A well argued article, and I agree with the author that in 10 years time we will wonder what all the fuss about allowing gay marriage was all about.

Chris C "Gay marriage is the silliest thing to be taken seriously in my lifetime, but the campaign provides a lesson for those want real things: get the wording right and you can change anything."

It may be 'silly' to you Chris, but it was taken serious enough by the majority of Irish, Canadians, Americans and Kiwi's , so that gay marriage is now legal in those countries.
What makes you think Australians are going to be any different?

We are predominantly just as bright and enlightened as the people in those countries, so it is only a matter of time. I am just embarrassed that it has taken so much longer here. I think that it is because of Tony Abbott and his incredibly out of touch disciples on the front bench.......

Suseonline "I think that it is because of Tony Abbott and his incredibly out of touch disciples on the front bench......."

And Labor did what when it was in office? (Crickets chirping).

*ANY* MP can introduce a bill at any time.
Tanya Plibersek is quite vocal about this issue, and has been an MP since 1998.
She's had almost 17 years to present a gay marriage bill!
17 years of zilch, nada, zippo.

"the majority of Irish, Canadians, Americans and Kiwi's" did not choose these reforms.
They are the choices of parliaments or courts, not "the people".
Only in Ireland was there a referendum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-fourth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_(Marriage_Equality)_Bill_2015

"It was approved at a referendum on 22 May 2015 by 62% of voters on a turnout of 61%"
i.e only 38% actually supported it.

In California, "the people" did vote *against* it (Proposition 8) with a higher turnout than Ireland, but were overruled by the courts.
So much for trusting the "bright and enlightened" people of a democracy.

What of bisexuals?
They may "love" both a man *and* a woman, but bigamy prohibitions prevent one of those relationships being officially "recognised".

They must choose which they "love" the most.
How fair and equal is that?

Same-sex marriage is a conscience issue and an
important change that's being proposed.
Surely all sides of the debate have an equal
right to be heard instead of being demonised.

The following website gives an overview:

http://theconversation.com/why-Australia-is-so-far-behind-the-times-on-same-sex-marriage-42327

"Tony Abbott has exercised his conscience, in order to disallow others from exercising theirs, as if in mockery of the very concept".

Perhaps he got the idea from the Victorian Labor Government Hugh? In the 2008 abortion debate in the Victorian Parliament, the Labor Government, having treated themselves to a "conscience vote", voted away the right of conscientious objection of doctors and nurses to involving themselves in baby killing.....right up to birth Hugh. Just imagine ..we can't say " No, I don't want to be responsible for the death of this human being ..for the denial of the first human right..the right to life to a fellow human being." I am surprised you make no reference to this in your discourse on conscientious objection.

How were you on the rights of conscientious objection for those Australians, who, lead by the Labor Party's late Jim Cairns, had a personal conscientious objection to our engagement in the Vietnam War?

And to the concerns currently being expressed on the ABC's recent Q&A program by The Greens senator Larissa Waters (whose Victorian colleagues voted for the 2008 legislation denying a right to a conscientious objection for doctors and nurses) who now is concerned for a handful of doctors and nurses in detention centres such as Manus Island...not being free to speak out about their concerns relating to breaches of human rights there? Come on....we all know how politically partisan, inconsistent and downright hypocritiacl all this is !!

Suseonline, "I think that it is because of Tony Abbott and his incredibly out of touch disciples on the front bench"

That blows the gaff on the main push behind gay marriage, which isn't the homosexual community at all, but the two political parties in opposition, Labor and Greens, who are using 'gay' marriage as a wedge to realise their secondary agenda of winning power (the end justifies the means) and a small number of Gay Pride activists who aren't interested in what homosexuals want anyhow.

The Greens are a protest party. By definition the Greens not only have no interest in a comprehensive, integrated set of costed, practical policies, but have a vested interest in, well, serial protesting. - Headline hunting to get votes from youth lacking life experience and the easily led and disaffected - a motley collection of odd-bod 'rule breakers' (sociology), Housos and barking-mad political transients that Labor and Greens constantly fight over.

Labor under Willie Shorten is unrecognisable to the Labor rank and file who have been denied any real input by the faction bosses who run Labor for their own benefit.

The influence of the small number of young publicity-seeking Gay Pride activists would be nothing, squat, without the concerted effort of the organised left who will continue to use gays and gay marriage for their own secondary agenda.

when the left start to lecture on morals you either have to laugh or vomit. Wasn't it Gillard who opposed gay 'marriage' for so long. And for quite awhile there Shorten agreed with whatever Gillard said even if he did not know what she had said. Now we have saint Bill lecturing on morals. Please!