Oh good, a plebiscite, now we can all take the opportunity to punish politicians and the upper castes for their many transgressions against working people by voting no to same sex marriage.

Taking a stand 'on the high ground of free speech' would pale by comparison with the 'high ground of freedom of thought' IMO. For it is freedom of thought that is lost when the definition of a word is used as a device for inducing cultural change. I have a hard time accepting that no politicians can see the problem. (See https://goo.gl/RSwg9K)

As for 'the socialisation of homosexuality', I disagree. The push to revise the definition of marriage is an act of tyranny by extreme elements of the gay rights movement. Their power is demonstrated in how such an anti-freedom idea has gained so much traction. And "Marriage Equality" won't be the last step, it's only the next step because a tyrant cannot be appeased.

ttbn and Rhian,

The High Court did change the Constitution, not by changing a word in it, but by changing the meaning of a word in it.

When the people voted the Constitution into effect in 1901, everyone knew that the federal marriage power in Section 51 was a power over the union of a man and a woman. No one said that it was a power over the union of two men or two women or three saucepans. No one said it was a power over anything but the union of a man and a woman in 1911, 1921, 1931, 1941, 1951, 1961, 1971, 1981 or 1991. Then suddenly, after 113 years, this very clear power was changed by the High Court to mean the power over the union of two men or two women, but not yet three saucepans. That is a dramatic change to the Constitution.

There is no need for a referendum to “explicitly permit … same-sex marriage” because the federal parliament has already been granted that power by the High Court. There is no need for a referendum to “explicitly … forbid same-sex marriage” because that would be as silly as a referendum to “explicitly forbid” carnivorous vegetarianism. What is required is a referendum to restore the original meaning to “marriage” in the Constitution by inserting a definition that it is the union of a man and a woman. Of course, that won’t stop a future High Court ruling that “man” means “woman” and vice versa. No one with any power, including the supposed conservatives in the Coalition, is proposing such a referendum. That is why we need not take the MPs who claim to oppose the creation of “same-sex marriage” seriously.

None of this has anything to do with human rights or equality. Gay people are free to live together, celebrate their unions, be registered as a couple, inherit from each other and so on. Federal parliament is able to make laws regarding same-sex couples, and already has done so. The states are also free to legislate on same-sex unions but not to pretend that they are marriages. It’s just that the word “marriage” has a meaning and we ought not deprive the language of a word with that meaning.

What the same-sex marriage “debate” tells us is that you can eventually fool most of the people most of the time. The campaign was to steal a word, but presenting it that way would not work, so we had appeals to human rights and to equality, the creation of a victim group, the labelling of the campaign as “marriage equality” (thus claiming in advance the very thing that had to be proved) even in supposedly straight news reporting, stories of exclusion, intimidation of opponents by calling them bigots, religious fundamentalists and homophobes (by people who themselves had not given a toss for the non-issue 60, 50, 40, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago), a successful attempt to pigeonhole opposition as religious in a secular society and a massive favouring of the case for change by the media.

The campaign has been ruthlessly dishonest but brilliant, with even otherwise level-headed people falling for it in droves. One day the same techniques – without the dishonesty – might be used for something real.

Daffy Duck, as sad as it is when ANY child is abused in ANY way, the % rate at which children are abused in non christian organisations is much higher than it is in christian organisations & most especially in left wing organisations.

Rhian, wrong as usual, talk to a constitutional lawyer who is not left wing & you might get to the truth. Before 2004 nobody in their right mind thought that the marriage act needed to stipulate "between a man & woman". it has been that way for 10 to 15 million years & is in our constitution.

Old Man, hear, hear.

Yuyutsu, hear, hear.

plantagenet, hear, hear, although i prefer to point the finger at University these days. Leaders in all fields are almost exclusively university educated & have been getting everything wrong for at least half a century.

Chris C, there is another way, the ruling could be challenged by a team of conservative christian lawyers, as it is a corrupt ruling, "original intent" is a well established principle in constitutional law.

He doesn't need a strategy, the debate is well and truly over, bring on the plebiscite!
Rhrosty.