Rihan,
thanks for the link. I have downloaded it and will write to the authors that they do not appears to understand the true meaning and application of the constitution.
Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON.-I was going to explain when I was interrupted that the moment the Commonwealth legislates on this subject the power will become exclusive.
END QUOTE

Hansard 27-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE
Mr. BARTON (New South Wales).-If this is left as an exclusive power the laws of the states will nevertheless remain in force under clause 100.
Mr. TRENWITH.-Would the states still proceed to make laws?
Mr. BARTON.-Not after this power of legislation comes into force. Their existing laws will, however, remain. If this is exclusive they can make no new laws, but the necessity of making these new laws will be all the more forced on the Commonwealth.
END QUOTE

Therefore, the "concurrent" legislative powers no longer exist once the Commonwealth commenced to legislate.

I am used to come across so called constitutional lawyers (an oxymoron) who claim they know it all. On 19 July 2006 I comprehensively defeated the Commonwealth and state Attorney-Generals on compulsory voting. This on the basis compulsory voting is unconstitutional. The opponent lawyers all claimed they knew better but still lost the cases!
Without promoting homosexual marriages it nevertheless should be considered what is the use to force ahead some legislation as to homosexual marriage and then those who participate later discover that it was and remains unconstitutional and all their monies on the purported marriage ceremony was wasted?
As for John Howard I do not accept he changed the word marriage, but merely clarified what it stands for.
If marriage is merely because of "love" then well why should anyone be denied to marry whomever they love, even if it is a dozen or more people of different sexes? "Love their neighbour" doesn't mean you are going to marry your neighbour.

As for George Williams I understand he is an advisor to the Federal Government and well, as I indicated they lost nevertheless the cases in 2006

Playing with retarded children is so exhausting!

Your beehive-poking pushy totalitarianism is actually going to set back all the gains made in sexuality tolerance in the last 40 years.

Don't expect queer people to thank you when bashing incidents rise 5000%.

One poster seems to feel quite strongly
that "gay bashings" will increase by
5000 per cent if same-sex marriage goes ahead in this
country.

What an amazing thing to say.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

I thought that this sort
of neanderthal behaviour only occurred in countries with
medieval moralities. Not in a country like Australia
that is supposed to believe in social equity, compassion ,
and the idea of an egalitarian society - a "fair go"
for all.

Still, I suppose we have to accept the fact that there
are some men who would view their heterosexuality as a
primary measure of their masculinity and who would be
under the false impression that "bashing" anyone who
they see as a threat to their masculinity would for
them garner social approval (and alleviate boredom.)

Therefore we need to ask ourselves - are we really a
nation that glorifies violence and abhors sexual
diversity? Do we really perceive a minority that violates
gender norms as such a big threat? Does all this function as a
prop for some to use in demonstrating their masculinity?

I certainly hope not.

Hopefully, the majority of Australians have evolved much
further than that.

"One poster.."

Has a name.

Ever had a campfire?
What happens when you stir the dwindling embers?
The dying fire starts again!

Homophobia was dying a slow death in developed countries, but it's only been a short time historically since this evolution.

A "nation" doesn't go gay-bashing on Friday nights, never did and never will.
It only takes one psycho to ruin your day.

With the wave of an official wand, you expect these wasps to magically turn into butterflies and kiss you sweetly in gratitude.

Ever heard of feet of clay? Castles built on sand? Too much too soon?
There's a whole litany of phrases in our language for your arrogant fairytale.

Your entire ideology is based on clueless wishful thinking and "high horse"-riding.

It won't take a "nation" to bring it all tumbling down, just enough "medieval Neanderthals", who you welcome in droves at the airport every day.

I have every respect for homosexual people, but none whatsoever for gays!

So does Mr Gerrit, Shockadelic.

<<[One poster] Has a name.>>

But you still failed to use it before lashing out at him out of the blue the way you did.

<<What happens when you stir the dwindling embers?>>

What a silly way to prove your point. Ever used smoke on bees?

Intolerance is a complex human quality not necessarily analogous to fire.

<<Homophobia was dying a slow death in developed countries...>>

Was? It still is, and support for same-sex marriage is continuing to rise despite the push for it. You didn't see a rise in black-bashing with the civil rights movement in the US either.

You're a strange one, Shockadelic. On the one hand, you're against same-sex marriage because you fear that bigots won't have the liberty to be bigots. Then on the other hand, you're worried that the push for same-sex marriage will incite bigotry.

I can assure you that bigots having the liberty to act like bigots is far more likely to result in more bigotry than any push for equality. Especially in the long run.

Yuyutsu,

Please, don't keep us hanging. Tell us all what the difference between a homosexual and a gay person is.