'This is not an opportunity to engage in Triggs bashing, however much the neanderthal right might rejoice in such an opportunity.'

I see James it ok to quote her as a source and then spit the dummy when she gets caught out making up stories.

otb

' A poor show, ABC!'

really what more do u expect from the regressives. Abbotts biggest failure was to try and appease the humongus government funded leftist propaganda outlet.

to the conservative commenters above well said, to the leftists. is there any form of life lower than a leftist? are they determined to endanger every child in the land over their so called principles?

Hullo Martyn. If you read the article by Gerber et al that I cited in my first comment you will see why Joslin is now regarded as not being a very good authority and unlikely to be followed should a case with similar facts come before the Court.

@Arjay. Richard, my general stance is that people should be free to form their own relationships as consenting adults. The legal system has systematically discriminated against that choice. I am in favour of eliminating all forms of discrimination. If the diminishing minority want to keep "marriage" to themselves then the obvious solution is to abolish marriage as a legal concept and replace it with civil unions. Many countries have done just that.

Seeing this as some kind of leftist conspiracy supported by a left wing ABC (there's a laugh) only confirms Keatings recent observation about pre-Copernican retrogrades clogging up the public discourse.

James O’Neill:

“I am in favour of eliminating all forms of discrimination. If the diminishing minority want to keep "marriage" to themselves then the obvious solution is to abolish marriage as a legal concept and replace it with civil unions. Many countries have done just that.”

If this solution eliminates discrimination then why are same-sex couples not agitating for this solution? If as they state it is all about equality and discrimination then why not just create a level playing field by this method? Or is it actually about something other than discrimination?

What would it matter if the diminishing minority kept ‘marriage’ for themselves so long as there was no discrimination? Is it about ‘marriage’ or discrimination?

“The issue is whether or not people of the same sex should have the opportunity to enter into a relationship on a par with what used to be a more traditional form of union.”

How do you measure what par is? The only difference it seems is the lack of a government issued licence and since that licence gives you absolutely no practical advantage over couples who do not have a licence then what difference in reality is there?

Revising the definition of 'marriage' (or indeed any word) for political purposes has a number of useful effects. In addition to manipulating the thoughts and opinions of others, this method lends itself to revising the meaning of any number of important documents. The authors of the human rights declarations were NOT commenting on sexual orientation w.r.t marriage.

Today its human rights, next will be laws, scripture, books etc. Their original meaning can be swept aside by revising the definition of words. Laws can be changed for a fraction of the effort of doing it legitimately via legislation. Revising scripture is impossible without such a method. Book burning is no longer effective thanks to the digital age.

Tampering with our shared language for political advantage violates freedom of thought and freedom of expression; it is NOT OK.