Shockadelic, and OTB, I don't care what Labor did or didn't do, as I don't vote for them.
With Ireland just voting in legal gay marriage, and the courts in America doing the right thing too (or maybe everyone in the court system in the U.S. Is gay Shockadelic?),
now is the right time to join them.

Shockadelic what are you on about with bisexual people and bigamy? No one is suggesting anyone will be allowed to marry more than one person at once, as that is against the law and a criminal offense. I really can't see anyone putting that suggestion forward to the Government, can you?

The fact remains that Abbott is using his own personal views about gay marriage to force all his Liberal colleagues to follow him, and that is wrong. At least labor got that part right.
They should be allowed a conscience vote, rather than putting forward an expensive referendum or plebiscite.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I desire to point out that the High Court of Australia has absolutely no judicial powers to amend the constitution and as such neither the meaning of "marriage".

Why a constitutional referendum is required regarding same sex relationships.

The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/275702976/20150824-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-TONY-ABBOTT-PM-Re-Same-Sex-Relationships-and-the-Constitution

As such the proponents of same-sex marriage may very well discover that even if they were to get Bill shorten in power and he then legislate within 100 days for the so called "same sex marriages" that it then has to be overturned because it is found to be unconstitutional. What should b e of concern to those promoting same sex marriages is that it must be pursued in a proper legal manner and not some quick fix solution that afterwards can be overturned

Dear Mr Gerritt,

Prior to 2004 - in the Marriage Act-
there was no legal definition of
marriage. John Howard in 2004 added the Amendment
to define marriage as being between "a man and
a woman to the exclusion of all others."
Are you suggesting to us that this was not legal?

Please explain as a Constitutionalist.

The word in the constitution must be interpreted as they had a meaning at the time of federation. Read my document to which I referred.
":.. The starting point for a principled interpretation of the Constitution is the search for the intention of its makers" Gaudron J (Wakim, HCA27\99)

"... But … in the interpretation of the Constitution the connotation or connotations of its words should remain constant. We are not to give words a meaning different from any meaning which they could have borne in 1900. Law is to be accommodated to changing facts. It is not to be changed as language changes. "
Windeyer J (Ex parte Professional Engineers' Association)

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka

As a “constitutionalist”, you don’t understand the constitution very well.

The Australian constitution gives the Commonwealth the power to legislate on marriage, and to override State legislation on marriage. It does not specify the content of that legislation, which is contained in the Marriage Act and which can be amended like any other piece of legislation, as Foxy describes.

In much the same way it gives the Commonwealth power to raise taxes, but the actual taxes it raises are detailed in other Acts of Parliament and amended routinely.

Thanks Rhian.