Perhaps it could be that we let the churches handle marriage and welfare for Christians, and the State does marriage and welfare for the secular people. This would be a win for everyone.

the mere fact that most people support same-sex marriage is not a reason to change the law.

It is if you do your research in a Gay Bar. What a load of crap.

Always makes me laugh when religious people try to hijack reality.
Even in the Jewish-Christian-Islamic "tradition" you can't pin down what traditional marriage is.

Is it between one man and one women? Is it between one man and many women, how many women?

Many cultures in history have temporary marriages, unions between multiple partners and yes even gay marriage.

Dr. Jensen has his christian glasses on again, if fact he is unable or unwilling to take them off.

For most of human history we most likely had family structures similar to other primates and had no concept of marriage at all.

"..the mere fact that most people support same-sex marriage is not a reason to change the law, citing surveys which show most people also support the death penalty."

Absolutely true. And who says the majority supports homosexual 'marriage'? Polls? The media? The Left let's-wreck-the-joint mob? They are not the majority.

I saw a young comedian ask his audience who was in favour of same sex 'marriage'. Huge roar came up. When he asked who was against - nothing. He said "not game to say so, are you?". And that sums it up: the bullies scare the people who don't agree with them. The people who are behind this perverted rubbish are not a majority, but are small group of loud mouth thugs intent on bring down Western society. They can, and should be, put in their place by the majority.

The Australian Constitution is an Act of the UK Parliament passed at the request of the Australian Colonies and adopted by plebiscites in the colonies.
The colonies, when established, had been given by the UK parliament the power to pass laws for "the peace order and good government" of each colony.

Those colonies asked the UK parliament at the turn of the 19th into the 20th century to transfer power to make laws on certain subjects to a Federal Government. Among those subjects were defence ( of course) and "marriage"
In 1900 there was doubt whatsoever as to what marriage meant. It was an institution established for the nurture and education of children, a union for life between a man and a woman.

An Court which purports to deem valid any other definition of the word as used in the Constitution is stepping beyond its powers.It is not a matter of religion. It is a matter of fundamental law of the land. Such a Court would be making law not interpreting it.

Change without a referendum would be a breach of the basic principle of division of powers ( into legislative, judicial and executive) which is the basis of our liberty. Rousseau recognised this. Lincoln summarised it as" All power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Hitler , Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao proved how right he was.

A referendum in favour of the change must be passed b a majority of voters in a majority of the States for any change to be legally valid.

Homosexuals in recognised relationships already have all the same rights as married couples.

They just don't have the word "marriage".

They didn't want the word a decade ago. In fact they positively derided it and mocked the backwardness of traditional marriage.

So what's changed? What is it they want now that's different? In a word, "power". This is simply a method by the radical left to knock another pillar out from under the tried and true, conservative nature of our society. It seems to be working as noted in comments above where nobody is game to express their disagreement. Anybody who is against is derided. It's decidedly unfashionable. And the radicals will have stolen another word to add to "gay" or "queer" which used to mean other things.

The radicals are achieving true Islam, meaning "submission" and we can let them at our peril.

yep all the left wing polls showed that in Slovenia people wanted to pervert the meaning of marriage. When it came to the vote, well that was another matter. No reports from the gaybc or from other media outlets for that matter. And that was in late 2015!

I find that I am unable to support changing the law to allow same-gender marriage because the government has failed to learn from the harmful past adoption practices for which they have apologised. The well-being of children should always be paramount. I will not support same-gender marriage until the government first of all passes legislation to ensure that every Australian child has a truthful birth certificate. A birth certificate should represent the factors surrounding one's birth. Clearly it is not physically possible for a child to have two female parents or two male parents. Those people can be the child's legal guardians, but every child deserves to have a birth certificate which represents the truth about their birth.

I agree that it is almost 'inevitable' that the majority of non-Christian Australian electors will vote for same-sex marriage - it's almost a 'no brainer'.

However federal politicians should be lobbied by anyone with concerns about same-sex marriage if they personally will commit and fight for in their Party bureaucracy [i.e. not just meekly follow the Party line] that the plebiscite should and MUST ALSO ask 2. "Do you specifically agree that any Christian or other religion clergy/pastor/Muslim iman/Buddhist/Scientologist leader/monk/guru, etc CANNOT be forced to marry two people of the same sex in or out of their church/temple, mosque, etc place of worship if they do not wish to regardless of homosexuals/transvestites/whatever insisting that they must as per existing anti-discrimination law, UN human rights, etc etc. The Christian church and other religious leaders need to wake up, get real, fight fire with fire and mobilize using their numbers to get Individual voters to lobby their federal member to ensure that they are protected from having same sex marriage foisted on them . . . however I am not holding my breath.

Re Citizens Initiated action:

I would like to add that I agree with this condition. It is required as a matter of respect for the views of those who, like Dr. Jensen, object to same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds, or simply as a matter of conscience, whatever the reasons. I am not aware if any major reform groups are opposed to this protection, however, and would be astonished if it was not a central part of the legislation for a plebiscite.
Max Atkinson

If anyone pinched anything it's the wooly woofs using the word gay that was stolen from noddy or pinochio i can't remember which.
The word marriage is tied up with social welfare that is the importance of that word.

Bring on the plebiscite.And take pollies at their word they will honor the expressed will of the people, whatever that is.

And even if same sex marriage should be the wish of the majority, there will still be some trying by non democratic means to have it reversed.

Ditto real tax reform or almost anything else that involves accepting change or loss of unwarranted control!

As for the moral authority of the "church"! Parhaps it's time to outlaw pedophila, instead of covering it up then acting the pious outrage when same sex marriage between consenting adults is proposed!
Rhrosty.

579:

“The word marriage is tied up with social welfare that is the importance of that word.”

Social welfare is distributed on the basis of two people being a ‘couple’. The government does not distinguish between a couple and a married couple. That is why it has no need to know who is married and who is not. Much less does it need to be involved in facilitating marriages nor does it need to have legislation that has anything to do with marriage.

Same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite sex couples. If it is truly rights that they want then by and large they already have them and where they do not they should be given them. It is not however a ‘right’ to have your government define your relationship for you just because you would like them to. Governments have to maintain or change legislation about any issue in society only when there is some good reason to do so. You should define your own relationship yourself whatever the makeup of that relationship.

There is no good reason why you would want the government to issue you with a marriage certificate since everything it offers is already available to unmarried couples. There is no good reason for the government to be involved with defining marriage or certifying it. Everything is covered by their definition of ‘couples’.

At present the government actually discriminates against couples. There is a three page definition of what a couple is and they have to jump through hoops to be classified. A marriage certificate is, however, an express card to the rights that both couples should be entitled to. Married? No questions asked go straight to the head of the welfare queue.

Nobody can be forced to marry two people anyway: priests could be arrested and even tortured and killed, but they can still refuse and be martyred.

More likely, they will stop conducting marriages altogether, openly, but perhaps will still conduct them underground, which is much more respectable than the way they have been so far, cooperating like sheep with secular authorities and filling out their marriage forms.

Yes, it's about time for the church to separate itself from the state, then for example it doesn't matter what the state calls "marriage" for it's but a bad joke anyway.

It is important however, that those who were already married by the former definition, are able to cease being married (without having to separate for a year) as the terms and condition of this status have changed and are no longer what they agreed to.

As is normal "Runner" is lying try here for a more factual report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovenian_same-sex_marriage_referendum,_2015

Runner why wouldn't you mention the similar votes where the majority of voters who voted for gay marriage?

@ Jayb and others

Public support to legalise same-sex marriage is at its highest level in almost five years, a Fairfax/Ipsos poll reveals.

The poll finds 68 per cent of voters support gay marriage whereas one quarter, or 25 per cent, are opposed.

The evidence, and to read more: http://www.afr.com/news/politics/fairfaxipsos-poll-gay-marriage-support-at-record-20150614-ghnjhi#ixzz3xrxNXam

What the Gaybots want shouldn't be compulsorarily taken seriously.

Any Gaybot Marriage compulsory referendum won't happen at the 2016 Federal Election. Turnbull won't risk splitting the Liberals or splitting the Liberals from the Nationals.

Jason84:

Isn’t the question a bit misleading?

Do you support same-sex marriage? Well I would support same-sex marriage but I would not support government involvement in any marriage. The question depends on how you define marriage. Is marriage a relationship that must have government approval? Obviously it is not because many people call their relationship a marriage even though it is not certified by the government. They have a right to call their relationship whatever they want and no one can stop them.

The question presumes that only marriages approved of by the government can truly be defined as a marriage. Who are these questioners to make such a presumption?

This is how dishonest the debate can become. Same-sex couples bemoan the fact that they cannot get married but that is only true if you define marriage as a relationship that must be approved by the government. The problem is not with the law but with the definition of marriage.

The irony is that they complain because they think their opponents are narrow minded in their definition of marriage and yet they are equally narrow minded in demanding government approval

It really depends on where they do their research. Now If I went to a Gay Bar I could get a Poll that says 100% of people support GM. If I went to a Uni. Campus & did the Poll around the Halls where the GLBT's hang out I could get 100%. Now If they went to Connemara , Mount Morgan or the Kimberlies the percentage would be much lower. In fact non-existent. Would you agree?

That's why there should be a Plebiscite with one simple Question. Do you support Gay marriage. Yes/No. Then we would find out for sure. I would accept the verdict if it came out Yes. Would the GLBT crowd accept the No Vote. No way.

Strangely the GLBT crowd don't want this option to happen. Why?

Jayb:

"That's why there should be a Plebiscite with one simple Question. Do you support Gay marriage. Yes/No"

It is not a simple question. Given my last post I could not truthfully answer it. It should have to say "do you support a change in the legislation" to which I could truthfully say no.

The whole thing is a slap in the face to couples who demand nothing from the taxpayer. They do not have this irrational need for government approval. They should be the ones complaining the loudest about this outrageous waste of public money.

Marriage is a special relationship between a man and woman. Those that want to dispute that can go to buggery.

I think in this day and age in Australia the tired old Christian / religious argument has worn very thin. It’s a distraction and I don’t buy it.
As pointed out eloquently, marriage is a matter of law.

It seems to me that the biological duality as the essence of marriage throughout the world despite differing cultures is a reasonable point. Should that be thrown under the bus because it would seem to be discriminatory otherwise? The argument for same sex marriage is often presented as such.

Marriage is a question of eligibility not equality.
Just imagine if two male tennis players turned up to Wimbledon and insisted on their right to play mixed doubles. !
Is tennis discriminatory?

Should same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite sex couples?
Of course, but they fail the eligibility criteria when it comes to marriage.

Would MT want to go down in history as the PM who buggered up the Marriage Act?

Labor's Rudd and first woman PM, Julia Whatshername (the one with the $2million bungalow on the beach) didn't volunteer themselves or their governments as the ones to trash the Marriage Act and they had years to do it if they really wanted to.

Quite right Onthebeach, I think it will take a very brave PM like Turnbull to finally put this question to the Australian people and then act on their decision.

Personally, I couldn't care less if 2 consenting adults of the same sex want to get married or not. Who are we to deny them this chance of happiness if that is what they want?
If you don't like it, then don't marry someone of the same sex yourself!
It won't be compulsory, and the sky won't fall in...

Suseonline, " I couldn't care less if 2 consenting adults of the ..." Well why not 3, 4, ... consenting adults? It wouldn't be compulsory to get into a polygamous marriage and the sky wouldn't fall in.

Robocop

Yee should not be gruntled.

There should be no backdoor efforts towards "3, 4, ... consenting adults?"

Gaybots deserve respect today.

Phanto: It should have to say "do you support a change in the legislation" to which I could truthfully say no.

OK well. It should have to say "Do you support a change in the legislation to allow Gay Marriage in Australia." Yes/No.

The less words the more unambiguous.

Dustin: Should same-sex couples should have the same rights as opposite sex couples? Of course, but they fail the eligibility criteria when it comes to marriage.

Except for raising Children. A definite, No no.

SOL: and the sky won't fall in...

You don't know that. ;-)

Suseonline:

“Personally, I couldn't care less if 2 consenting adults of the same sex want to get married or not. Who are we to deny them this chance of happiness if that is what they want?”

But they already can get married. ‘We’ are not denying them. What they cannot have is a marriage certificate issued by the government. Do you think that the definition of marriage is a relationship which must be sealed by the issue of a certificate from the government?

It is impossible to have this discussion without making that distinction. You can’t have any discussion unless you agree on the meaning of words and it seems that the word marriage can have several meanings.

Too many people hide behind this ambiguity to make the situation for same-sex couples seem worse than what it is.

Jayb:

"The less words the more unambiguous"

Not in this case. The word marriage is ambiguous in meaning.

Phanto, the Government says we need an official marriage license, not me.
It is currently not legal for gays to marry.
But as you ask, no I don't think we need a Government approval to marry, but I guess they want to make sure there is no illegal bigamy, or underage marriage.

Dustin

Your argument is essentially circular – gays can’t marry, because marriage can’t be between two people of the same sex.

Many cultures throughout the world discriminate legally and culturally against women, as did ours until fairly recently. It doesn’t make it right.

Jayb said:
“Except for raising Children. A definite, No no.”

Well, there’s certainly enough mines already in that field; a topic all in itself.
Perhaps it’s because gay people don’t have parents? ;-)

It’s funny though . . I’d wager the same people who scornfully deride gender imbalance in parliament will blithely promote the opposite when it comes to marriage / family.

Rhian said:
“Your argument is essentially circular – gays can’t marry, because marriage can’t be between two people of the same sex.”

Nah, it’s not a circular argument. That’s what the law states. It’s quite clear and unambiguous.

Rhian said:
“Many cultures throughout the world discriminate legally and culturally against women, as did ours until fairly recently. It doesn’t make it right.”

Sure, and each society decides what is deemed to be appropriate for them. That’s not to say that we in Australia view all aspects of other societies or cultures as being wholly in line with ours either, but in general, the notion of man & woman as the marriage unit stands up very well and perhaps without peer.

And just to add, legal discrimination is just that; legal.
As such, same-sex marriage is illegal. The reason for that has to do with eligibility, not discrimination. And just to be clear, I use the non-pejorative meaning of the word ‘discrimination’.

I’m expecting you will be appalled to learn that Fernwood Fitness won’t accept my gym subscription merely because I’m male. It’s scurrilous, I tells ya . . . but where oh where is the outrage.
Is Fernwood Fitness discriminating against me or am I merely ineligible?

Dustin

You are right, that’s what the law says. But it is not an argument for why the law shouldn’t change, so it begs the question - a form of circular argument.

And, I accept that there are sometimes good reason for discrimination to be lawful. But I don’t think there are good reasons for marriage discrimination to be mandated by law.

Historically, marriage as a union of man and woman worked well. But the world has changed. We understand homosexuality differently, as intrinsic to a person, not a lifestyle choice. Contraception, no-fault divorce and the social acceptability of de facto relationships have eroded the presumption that marriage is an indissoluble arrangement and the only socially acceptable context for sexual activity in a world where sex always held the possibility of pregnancy. Most marriages are now conducted as civil, not religious ceremonies. Marriage has already changed radically in the last few decades.

Many countries have legalised gay marriage, and that seems to be standing up pretty well too.

Like others in this thread I would support the right of churches to refuse to conduct marriages, just as the Roman Catholics are currently free to refuse to remarry divorcees (though as an active churchgoer, I hope they choose to embrace gay marriage). But I don’t think there is a valid reason for the state to discriminate.

Rian: We understand homosexuality differently,

No, we are being forced by Political Correctness to understand homosexuality differently. Sort of "a little bit pregnant."

ok .. maybe not everyone, as these discussions attest. But surveys consistently show majority support for gay marriage. Your claim that these survey have biased samples seems a bit unlikely to me; but as you point out, when we have our plebiscite, we’ll find out.

Suseonline:

There is not much point in the government having a law against bigamy when you cannot stop people from enjoying everything that a bigamist has. You can be legally married to one person as well as be living as a couple with someone else so you haven’t nullified anything by your law. You just cannot have two marriage certificates but since the certificate offers no benefits that you cannot already claim as a member of a couple then it is of no consequence whether or not there is a law against having two certificates. You cannot claim benefits from the government for two relationships whether they are legal or not legal so the bigamy part of the law is irrelevant.

Similarly you cannot prevent two people who are under the legal age of marrying from living together and enjoying all the benefits that an over age couple can enjoy. Under age couples will get no benefits either way. If you are trying to prevent under age sex then laws already exist to deal with that issue.

Rhian:

“But surveys consistently show majority support for gay marriage.”

Support for same-sex marriage is not the same as support for homosexuality as something intrinsic. That is exactly the interpretation that homosexual people want to put on any change to legislation. That is the whole point of the exercise because they themselves are not convinced it is intrinsic at all. Perhaps many people just want to shut them up and move on and they are sick of the whole debacle. This is as good a reason as any other for supporting them.

Phanto
Yes, you’re right, it is certainly possible to see homosexuality as intrinsic and still oppose SSM. I believe, though, that the reason we now see majority support for same sex marriage is that people’s views on the nature of homosexuality have changed.

Rhian:

“Yes, you’re right, it is certainly possible to see homosexuality as intrinsic and still oppose SSM.”

That is not what I said. I said that just because people support same-sex marriage it does not follow that they support the view that homosexuality is intrinsic.

It also does not follow that people who say they support same-sex marriage actually do so. Polls like this do not take into account that people may well be afraid to say what they truly think or they are trying to gain peer acceptance or some other benefit that has nothing to do with the issue. This issue has seen an unprecedented amount of bullying and intimidation by those who support same-sex marriage. Like many politically correct opinions it is impossible to say whether people agree because there is a reasonable argument or because they are afraid not to.

Because of all the emotional manipulation same-sex couples will never really know whether those who vote for them actually agree with them. They may well get the law changed but that is not what they really want – they want acceptance of their homosexuality. That is all they could possibly want since the change in legislation will give them nothing they cannot already attain without such a change.

So they will never be satisfied by being able to get married. Acceptance does not come from law but from the hearts of those from whom they want acceptance and you cannot make that happen. As we have seen in other countries that have same sex marriage they then want more control over law in another vain attempt to get acceptance. No matter how many laws they can bully legislators into changing it will never give them what they want or need. The only place they need to look for acceptance is in their own hearts and not the courts or parliaments of the world.

"Against marriage reform"

Goebbels would have been proud of that spin and it is only the heading.

Rhian wrote:
"You are right, that’s what the law says. But it is not an argument for why the law shouldn’t change, so it begs the question - a form of circular argument."

Again, no. Begging the question is a fallacy based on assuming the conclusion as part of the premise. It is the structure that defines the fallacy, which as you say, would constitute circular reasoning.

The law (the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman) is a statement.
It’s not a claim nor an argument, and it doesn’t contain that structure.

However that’s not to say that you might not argue about the validity or appropriateness of the actual law itself.
I suspect that’s what you’re driving at.

Phanto I think you are wrong in attributing any sort of 'bullying' causing an apparent majority of same sex marriage supporters.

If we look at Ireland as an example of a majority Catholic population that voted in same sex marriage last year, it is a well known fact that a big backlash against the Catholic Church hierarchy, for all the lies they told their 'flock' , was at the heart of that vote.
My husband is Irish and he has been told this by all his friends and family still living in Ireland.

At the end of the day, we are all alone with our pencil in the voting box...we can all vote for or against same sex marriage if we are given the opportunity, and no one will ever know what each individual votes for at all. No bullying will be involved.

Rhian wrote:
“And, I accept that there are sometimes good reason for discrimination to be lawful. But I don’t think there are good reasons for marriage discrimination to be mandated by law.”

“[…]Marriage has already changed radically in the last few decades.[…]”

Points taken but currently, the eligibility issue is an embedded and defining characteristic of the law.
It may well be more a paradox but it doesn’t embody discrimination.
The discrimination argument is itself a fallacy - it’s a Strawman.
I know . . it is nuanced eh.

Presumably the argument is that given marriage has evolved beyond all recognition over the course of history it’s in need of being ‘updated’. Of course this is another fallacy - Non sequitur.

Certainly all those changes you list have taken place.
Now let’s ask ourselves what is the one (OK, probably more than one) thing that has remained constant through all those changes?
Let’s also ask ourselves why that is so?

The point being that one would need to construct a compelling argument as to why a small minority of people who aren’t eligible, would suddenly become qualified when the institution in question was never intended to address them in the first place.

Perhaps the next question should be; is this inclusion a need or a want?
Let’s be specific. Is it really equality that’s sought?

My sense is that if we were to clear away all the hyperbole, we’d discover the want / need is for acceptance and affirmation of worth more broadly, and the call for ‘Marriage Equality’ is perceived to provide the validation for it.
The question then becomes; would it?
I’m thinking that marriage doesn’t validate straight people and it won’t validate gay folk either.

Suseonline:

“it is a well known fact that a big backlash against the Catholic Church hierarchy, for all the lies they told their 'flock' , was at the heart of that vote.”

Well then they voted to change the law for the wrong reasons. Revenge is no good reason to do anything. They should vote for same-sex marriage because it is reasonable to have same-sex marriage not because they are trying to ‘hurt’ the Catholic Church. There is no satisfaction for homosexual people to know that people used their issue to respond to a completely unrelated grievance.

What is important is the reasons why people say they support same-sex marriage and fear of being ostracized by your peers is a major factor in this issue in my opinion. Sure in the ballot box it is ultimately up to you what you vote for but if you have told your peers one thing and you vote another then it sets up a stress between lying to yourself and lying to your peers. The only way to avoid that stress is to be honest with your peers and yourself.

Not sure if I understand Dustin’s point, but he appears to be saying the law does not discriminate against gays because ‘eligibility’ is embedded in and defined by the law. But the debate is about what the marriage law ought to be, not what it currently is. Likewise, the discrimination argument is not based on the evolution of marriage, but on the lack of any good reason to exclude same-sex couples. As the article tried to make clear, there is a difference between civil or state marriage and religious marriage.

Well said Maxat. You provided sound reasoning.

Phanto, I doubt the gay community in Ireland will give a damn why most people supported gay marriage in the vote there.
There is no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Suseonline:

“Phanto, I doubt the gay community in Ireland will give a damn why most people supported gay marriage in the vote there”

Well that would just show how desperate and unprincipled they are. If they don’t give a damn then why did you present the backlash against the Catholic Church as an argument? It doesn’t matter what the arguments are so long as they get what they want? Then why argue about the issue at all?

“There is no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to marry.”

What has reason got to do with anything if they do not give a damn?

In any case they are ‘allowed’ to marry – you do not need the government’s permission to marry. You have already said that yourself.

maxat said:
“Not sure if I understand Dustin’s point, but he appears to be saying the law does not discriminate against gays because ‘eligibility’ is embedded in and defined by the law.”

Yes, that’s as I understand the law.

maxat said:
“But the debate is about what the marriage law ought to be, not what it currently is.”

Agreed, of course.
Perhaps I’ve been rabbiting on a little but it’s apparent that not everyone understands how the current law is framed. I think it’s vital to know precisely what’s being discussed if it’s to be considered further.

maxat said:
“Likewise, the discrimination argument is not based on the evolution of marriage . . . […]”

It doesn’t matter. The discrimination argument doesn’t fly because discrimination hasn’t been established.
Again, the Marriage Act incorporates an eligibility criteria within the ‘man & woman’ definition.
Any man or woman (and presumably any one identifying as GLIBT - dunno) can be married as long as it’s to the opposite sex - the eligibility criteria.
Consequently, no person is being subjected to discrimination but they are being subjected to an eligibility criteria.

We already have anti-discrimination laws and they accept what might be termed ‘legal discrimination’.
This is in play when I seek to join Fernwood Fitness.
It’s in play if I want to play mixed doubles tennis partnering with me old mate Dave.
Eligibility criteria are pervasive in every day life from education access to toilets to public housing etc. etc.

maxat said:
“[…] . . but on the lack of any good reason to exclude same-sex couples.”

That’s the same argument repeated but using the word “exclude” instead of the word “discriminate”.

The law doesn’t have any built in defence mechanism but it certainly may be challenged.
To do that, one would need to argue that same-sex couples should be included, perhaps not why they are allegedly excluded, because I don’t think the case for apparent exclusion could get off the ground. I’m no lawyer though.

Dustin,

Discrimination doesn’t need to be established in a court of law to exist.

<<The discrimination argument doesn’t fly because discrimination hasn’t been established.>>

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/discrimination). Therefore, not allowing same-sex marriage is, by definition, discrimination if a just reason cannot be given for the unequal treatment, and, so far, that has not yet been done.

<<...one would need to argue that same-sex couples should be included...>>

No, the onus is actually on the nay-sayers to provide a rational reason as to why same-sex couples should not be allow to get married. That’s the way rights work. They’re not withheld until it can be shown that they will NOT be a problem, they’re granted until it can be shown that they ARE a problem.

In the total absence of any rational arguments against same-sex marriage, however, equality alone is an adequate reason to allow it.

AJ Philips,

Nope. The nay-sayers, as you put it, aren’t obliged to lift a finger. I expect they will rely on the contract.

The Federal Govt. enacts legislation and theoretically at least, everyone get’s to vote.That’s the way it works the last time I looked.
Perhaps a referendum is the way to go. With all that community support and everything it should be a doddle, right? I’d be perfectly happy to respect the constitutional authority of the people.

Anyway, there’s already provision for gay marriage; it is called De Facto. No one is banning any particular relationship. Remember we’re talking about ~4% of the population representing ~1% of all couples in Australia.

Incidentally, what might same-sex partners bring to the table in terms of the marriage institution more broadly? Is there perhaps a cultural quality I’ve missed?
Would same-sex marriage be viewed by society as equally legitimate? You know . . equality being the aim here right?

Perhaps we should endorse polygamous marriages under some future legislation? . . . in the name of multiculturalism, diversity and inclusiveness?

Would we deny polygamists their rights and not discriminate?
I hope we aren’t going to demean, marginalise and humiliate these folk as well.

I expect we’ll need a committee to explain to all the existing people that their marriage which predates our constitution has been redefined to accommodate the ~1% of same-sex couples who may or may not want to get married. I’ll get the spin doctors straight (no pun intended) on to it.
We’ll also need to have school guidance counsellors let all the kids know that having two fathers or two mothers is . . well . . progress. Then again, in this brave new world of revisionism, kids are irrelevant too, I suppose. Excellent . . let’s make everything optional.
But there’s going be a leaflet drop at the very least, right?
What about a little red book? That could work.

I’m sure all the cascading ramifications have been carefully thought through, yeah?
Good . . . because it certainly hasn’t been a feature of the campaign so far.

AJ Phillips,
Thanks for such a clear and succinct contribution, and a reminder of the difference between rational argument and argument by unsupported assertion; it’s also refreshing to see a contributor using his or her real name. Max Atkinson

AJ Philips:

But they already can get married. What they cannot have is a marriage certificate issued by the government. Do you think that the definition of marriage is a relationship which must be sealed by the issue of a certificate from the government?

It is impossible to have this discussion without making that distinction. You can’t have any discussion unless you agree on the meaning of words and it seems that the word marriage can have several meanings.

Maxat:

Why is it refreshing to see people use their real names? Does it make their argument any more or less valid? How do you know they are using their real names anyway?

Inequality in marriage does it exist. Inequality is the name of the game one is female and one is male.
Equality in marriage is a man marrying a man. Not something I see as necessary in society. In fact I find it disgusting. So let them go about what ever they do without disruption to others.
So why all the fuss if you want to live with another man go ahead. Surely what man and woman do is none of your concern. We do not throw alternate persons from high rise buildings here so do what you will.
I say there should be no decision here for 20 years, some places have gone that way so lets see what complications arise before making any commitment

//I’m sure all the cascading ramifications//

Cascading down a slippery slope, apparently.

You might as well say that funerals discriminate against the living because you have to be dead to have one.

The linguistic distortions in the “same-sex marriage” issue are fascinating. We are told that “same-sex marriage” should be legalised, but it cannot be legalised because it is not illegal in the first place. Speeding is illegal. There is a fine if you speed. There is no fine for “same-sex marriage”, just as there is no fine for carnivorous vegetarianism. “Same-sex marriage” does not exist and has never existed in our society. We are told that gays should be “allowed” to marry as if there is some law that says a gay person may not marry. There is no such law and they already are allowed to marry. If instead of marrying, they want to form a lifelong commitment with a person of the same sex they may do so.

The Constitution granted the federal parliament the power to make laws regarding marriage. Everybody knew that the power to make laws regarding marriage was a power to make laws about the union of a man and a woman. Nobody believed that it was a power to make laws about the union of a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The Marriage Act did not have to define marriage because it has a centuries-old common law definition. The concept of “same-sex marriage” did not exist. The Coalition and the ALP, without dissent, inserted the common law definition in the Marriage Act in 2004 to forestall a judge inventing a new definition of marriage. The High Court took it upon itself in 2013 to amend the Constitution, not by changing any words in it but by changing the meaning of the word “marriage”. Those who think this is wonderful would be appalled if the High Court changed the meaning of words in a way they did not like (as it did in allowing the corporations power to override the very clear meaning of the industrial relations power in regard to Work Choices).

The language used in this debate is meant to trick voters to favour the creation of “same-sex marriage” because of the way it frames the issue, but the underlying reality is different. Even the use of the word “reform” in the title of this article is part of the same trick.

Human rights, discrimination, equality and all the other emotive terms used in this issue are irrelevant. “Marriage” has a clear meaning. The “same-sex marriage” campaign confuses access to something with the nature of the something. A funeral is the celebration of the life of someone who is dead. A living person can have a celebration of his or her life, but it is not a funeral. Funerals do not discriminate against the living because by their nature they are about the dead. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so, by definition, a man cannot “marry” – i.e., form a union with a woman – another man. A man can live with another man, have a celebration, have legal recognition, inherit property from a same-sex union, etc. But that does not mean the language should be deprived of a word that means the union of a man and a woman, any more than it should be deprived of a word that means the bearer of children or a word that means the celebration of the life of a dead person.

Hmmm.... just some thoughts.

I suppose they could get married. It's the act of "Buggery" that is a separate offence. Is it still an Offence? Over to you AJ. Just yes or no will do. OK. No getting bogged down in a myriad of Legal technicality & interpretation please.

I suppose there is the thing where I would go along if I got caught buggering someone. Where-as, if a Judge got caught that would be a different Interpretation. Eh.

Dustin,

The nay-sayers do need to “lift a finger” if they don’t want same-sex marriage legislated, and for the reasons I’ve already mentioned.

<<The nay-sayers … aren’t obliged to lift a finger. I expect they will rely on the contract.>>

An Act is not a contract, and to rely on a piece of legislation to support one’s position is to commit the argumentum ad antiquitatem fallacy.

<<The Federal Govt. enacts legislation and theoretically at least, everyone get’s to vote.That’s the way it works the last time I looked.>>

Sure, but that has nothing to do with who the onus is on to demonstrate the justness or not of denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

<<Remember we’re talking about ~4% of the population representing ~1% of all couples in Australia.>>

What does the percentage of people have to do with anything?

<<Incidentally, what might same-sex partners bring to the table in terms of the marriage institution more broadly?>>

Why does there need to be one? How isn’t equality enough of a reason?

<<Would same-sex marriage be viewed by society as equally legitimate?>>

Probably not by some individuals initially, but that’s already changing rapidly and it hasn’t even been legislated for yet.

<<Perhaps we should endorse polygamous marriages under some future legislation?>>

This is a Slippery Slope fallacy that I’ve already addressed multiple times before. But I’d be happy to go into it again for you.

<<Would we deny polygamists their rights…?>>

Probably, because polygamy is usually a religiously-dictated arrangement that often involves rape and incest.

As for this tiresome old Won’t-somebody-please-think-about-the-children angle you’ve taken, I’ve already addressed this at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17371#306701 and http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17786#314763.

Besides, same-sex couples are already having children. Legally recognising these children’s parent’s relationships too can only be a good thing.

phanto,

Whether same-sex couples can already get married according to a particular definition or not is beside the point. Trivial/symbolic or not, when a privilege or recognition is legally/formally granted to one group of people and not another without good reason, then it's discriminatory, and discrimination is not conducive to societal health, nor is it just.

AJ Philips:

“Whether same-sex couples can already get married according to a particular definition or not is beside the point. Trivial/symbolic or not, when a privilege or recognition is legally/formally granted to one group of people and not another without good reason, then it's discriminatory, and discrimination is not conducive to societal health, nor is it just.”

So do you think that they want to have equality for its own sake or do they actually want to get married? Equality for its own sake is meaningless unless it actually conveys something that you do not already have. What is it then that government sanctioned marriage conveys that that non-government sanctioned marriage does not?

Unless you can point to something specific then we can only assume they are after something other than marriage.

Just because something is granted to one group by the government does not mean that it is reasonable for them to do so. Governments do not always act reasonably. So if it is unreasonable for governments to be involved in opposite sex marriage then would it not also be unreasonable to be involved in same-sex marriage? What reasons do you see for government involvement in marriage?

Jayb,

No, anal sex has been legal for a while now.

phanto,

Why should you or I care what motives drive their push for equality?

<<So do you think that they want to have equality for its own sake or do they actually want to get married?>>

That would depend on the individual. Not all feminists who fought for the right for women to join the military wanted to join themselves, but that didn't make their case any less valid.

<<Equality for its own sake is meaningless unless it actually conveys something that you do not already have.>>

What do you mean by "convey"? Do you just mean "provides"? If so, then equality is a reason in itself given its demonstrable benefits and lack of downfalls.

<<What is it then that government sanctioned marriage conveys that that non-government sanctioned marriage does not?>>

Again what do you mean by "convey"? Do you mean "communicate" this time? If so, then it conveys the ideal that society as a whole accepts committed same-sex relationships as valid too.

<<Unless you can point to something specific then we can only assume they are after something other than marriage.>>

That's a lot of authority you give me there, but it cannot be presumed that I speak for the whole movement.

<<What reasons do you see for government involvement in marriage?>>

What does it matter? I don't care if the government is involved in marriages or not. But so long as they are, they should not discriminate against same-sex couples.

This whole 'What is the government doing in the marriage business anyway?' argument is disingenuous. It only really became an issue when same-sex couples stated demanding equality. I don't recall too many demanding that the government get out of the 'marriage business' before that. Wouldn't it look petulant to abolish any legal recognition of marriage simply because same-sex couples wanted the right to marry too? Imagine the legacy such an offensively childish move would leave.

There you go. There's another reason why marriage equality would be conducive to a healthier society.

A G Phillips
Your patience and perseverance seem to be matched only by the good sense and clarity of your explanations. Thanks for a great contribution to the ongoing debate. Max Atkinson

Hi Max Atkinson,

Thanks for the kind words. They're truly humbling. It's great to see an author contributing to discussion threads too.

Chris C,

Just adding to your first para, it is Hegelian Dialectics and 'the end justifies the means'.

Dishonest and powerful.

Phanto
How can you gain peer acceptance by lying to a pollster? Those surveys are always anonymous, so your peers don’t know what you told them.

You say “the change in legislation will give them nothing they cannot already attain without such a change.” Well, it will give them the right to marry the person they love. That may be “nothing” to you, but as someone who has been married for 30 years, it is not “nothing” to me.

Dustin
The discrimination issue is not a straw man. If we passed a law saying that redheaded people could not marry, that would be discrimination, even though that would also be an eligibility matter embedded in the law, and even though it would only affect a “small number of people”. I accept that treating people different is not necessarily discrimination, and that not all cases of legal discrimination are unfair or wrong (the law treats children and adults differently for good reason). But I am arguing that, in this case, the law is both discriminatory and unfair.

And the definitional defence of traditional marriage is indeed circular. It is precisely the definition of marriage that is at issue. There’s a good discussion of this issue here:

http://volokh.com/posts/1130939774.shtml

My argument that marriage has already changed was directed at your contention that biological duality is the “essence” of marriage. Marriage is not an enduring constant, but a thing whose meaning and purpose changes with culture and context. The changes we have observed in our own culture, and the diversity of arrangements that have been deemed “marriage” in different times and societies (including same-sex marriages), demonstrate that it has no immutable “essence” (for the diversity of marriage practices, see Elizabeth Brake’s “Minimizing Marriage: Marriage, Morality, and the Law”).

You say marriage was never “intended to address” gay couples. Historically, marriage was a pragmatic alliance that secured the accumulation and orderly inheritance of property and gave a socially sanctioned context for sexual activity and child-raising (see Stephanie Coontz, Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage). Marriage is no longer necessary for any of these

“Well, it will give them the right to marry the person they love. That may be “nothing” to you, but as someone who has been married for 30 years, it is not “nothing” to me.”

Well that is a slap in the face to the millions of couples who are not married! It is also nothing to them. It is something to you though. Your love is better than their love just because you are married? I have seen some pretty ugly marriages and some truly beautiful relationships where the couple were content with their love and did not need a piece of paper to prove anything. It is the love that counts and not the certificate and who are you to say who experiences more love?

If being married adds so much to the relationship then how do you explain why so many people no longer get married? Are you somehow better than them? Are same-sex couples who want to marry better than those who do not or are they just more insecure? If love is the only thing that matters then there is no point in getting married at all. No one ever got married because they love each other – they already love each other before they got married. They do it because of social convention, to ‘’legitimise’ their children (another social convention), to get benefits from the government and those things you mentioned at the end of your post.

Society has moved on and the only people who want to get married are those too insecure to stand up to social convention or so insecure that they need some useless certificate to hold claim over their partner.

AJ Philips:

“Why should you or I care what motives drive their push for equality?”

Because you would want to be sure they have no ulterior or sinister motive that you are supporting.

They are not just pushing for equality – they are pushing for marriage equality. Only a fool would push for equality when it has no benefits attached to being equal. So presumably they see benefits in having marriage equality. Everyone interested in the debate assigns motives whether they are voiced openly or not. Opponents of same-sex marriage are often labelled ‘homophobic’ and so the use of that word implies that they have a motive and that it is a dislike or fear of homosexuals in general. The push for equality, as you have said, creates a better society so the motive is to work towards a better society.

No one argues that equality as a value is a good thing but equality only has value if it gives something to a group which they do not already possess. The question is what does government sanctioned marriage give to same-sex couples which they do not already possess?

There is no point in having something which gives you nothing in return except for a piece of paper which also give you nothing in return – it is just a piece of paper.

“ then equality is a reason in itself given its demonstrable benefits and lack of downfalls.”

So equality has to give demonstrable benefits. Equality is nothing without these benefits. Equality is just a social construct meaning the equal distribution of some rights but rights give you something – like the freedom to move from place to place or to attend the ballot box. What are the demonstrable benefits of a marriage certificate?

cont.

cont.

“...society as a whole accepts committed same-sex relationships as valid too.”

Why would same-sex couples need this or even want it? Why does it matter what society thinks of your personal relationship? It is no one else’s business. A great many opposite-sex and same-sex couples do not care what society thinks so they don’t bother to get married.

“That's a lot of authority....”

Why would I presume you speak for the whole movement? It sounds like you are being evasive.

“... I don't care if the government is involved in marriages or not.”

Don’t you think you should care if you are going into bat for same-sex couples? If governments should not be involved then it is a pointless pursuit. If they should be involved then why do you think that is? What else do you write about that you don’t really care about?

” But so long as they are, they should not discriminate against same-sex couples.”

If governments are involved and it is irrational for them to be so then you think it is logical for them to be involved in even more irrational behaviour by including same-sex couples?

“This whole 'What is the government doing in the marriage business anyway?' argument is disingenuous.”

It is hardly disingenuous if one of the parties that need to co-operate in order to bring about same-sex marriage is the government. Would you go to the dentist without checking if he has a right to be involved with your teeth?

“It only really became an issue when same-sex couples stated demanding equality.”

Well that might be true but it does not make it any less relevant. Government involvement in people’s lives should be always under question and if events occur that bring that into question more readily well that is ok.

“Wouldn't it look petulant to abolish any legal recognition of marriage simply because same-sex couples wanted the right to marry too?”

That would not be the reason they would do it. They would do it because it was no longer reasonable for them to do so.

Phanto

I neither said nor meant that married love is superior to other love; simply that marriage is something deeply valued by many of us who are married, and I see no reason to prevent homosexual couples enjoying it too if they want. Others can choose whether to marry or not.

I agree with you about the changing nature of marriage and its separation from child-rearing; I have made similar points myself. Your argument is against all forms of marriage, not just same-sex marriage. That’s a perfectly rational stance, though one I disagree with. But it is not an argument for only forbidding same-sex marriage. You say marriage equality is of no benefit to gays, because you assume marriage has no value to either gays or straights. But even if you see marriage as of no value, why deny it to others (gay or straight) who do value it?

And while social values are changing, more than half of Australians aged 18+ are married. It is less unpopular than you seem to imply.

phanto,

There may be some with sinister intentions (I'd doubt there are any - sounds more like homophobic paranoia to me), but not all gay people think alike and there are bound to be some who are sincere.

<<They are not just pushing for equality – they are pushing for marriage equality.>>

The distinction is inconsequential to my argument. That should have been clear by now.

<<Only a fool would push for equality when it has no benefits attached to being equal.>>

There are always benefits attached to equality, and they always outweigh the risks. In all my studies involving sociology, I have never come across a scenario that contradicted this simple truth.

<<No one argues that equality as a value is a good thing...>>

I have not spoken of equality as a value, I've only mentioned the practical benefits of it (e.g. societal health, social contentment). Equality could be an immoral pursuit for all I care. It wouldn’t change anything.

<<...but equality only has value if it gives something to a group which they do not already possess.>>

Yes, and in this instance, directly or indirectly, this will benefit everyone to one degree or another. Not just those in the group.

<<The question is what does government sanctioned marriage give to same-sex couples which they do not already possess?>>

Marriage equality.

<<There is no point in having something which gives you nothing in return except for a piece of paper which also give you nothing in return – it is just a piece of paper.>>

That's your opinion. Others, like Rhian and myself, see value in it. For me, it's symbolic.

<<What are the demonstrable benefits of a marriage certificate?>>

There doesn't need to be any. It's the recognition that same-sex couples are worthy of them too.

But this is all very disingenuous. If there are no benefits to a marriage certificate, then why do you care if same-sex couples are able to obtain one? Somehow I don't think you're trying to do them a favour.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Why would same-sex couples need this or even want it? Why does it matter what society thinks of your personal relationship?>>

Because no-one should be treated like a second-class citizen.

<<It is no one else’s business.>>

So long as we all have to live together, it's everyone's business.

<<Why would I presume you speak for the whole movement?>>

Read what you said again.

<<It sounds like you are being evasive.>>

No, I've made it clear that a lack of any direct benefits would make no difference to my argument.

<<Don’t you think you should care [if the government is involved in marriages or not] if you are going into bat for same-sex couples?>>

No, why would I?

<<If governments should not be involved then it is a pointless pursuit.>>

Correct. "But so long as they are, they should not discriminate against same-sex couples." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17967#319321)

<<If [the government] should be involved then why do you think that is?

Equality and all the benefits that it entails.

<<[Concern about the government being in the 'marriage business'] is hardly disingenuous if one of the parties that need to co-operate in order to bring about same-sex marriage is the government.>>

It's disingenuous because it apparently wasn't a problem before same-sex couples started demanding equality.

<<Would you go to the dentist without checking if he has a right to be involved with your teeth?>>

Not only is this analogy invalid, but it ignores the fact that millions of couples freely enter into such arrangements and thus apparently believe theat the government has the right.

phantom: <<What are the demonstrable benefits of a marriage certificate?>>

Well yes it's just a piece of paper. Like I said to my wife when we got marrier 28 years ago. "You see this "Marriage Certificate." I'd like you to note that it says right here "Certificate" Not "Receipt." You don't own me & I don't own you. Remember that." She seems to have forgotten but I haven't. ;-)

The only real benefit to a Marriage Certificate is for the Lawyers. I think that if you wish to divorce you should be able to go the your Lawyer say you want a Divorce & he does the Paper Work. That's it. Done & dusted.

But, No. You both have to have a separate Lawyer who delight in writing letters to each other on your behalf & that's where the fight & the Costs begins. Well, They're only protecting your interests. Eh. ;-)

& the Lawyers sit back with a big Cheshire Cat grin & rake in the money. YeeeHarrr!

Rhian:

I did not say that marriage has no value - I said that government involvement in marriage adds no value to it.

Everyone has a right to be married but they should not have that right in regard to the government. No one needs a a government sanctioned marriage and that is what we are talking about here. The only reason we are talking about legislation is because we are talking about government regulated marriage.

If you keep using marriage and government sanctioned marriage as interchangeable then that is dishonest. They are not and never have been the same thing.

It is an insult to all those who hold their relationship to be a marriage even though it is not sanctioned by the government to be less than a government sanctioned one.

I have made this point several times now and you seem to just glaze over it.

It has nothing to do with popularity. There are many types of relationships that can be called a marriage. Government sanctioned marriage is only one type but in my opinion there is no need for government sanctioned marriage and no good reason to maintain it. Governments are duty bound to do things for good reasons and no one has yet shown me a good reason why the government should be involved in marriage at all.

The central theme of the article is a simple idea of justice viz., once the government creates an institution giving rights and privileges to some, it must do so in a principled way, by treating all citizens with equal concern for their interests and equal respect for themselves as members of the same community. I see this as a foundation stone of any political theory worth defending, regardless of how much the institution serves the interests or enhances the freedom of others.

Whether or not the exclusion of same-sex couples is unfair depends (I argue) on the role or point or purpose of official or state marriage as distinct from traditional religious marriage. This is a contested issue, because many religions believe the state should adopt their views on the purpose or justification of state marriage, and this is the case in jurisdictions where a given religion, such as Islam or Catholicism, is dominant.

I thought Dr. Jensen’s article was interesting because he argued that the case against same-sex marriage rested on non-religious grounds - on what he called the ‘conservative’ position, which I tried to show was not a valid argument.

Whether the institution is worth supporting is clearly a very different question from whether or not it is unfair to exclude gay persons from its benefits. I saw no need to defend the institution other than by reminding readers of one reason which was not religious, but rested on ordinary, everyday values.

A full defence would need to look at the principles we believe should govern the state’s formal recognition of private contracts dealing with highly personal, non-business relationships, but also at the complex legal relationship between family law and social welfare laws.

I am grateful for the range of ideas and arguments the discussion has brought out.

Max Atkinson

Phanto

Again, I never said that de facto marriages are inferior to ones formalised by church and/or state.

Marriage is a social construct, and different societies at different times have had different ways of marking and defining it. If we as a society decide that government should have no role in recognising formal marriage, I would not be particularly concerned.

But we are debating marriage as it is understood and practiced in this time and this culture. Most marriages nowadays are neither religious nor de facto, but formalised in ceremonies by civil celebrants conferring a legally recognised and state sanctioned status of marriage on its participants. Under current laws, gays are excluded from this form of marriage, for no good reason

I accept most of that but you are only debating it under the presumption that because government approved marriage exists that it has a right to exist. Your whole argument is founded on this basic premise and I am questioning this premise. It is like debating which form of capital punishment is best – the presumption is that you agree with capital punishment if you are debating which form is best.

I can only presume that you think government sanction of marriage is reasonable and all I am asking is why you think this is so. If it is so obvious why the government should be involved then it should not be difficult to give a good reason why they should be involved. Governments have to have reasons for doing things and should be able to explain them. Just like you are asking them to explain why they discriminate against same-sex marriages I am asking you why they think they should be involved in marriage at all.

You say you would not mind if they were not but government involvement has to be reasonable. If you would not mind either way then you would still have to come up with reasons why you think it is a good thing for them to be involved and reasons why it is good for them not to be. What are these reasons?

You just run the risk of showing no integrity by refusing to take a stand. You are debating an issue and yet you would not mind either way if governments were involved. It does not sound very convincing. No one is questioning the rights of homosexuals they are questioning the right of the government to be involved in marriage. It has nothing to do with discrimination. How can it be discriminatory to want governments to be out of marriage altogether which naturally include heterosexual marriages? Both groups get the same result.

So what are your reasons for accepting that they have a role in people’s marriages?

maxat:

"Whether the institution is worth supporting is clearly a very different question from whether or not it is unfair to exclude gay persons from its benefits."

I am certainly not questioning whether the 'institution' is worth supporting. I am only questioning whether it is reasonable for the government of the day to be involved in that 'institution'.

What are the benefits that gay persons are being excluded from by not having a government approved marriage?

Phanto

I am not advocating a particular form of marriage. But IF government is to be involved in deciding who is married and who isn’t, THEN it should do so in a non-discriminatory fashion

“There are, however, many people, including those with religious convictions, who are undecided or strongly oppose reform.”

‘Reform’ is the incorrect term to use with regard to legalisation of so-called same-sex marriage (SSM).

“To reform” means to “make changes in (something, especially an institution or practice) in order to improve it”.

It is irrational to propose that SSM legalisation would improve traditional marriage.

It is illogical and nonsensical to argue even that SSM is equal to heterosexual marriage. To so argue is to assert bizarrely that the act of sodomy (or the sexual practices of same-sex-attracted female couples) equates to the heterosexual marital act.

The real motive of the SSM movement is not to improve marriage, but to destroy it.

On overseas experience, SSM legalisation is about prohibiting a definition of heterosexual marriage as normative. Instead, it is about establishing the ‘normative’ nature of SSM and thereby ruling out as discriminatory essential arguments about the complementarity of male and female or the procreative purpose of marriage.

The SSM movement strategy is to have the federal government introduce SSM, then to use planned new anti-discrimination legislation to force compliance on church organisations and schools. As an indication, witness the SSM lobby’s move to stop Tasmanian Archbishop Porteous distributing in Catholic schools the booklet about the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage, which he is entitled to do under Section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution.

It should be noted that same-sex couples are not being discriminated against. Federal law recognises that same-sex couples have the same rights as de facto heterosexual couples with regard to federal benefits.