Could we not have two types of marriage, the religious get married in the temple and their congregation provides the benefits to the new couple. The other type is non-religious marriage via the state where tax payers provide the benefits...or don't we want all Aussies to be happy?

Given "Marriage" now includes gays, trans, multiple, cross-species, rubber doll and etc it's time for the government to get out of it.

Get over yourself and your bigotry and just put it to a plebiscite if you're convinced that you're right!Or is that what you're trying to avoid, with the endless obfuscation?
Rhrosty.

"It is not a simple matter therefore of changing the definition of marriage to accommodate same-sex unions but a very fundamental fabrication in the meaning of marriage as it applies to the vast majority of the population as well."

In the first place, 'fabrication' is probably not the word you are looking for here. (Although it could be appropriately applied to this entire article.)

In the second place, if your heterosexual marriages are really so fragile and pathetic that they can be materially damaged by letting other people have the same privileges you do, then the sooner they collapse the better.

I dont understand why gays want to "marry" anyway.

Marriage was designed, especially by the church, as an institution to continue patriarchy. A way for a man to dominate women and children.

Why would gay people want a part of that?

The author acknowledges that this topic is highly emotional, but then tries to calm us down saying: "the reasoning for change is big on emotion and little on substance".

I believe that this is because the author fails to see the full dimension of the issue. Indeed, whether or not homosexuals can receive a piece-of-paper from the government stating that they are married is by itself a storm in a teacup, but that's not the real issue, which I further believe that the author fails to see because he agrees with Obama:

"I agree with President Obama's proposition that all people are created equal. This is a biological and theological fact."

This is obviously nonsense - obviously no two people are equal. Yes, in the ultimate sense we are all the same one - God, thus we cannot be unequal, but in the relative sense, those humans we mistakenly think we are were never equal whichever way you want to look at them.

The author continues:

"To treat persons who are different to ourselves with anything less than respect and love is to deny the faith"

Sure, but treating a person with respect and love is quite different to treating them as equal.

Having agreed in principle as if all people are equal, what the author sees is just a petty quarrel in the family, whereas the real issue is that this is just one small battle in the big war of "equality".

The terrible thing about equality, is that in its attempt to deny the fruits of self-discipline and dedication, the "equality camp" denies the possibility of spiritual progress.