mil.observer,

Hitler was NOT gay. You should be calling yourself NIL.observer.

phanto,

I am a vegetarian. I do not claim my human rights are infringed because I am not called a carnivore. I do not need society to relabel me to ensure I have self-esteem. I am not persecuted and I do not care if other people think my vegetarianism is strange. I do not set up Australians for Meat Equality and demand to be called a carnivore.

The High Court changed the meaning of “marriage” in the Constitution in 2013. That is why we need a constitutional referendum to change it back.

People have taken to saying that a public vote that does not change the Constitution is a plebiscite, not a referendum. That claim is a recent invention. I refer all readers to the (https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C1916A00027) Military Service Referendum Act 1916, which did not seek to amend the Constitution. It seems only fitting that the redefinition of “referendum” be accompanied by the redefinition of “marriage”, though they are going in opposite direction, “referendum” becoming more restricted and “marriage” becoming, well, anything you like.

Those in the Abbott government arguing for a non-constitutional referendum or a so-called plebiscite want to appear to be doing something without actually doing it because, given the highly emotive arguments given widespread coverage and the name-calling designed to silence the opponents, there is no doubt that a simple yes-no plebiscite for same-sex marriage would be carried. However, if the issue were presented in a different way, the result would be less certain. A referendum to replace the word “marriage” in Section 51 with “civil partnership (being the union of any two adult persons voluntarily entered into for life to the exclusion of all others), including marriage (being the voluntary union of one man and one woman voluntarily entered into for life to the exclusion of all others)” would have a chance of being carried.

If there is a so-called plebiscite, it will be time to give up because that will tell you that those in the government who say they are opposed to same-sex marriage are not serious about it.

wearestardust,

If you want to go down the road of contingent meanings then, let’s call saucepans doctors. Let’s just follow Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass.

In our society “marriage” has always meant the union of one man and one woman.

“Franchise” has never mean “only enfranchising males with a certain amount of property and who are not, themselves, employees”. It has always meant, among other things, the right to vote, but various restrictions on that right have existed at various times and still do today.

“Roles” has never meant keeping “married women out of the workforce” though society did discourage them for a period. “Roles” means, among other things, the usual or accepted parts that people play in society. The particular roles change at different times, but the meaning of the word does not.

The whole discussion seems incapable of distinguishing between the meaning of a word and the restriction on access to the thing that the word denotes. This is best illustrated looking at the reasoning of those who bring race into it. When restaurants in the southern states of the US were forbidden to serve people of one race, they were still restaurants. Their nature did not change. When laws forbad a man of one race from marrying a woman of another, they were a restriction on access to marriage: i.e., a restriction on access to the union of one man and one woman. They were not changes in the meaning of marriage. It should be a simple matter to distinguish between what marriage is and who has access to it. As marriage is the union of a man and a woman, banning certain women from marrying certain men is a restriction on access, but not calling a non-marriage a marriage is not a restriction on access but acceptance that words have meanings.

Gay people are not treated less favourably because a word has one meaning and not another.