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).