What does it say about same-sex couples who want to cause so much fuss and so much expense to the taxpayer for so little gain? You could say it is about equality and discrimination but so too was the cake saga in Ireland. Is it really worth it and is that what they are really seeking?

They could be showing leadership by refusing to ask taxpayers to pay for the bureaucracy that sustains government involvement in marriage. Whatever practical disadvantages they have should be pursued according to principles of discrimination and justice but trying to go to all this trouble to change legislation seems to show a lack of integrity. By all means go after your genuine rights but do not create all this unrest for something that gives you nothing. Sure heterosexual people can get government issued marriage certificates but so what? What do they get out of it from the government that they would not get by being defined as a couple?

It is only practical issues that are the responsibility of government and taxpayers. The taxpayer is not liable to help you express your love or commitment to your partner or to support any of the emotional needs that you hope to solve by being married. That is not the purpose of the marriage act or the distribution of certificates to heterosexuals so it is wrong to say you want these things to give you equality.

Having ‘equality’ for its own sake is just childish. If you are not missing out then stop the whining and get on with real life

//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've offered this solution before, but it always seems to fall on deaf ears. Here is a perfectly good word to describe the union of two homosexuals, which is definitely not marriage:

Wed. It may be a bit old fashioned but I say we dust it off and put it back to use: 'Will you wed me?', 'Alice and Bonnie are wedded', 'You are invited to the wedding of Allan and Bob' all work for me.

Skywriters won't be happy though.

OK, but ...

Section 51(xxi) of the Australian constitution gives the Commonwealth power to legislate regarding "marriage." What government can resist the urge to exercise power delegated to it (although it took the Commonwealth 60 years to do so for marriage)? The outlook -- expect more meddling, Australian governments cannot control themselves.

Government registration of marriages serves some useful purposes, among which are the tracing of family trees, relationships etc., and as a consequence the tracing of inheritable health disorders and avoiding them through the information that is available from the Births, Deaths and Marriages Departments, information that s freely* available to all.

*In the sense of 'available' because some regressive States impose a charge.

That may have been an argument 60 years ago when few people just lived together but now its very common to not marry. Also married people are not the only ones who have sex and those unmarried people who do have sex are unlikely to check the genealogy of the person before they do.

phanto,

and the health issues?