looking for Church leaders guidance in all family matters rather than the wider culture. If Churches do this well, divorce rates among Christians should plummet.

I don't see how increasing the number of people getting married under the Marriage Act can do anything but strengthen it. And while I agree in principle that the government should butt out of our personal lives and take no interest or position on sexual relationships between consenting adults, realistically that's not going to happen any time in the next few decades. So given that heterosexuals who wish to bring their relationships to the notice of the government are permitted to do so, it seems to me to be unfair that homosexuals are not allowed to do the same.

Abbott has more than the "Christian right-wing vote" to worry about. I am an agnostic right-wing voter, and he has lost my vote because of his constant backflipping. He will backflip on this one too.

Graham makes a good point with de facto relationships. If they are good enough for normal couples, they are good enough for gay couples. Few people these days connect their unions with religion.

It keeps the politicians out; stops Australia being formally tossed into a moral cesspool as Ireland and other countries have been. The rest of us could go back to ignoring their shenanigans, and not have to own them in Australia's name.

My late partner of 22 years and I managed to have a generally harmonious and loving defacto relationship without any interference from the church and minimal input from the state. My partner's religious sister always referred to her as my "wife", even though she was unhappy with our arrangements. The law treated us the same as married couples, the doctors hospitals and Centrelink observed my status as next of kin without any restriction.
If Rhosty's information is correct, the only difference between us and a homosexual couple appears to be that our pensions were reduced because we were a heterosexual couple whilst a homosexual couple's pensions are not. Why then do they wish to get married?

David