You could say 'no' to that question but still be in favour of same-sex marriage.

Marriage does not have to be ratified by the government for it to be a marriage. Many couples call their relationship a marriage without having had any government involvement at all. Who says that only the government has a right to define the meaning of the word 'marriage.

To be or not to be? Aye, that's the rub? And as was the tradition of the times, just asks the completely involved and included Audience for its opinion.

For today's audience, the question is, is it time to stop persecuting folk for having the unmitigated temerity of choosing to be born different!

And should gay bashing in all its forms and guises, [deliberately if covertly withheld service or our best treatment,] still be tolerated in a modern and less ignorant educated society?

And let's be clear! Nobody, but nobody is going to be forced to conduct a marriage ceremony they aren't completely comfortable with!

So just let's cut the BS, and currently the anti equality brigade, is self evidently shoveling it by the ship load?

And indeed, I believe, using the extra time inherent in the very obvious and unnecessary delay; to fight a sanctimonious and hypocritical rearguard action against genuine equal treatment as evidenced in the golden rule and genuine Christian traditions?

With many of those leading the anti equality fray, the very same individuals that were patently implicated, sometimes just through silence, with the cover ups of heinous pedophillia?

With the thundering silence and demonstrable inaction, being interpreted as covert consent by the perpetrators?

Simply put, the only way to get the question resolved on the floor of the house, minus the costly delay, by our elected representatives, is to, however unpalatable, vote Labor!

And necessary, given Malcolm just doesn't seem to have the real leader's stomach/courage of conviction or resolute determination to defy his own back bench?

And all that's needed to allow a conscience vote at the very next sitting!

And I dare say his fribbling sycophantic dithering, the reason his personal (short lived) popularity, is moving south and at terminal velocity?

I mean, the gay community may only number around 10% of us, but they all have mums and dads, possibly brothers and sisters; or aunts and uncles; and friends and sympathisers in the straight community.

Many of them uncommitted swinging voters growing impatient with the hugely costly and entirely unnecessary delaying tactics!?
Rhrosty.

You speak of equality Rhrosty, what of the right to be recognised as different? Must I be forced to be the same as every other man or woman, can i not choose what my own relationship is called without somebody else taking that right from me?

John de Meyrick: one should always question the question, because a question can be formulated in a way that predisposes the answer.

You are so right. The Questions are usually so convoluted that it's extremely hard to intemperate them. Two or three paragraphs where one sentence would do.

John de Meyrick: "Do you agree to the alteration of the definition of 'marriage' in the Marriage Act 1961 to include same-sex unions?"

Still much to wordy. "Do you agree with Gay Marriage? Yes/No."

ttn: Yes or no might be too simple for a lawyer.

Damm right. There's no money in it for them.

Rhosty: Simply put, the only way to get the question resolved on the floor of the house,

That answer only satisfies the trendy MP's not the General population. What are the GLTB afraid of? They claim that the Majority of Australian's are for the ratification of Gay Marriage. So let's find out for sure.

For any Court to find a plebiscite not necessary would be a usurping of the power to alter the constitution.
The colonies called on the UK to for a Federal Constitution , agreeing to give Federal Parliament power to legislate on certain subjects including marriage. There was absolutely no doubt in 1901 what marriage meant when sodomy was a serious offence.

Any change without a plebiscite would breach, the division of powers rule, the basis of democracy- judges interpret to law not make it. Parliament makes the law on subjects given them by the constitution.

State legislation (e.g.NSW Personal Relationship Act) gives gay couples the same rights on a break up as are held by married couples.

Contrary to what "Cobber the hound" says this is all about children.

Let gays call their relationship "marriage". Let churches toll bells and clean up confetti all they want to.AS an atheist I do not care about those symbols. Monogamy, however, as the basic building block of society is vital.

A procreative capable couple ( and no others ) should be able to able to register with the Tax Office as a couple, and pay tax at twice the amount payable on half their joint income after a deduction of a fixed amount for each child they have.

We would then recognise that the First World is made up of States which have institutionalised monogamy as the basic building block of their society either by expressly adopting that building block or it being inherent in the Judeo-Christian heritage.

The First World provides proper nurture and education of children to bring them to the maximum of their potential.

It is that maximum potential which has produced all innovations and inventions that has multiplied the productivity of mankind by thousands to support the present population of the world. Without those inventions and innovations 95% of the world population would not exist for the lack of the means to produce and distribute the necessary food and shelter to sustain them.

Fiddling about with definitions to make a few people feel "normal" is playing with fire.

The article and all responses only beg the question what government is doing registering private sexual relationships in the first place.

A lot of the confusion on all sides in this debate is the moral confusion spread throughout the population by the common belief that marriage is something that government does to the spouses. This belief is simply mistaken and not even the government has ever claimed that it's true. The governmental registration of a marriage does not create the marriage. It registers a pre-existing marriage, brought into being by the spouses' exchange of vows.

Not only that, but the registration does not even make any significant difference to the rights of the parties, because of the effect of the de facto marriage legislation.

Not only that, but not even the government will accepts its own certificate of marriage as evidence of the existence of the marriage.

I have never found anyone who can explain what difference registration of same-sex unions would make in terms of substantive rights.

But *if* the purpose of the whole exercise is substantive equality rights, rather than symbolic grandstanding, then there's no reason why those deficits can't be supplied in their own right, for example by amendment to the law on superannuation or whatever. It doesn't require changing the definition of marriage.

And if the purpose of the whole exercise is marriage equality as a principle, then why are much worse-off other forms of sexuality excluded, for example, the polyamorous?

Gay marriage is not illegal at present, never has been, and registration does not constitute marriage.

But just the speech-act of exchanging polyamorous vows is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment, even if the couple make no attempt to register it.

If the true agenda in this debate is really marriage equality without discrimination on grounds of sexual preference, surely the decriminalisation of polyamorous marriage is a much more urgent and important issue of public policy and human rights, than whether already-legal homosexual unions can be *registered to the government* with no improvements in their substantive rights?

Right, Cobber?