For a long time now, I've wondered why anyone should still require the state to approve or register - or 'sanctify' - their marriage. Co-habitation between consenting adults should be worked out along their own lines and will, of course, be subject to other laws that offer protections in relationships. The Marriage Act is best rescinded. It's strange how the only groupings who seem strongly in favour of marriage as an institution are some conservative Christians and some 'militant' gay people. Minus the Marriage Act, gay people, and everyone else, would work it out for themselves. The religious would, of course, still marry in church, if that is their desire.

As far as I am concerned the word marriage means a union between a man and a woman. If homosexuals want a word or words to describe a union of two homosexuals they can find their own words. I am sure wordsmiths could offer plenty of suggestions.

They have pinched the word gay and now want to take the word marriage.

I do not care about what they do sexually or if it is legal, or if their union is legal, but the word marriage is already taken and has a definite meaning now.

A very good article, pragmatic and clear. Politically, at least Plibersek and Abbot have been consistent over the years, Bill Shorten is merely jumping on a bandwagon and thoroughly politicising the whole thing. We're I Abbot I would support the independent Lyonhelm bill, if for no other reason than when the world comes to an end because of the legislation there will be an individual to point to, not a 'party' as such.
Craig Minns makes complete sense here and I fall into his degree of 'care factor' I think. Just get it off the agenda, such a boor.
It will be tricky for the drafters of the legislation considering, as Don Aitken observes above and elsewhere, there is a 'thicket' of legislation hanging off the Marriag Act.

Suggesting major changes to the Marriage Act or even its repeal is certainly highly problematic and likely to take years.

Such a suggestion provides a multi-year means of delay to the gay marriage push - which benefits Abbott's position. He being as answerable to one Church as he is to the voting public.

Dear Planatgenet,

Care to explain what the "problems" are and why fixing them should take years?

If this is technically difficult, then to begin with, in the interim, only those clauses pertaining to the formation of new marriages shall be cancelled, replaced by "No further legal marriages shall be conducted in Australia". The rest, pertaining to existing married couples, can then be dealt with in an orderly manner and eliminated in due course.

My stand stands Y.