JKJ:

A very good argument!

The real agenda is not marriage equality but sexuality equality. It is an attempt to try and show that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Homosexual people who are insecure about the equality of the 'sexualities' will strive to find some authority to give credence to their situation. It is the argument from authority.

If same-sex marriage is included in the definition by the government then they can point any gainsayers to the law of the Marriage Act. If the government says homosexuality is ok then it must be ok.

If they were truly secure in their homosexuality there would be no need to try and get the law changed since there can be no other benefit. The government is pandering to this insecurity and they should be ashamed of doing so.

Thankyou for the offer to draft questions.

Adhering to the http://www.uqu.com.au/blog-view/what-does-lgbtiq-mean-29 definition of LGBTIQQ.

QUESTION 1.

Should there be positive, compulsory, discrimination and rights in all spheres (including Company Boards and Senate Representation) for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Intersex, "Queer" and Questioning persons?

QUESTION 2.

In SCHOOLS should there be any excuse whatsoever for beings to avoid Official State Imposed - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Intersex, "Queer" and Questioning - classes?

Dear Jardine,

Is it so that exchanging polyamorous vows is criminal in Australia?
It is shocking but I was not aware of it - could you please tell us what law(s) are involved?

Otherwise in all respects I am with Phanto: individual relationships are none of the government's business.

No, I do not agree that those who want to make children should receive tax or any other benefits - on the contrary, they should incur the full costs for their procreative hobby themselves.

If there is to be a plebiscite and the cost is there anyway, then at least it should include many other and far more important questions in many areas of life.

The question is simple and easy: that the marriage act be amended from "one man and one woman" to "any two consenting adults". All other legislation referencing "man and wife" to be read as applying to all married couples. The End.

Doug Pollard

Why two?

Yuyutsu
Yes. The Crimes Act, NSW, and corresponding legislation in other states.

The missing piece of intelligence that is needed to make sense of the whole debate is that the Marriage Acts were not enacted until the nineteenth century. But marriage has been recognised in the English common law for many many centuries, and in society for many millenia, before that.

I haven't specifically looked it up, but the common law recognition of marriage and criminalisation of bigamy, would go way back into the middle ages, I mean at least 12th century.

And the common law in turn received its standards from the pre-existing laws and customs of the people of Britain. So it probably goes back literally to the dark ages, owing to influence of the Christian religion on the customs of the people, and the formation and administration of law during those ages.

The Marriage Act took the definition of marriage from the common law. It added additional requirements as a precondition of registration, as to notice, qualification of celebrants, witnesses, registration, and so on.

But registration maketh not the marriage, I say. A couple who exchange marriage vows, but don't comply with the additional requirements of the Act for registration, will still be married in fact, in law, in conscience and faith, in ethics, and in religion. It's still a legal marriage. It's just that it's not a *statutory* law marriage: it's a common law marriage.

Both the criminal law and the Marriage Act continue to take the common law definition as their point of departure.

Many of the Coalition politicians have stated that they are going to ignore the result of the 160 million plebiscite and vote no to same-sex marriage. That is why Coalition politicians want a plebiscite and not a referendum, its so they can easily ignore the result in favour of marriage equality.