Michael Thompson, bloody brilliant. I am so over these "Sexually deviant social stigmatists" , AKA homosexuals, and their constant in your face idiotic demands, to change our society completely around one hundred and eighty degrees, simply to suit the childish whims of a cohort of the two percent deviant!

I vote NO to their "stupid"!

A good, clear and eminently readable/understandable rebuttal to the arguments propounded by the good judge. Your post is a good example of the sought after 'hateful, spiteful homophobic bile' that we have been warned to expect.

Allow me a couple of Further plebiscitary thoughts.

When I was married in the 70's, my wife was resoundingly abused by her gay sister and friends for even considering joining such a patriarchal, system driven and obsolete organisation (marriage). It was very clear then where the gay community stood with regard to marriage as an institution. What changed?

It is my understanding that, given 'the Drum' and such sources, the vast majority of Australians are completely 'on board' with the whole thing, 85% of surveyed people ar in favour, the Poll results all say so. So why the objection to a plebiscite? It's a 'shoe in'. Is it just all about money with these folk?

Oh Miss, Diver Dan is misbehaving again!
The sooner our elected representatives see the sense of our sex is what we say it is, hour by hour if need be. Paedophilia is natural and so is beastiality then Australia will be improved. Well that seems to be the current ABC consensus.
Whilst on the subject of saving money let us put the Public Servants onto retirees conditions i.e. reducing pensions year by year. Close the ABC and there is a billion dollars of saving plus a reducing debt!

Polls confirm that Australians overwhelmingly approve of gay marriage - over 70%, we are told, 80% of 16-24 year olds, even 60% of Christians. The majority of politicians reflect our view. Yet Cory Bernardi et al punch way above their weight and Malcolm has done the deal which will cost us $160 million. It is another example of the theocracy within our democracy. We are right to be afraid of a plebiscite - remember the Republic one where the waters were muddied and the result did not reflect the majority view. We are also right to fear the polarization and name-calling (see previous comment) that the lobbying prior to the vote will inevitably bring about.

Rather than having a plebiscite which the politicians can ignore, we should have a referendum. Although this is not an issue for which a referendum is constitutionally required, there is nothing in the constitution which prohibits legislation for a referendum on this issue.

Excellent article. And we must ignore activist judges like Mr. Kirby , a homosexual himself, who should know better than to talk such undemocratic nonsense. This article is a perfect rebuttle to activists. If these people are so sure that a majority of Australians support them, they have nothing to worry about. And, any changes to something as important as the marriage act just to suit a very small minority cannot be left to politicians. The government made it clear prior to the election that there would be a plebicite, and they must see that it is held.

I am offended that this sorry business has arisen; it is another blow to civilised society, and I will be voting no. But, at least, people should be able to decide whether or not they are willing to see society slip down another notch in a democratic manner. Those opposing a plebicite are not democratic in the slightest, and they are not really sure of their position. The ridiculous idea of same sex 'marriage" when, for all practical reasons, homsexuals can do as they please with no interference, is just another attempt to steer society along the road to a socialist utopia.