You have every right to challenge the idea of whether the government should issue marriage licences.

However the question that is being asked is should marriage be restricted to hetro couples only from a government point of view?

My answer to the actual question being asked is. If we are saying that Homosexual relationships are okay, and that has been the case for sometime now. Then there is no logical reason not the allow homosexual couples access to government marriage in my view.

The real indignity for Australia is the time taken up by by 1.6% of the population identifying as homosexual, 0.8% of the population identifying as lesbian. What a ratty, air- brained country we are.

Dignity? Whose? Yours? If people could CHOOSE their sexuality as the article infers? Then your spurious argument might have some merit!

Given they don't, I believe, it is little more than barely veiled gay bashing, using ideological rethoric as the weapon? And likely to continue/ramp up in all the most undignified forms (hallelujah, we'll sock it to ya, hallelujah) until the plebiscite is conducted, if only to end the ill-founded belief that yours is a majority view?

Don't you folks know that you've already done far too much harm, that you have blood on your collective hands? Hallelujah and praise the lord, there will be a day of final reckoning! "Inasmuch as you do to the least among you, you also do unto me"!
Alan B.

Cobber

"My answer to the actual question being asked is. If we are saying that Homosexual relationships are okay, and that has been the case for sometime now. Then there is no logical reason not the allow homosexual couples access to government marriage in my view."

That's the not an answer to the question being asked, which is "Where is the dignity?".

The answer is, the dignity in marriage is, and has always been, in the act of the parties in exchanging vows of faith - and in carrying them out! - not in the government creating and registering a certificate for gossake.

The issue of same-sex marriage, so-called, cannot be confined to homosexuals, since it raises the same questions of rights and ethics as all other excluded sexualities, both legal and illegal. Legality is no touchstone: homosexuality was illegal in my lifetime. It only begs the question, as the gay lobby has successfully agitated, of why consensual private sexual relations should be illegal in the first place. This applies just as much to polygamous and sexually-mature consenting so-called underage relationships as well.

The general issue unavoidably boils down to this: What is the basis of deciding whether government should register a marriage?

If you can't defend it, then stop trying to extend it!

Dear Cobber,

«If we are saying that Homosexual relationships are okay, and that has been the case for sometime now. Then there is no logical reason not the allow homosexual couples access to government marriage in my view»

The logical reason has nothing to do with homosexuality, but with the fact that the proposed legislation-change would expand, rather than abolish, an immoral government "service" that should not have existed in the first place.

My hope is, that the current government's refusal to expand this service (for reasons that happen to be other than mine) will lead to more popular and political pressure to repeal that Marriage-Act and abolish marriage-registration altogether. This is the way forward for marriage-equality!

Michael,
This dispute is not about rights.

Under the Personal Relationships legislation of the States same sex couples, on death, and relationship breakdown, have the same rights as married spouses, to claim property.

This is a dispute about what marriage is.

Our society's cultural fundamental norm is that marriage is an institution established for the nurture and education of children- the institutionalised monogamy which established the nuclear family as the basic building block of our society.

Countries that have based their societies on the nuclear family constitute the rich First World.

Every invention and innovation from the steam engine to computers and rockets to the planets have come from that nuclear family based culture and no other.

That culture has, through such innovations and inventions, given rise to the huge multiplication of human productivity without which 90% of the present world population could not exist for lack of the ability to of produce, transport and distribute the means of feeding clothing and sheltering that population.

We should foster the nuclear family by allowing procreation capable couples and couples who have in fact taken on the long term support of children to be taxed as a unit. The tax for the unit should be twice the tax payable on half the unit's income less an amount for each child supported.

We risk destroying the basis of our wealth production.

That basis is maximum of children's potential created by the nuclear family which has given rise to all those innovations and inventions.

If we destroy the concept of marriage to satisfy the feelings of gay couples we have no case to refuse a marriage certificate to the Muslim male and his wife 2 , 3 or 4.They are just as capable of "loving" one another.

We will have detached procreation from the parental responsibility which our society imposes and leads to our huge attainments of productivity.

Old man, you confuse society with the State.

Marriage and its reproductive benefits arise all by themselves through people's consensual relations and without the need for the State to do anything. Marriage does not need protection from the State - although it would be good if they'd stop undermining and destroying it - and people do not deserve any forced redistribution in their favour just because they have children. People have their own incentives for entering into sexual, reproductive and economic relations, and don't need any from you.

Furthermore, childless married couple are nevertheless still married, so your conception of marriage is wrong; and it is absurd hyperbole to assert that the governmental registration of homosexual relationships would risk destroying the basis of "our" wealth production, whoever "we" are.

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
There is no such thing as” same sex marriage”
Same sex unions until recently were illegal, and did not have a word which identified such relationships.
A name should be assigned, not by hijacking a word which already has a meaning, but one such as “sodomiage, or “pervertiage”, and recognition of such a relationship, by that name, sought from the community, during the course of which process, the rights and obligations of such a relationship would be developed.
The relationship is very different to marriage, and the rights and obligations of such a relationship would be very different to those of marriage.
The lies of “marriage equality”, and “same sex marriage” should be discontinued forthwith.

I understand what the article is about, I was merely stating that the marriage equality debate is not about whether the government should be involved in marriage.

While it is the latest angle by those opposed it is not a question that is ever going to by put to parliament or the people.

Marriage is a construct by government and can be defined however the government wishes it to be.

None of the posters who oppose marriage equity seem to be able to explain why we should exclude unions between same sex couples.

Some wave vaguely at religious convictions , which have nothing to do with sexual government. Others mumble something about children, which ignores that fact you don't have to be married to have children and happy married couple choose not to have children. The funniest are those that refer to the low numbers involved ie it's only 1.6% of the population there fore why are we doing this.if that the case what would the percentage need to be to make it worthwhile, and should we extend that idea to other areas of equality?

"the marriage equality debate is not about whether the government should be involved in marriage."

Of course it is. That's exactly what it's about.

You yourself admit and declare so here:
"Marriage is a construct by government and can be defined however the government wishes it to be."

But Cobber, what you're saying is not factually correct. You need to read the legal history and anthropology of marriage. Marriage existed before government existed. Marriage existed before it was recognised by the common law in the 12th century. And marriage existed before the Marriage Act in the 19th century provided for the governmental registration of marriages.

Not even government claims that marriage is a "construct by government". Read the Marriage Act. The Act provides for the *registration* of marriage constituted by the act of the parties in exchanging vows.

The Act takes the vows from the common law, and the common law took them from the customs of the English-speaking peoples since before the 12th century.

"While it is the latest angle by those opposed it is not a question that is ever going to by put to parliament or the people."

This assumes that you know everything in the future, which you don't. You're not God.

"None of the posters who oppose marriage equity seem to be able to explain why we should exclude unions between same sex couples."

None of the posters who propose governmental registration of homosexual relationships have ever explained
1. why government should be registering sexual relationships in the first place
2. what should be the criterion of inclusion
3. why homosexuals should be included
4. if they are, why all other sexualities including currently illegal consensual sexual and marital relationships should not also be included.
5. if not, why not?

Go ahead. Try.

Let's see you do it.

Please.

Pretty please with sugar on top?

Anyone?

Marriage has existed in some form long before we had any organised religion? Why even the sons of an allegorical Adam and Eve (first humans?) took unto themselves wives? Their sisters?

Many races and cultures openly practiced homosexuality as part of the normal aberrations along with left handedness, in humans and other mammals?

The first olympics seemed to have exclusively involved naked or semi naked males, who seem to have revered the naked male body?

Is anal sex between a man and a woman less troublesome or unhealthy, than that between two males?

If the more effeminate male goes and has gender reorientation to appear completely female except in an ability to conceive? Is it then OK for the essentially same sex couple to kiss, have sex, marry?

Or where a female has had similar gender reorientation by surgical means and hormone therapy and turns up at the altar sporting a beard and muscular physiography, is same sex marriage, kiss and make love, then OK?

And if so? What has changed except outward appearance!? Which is what gay community claim is what has occurred to them and through no fault of their own, find themselves trapped in gender inappropriate body!

Love knows no physical barriers! Not between the disabled, (i.e. down syndrome) who some believe ought to be sterilized to prevent mutant genes being passed down the generations eternally?

If you can fall in love and can commit to another human being for the rest of your days? Then who shall say, this is wrong?

And if that is your belief? Just completely but out!

In which case nothing of any substance will have changed for you except the formerly unchallenged control you exercised over the life and well being of others, who have never done anything to negatively impact on you or your rights!

What gives you the right to do just that to them, out of your own (stone age/flat earth) abysmal ignorance? It's just not your call! Alan B.

Dear Cobber,

«I was merely stating that the marriage equality debate is not about whether the government should be involved in marriage»

For now, but just as water that is blocked from flowing one way finds other directions to flow, I expect that once the marriage-equality lobby is sufficiently frustrated, not getting what it wants in the way of increasing government-involvement in our life, it will instead start flowing in the direction of abolishing state's involvement with marriage altogether.

«Marriage is a construct by government»

No, marriage is made in heaven!

The government's grotesque imitation is an insult to heaven and should be stopped.

«None of the posters who oppose marriage equity seem to be able to explain why we should exclude unions between same sex couples»

I Just want to make sure that you do not count me among them: I have no objection to unions between same sex couples - and citing the biblical example of David and Jonathan, I don't believe that God objects to it either.

---

Dear Alan,

«Why even the sons of an allegorical Adam and Eve (first humans?) took unto themselves wives? Their sisters?»

According to Jewish interpretations, there were human-bodies around before Adam and Eve (those created in Genesis 1:27), but Adam was created later, then Eve was created from him, and they were the first to be called "human" because they were the first to have souls, thus their sons had no problems finding wives (sadly though, they couldn't be their soul-mates):

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." [Genesis 2:7]

Otherwise I agree with what you wrote - yet the state should have nothing to do with it.

The Hound says:” Marriage is a construct by government “.
Not so, marriage emanated from the Church. The Church made the rules and performed the ceremonmies. Church Courts had jurisdiction over marriage. The State deferred to the Church in relation to marriage, before the takeover of the Church by Henry V111. Church Courts later, became Courts of Equity, which became state administered, and legislation governs marriage instead of church edicts. Our federal legislation codified the already developed existing law of marriage.
The proposal now, is to hijack the word "marriage", and apply it to relationships which are not marriage. This will destroy the institution of marriage, against the interests of the community, and to cater to the senseless whim of a small minority of our population.
Same sex relationships are no longer illegal, but they are not marriage, and at this point, they have no status in the mainstream community, other than no longer attracting prosecution.A word needs to be invented for such relationships. They are not marriage.

Dear Leo,

«Not so, marriage emanated from the Church»

So accordingly, marriage is a Christian thing and thus couples where one or both do not happen to be Christian, cannot marry?

«The State deferred to the Church in relation to marriage, before the takeover of the Church by Henry V111»

May I remind you that England is just a small country with less than 1% of the world's population? Or are you claiming that only British Christians can marry?

«The proposal now, is to hijack the word "marriage"»

Too late, it has already been hijacked, not only by homosexuals but according to your system, also by non-Christians and the non-British, who all merrily marry already. The current proposal is to modify the term "legal marriage", a term which ought to disappear in a puff of smoke anyway.

«This will destroy the institution of marriage, against the interests of the community»

The British-Christian community, I presume?
Destroying the INSTITUTION of marriage (as opposed to marriage itself) is in fact in my interest, but perhaps you do not count those who are not British Christians as part of the community.

«Same sex relationships are no longer illegal, but they are not marriage»

And so are many other relationships not a marriage, including for example those that involve domestic-violence, that are not truly marriage even though the state and its government erroneously consider them as such.

Leo

I agree with most of what you say, however for many centuries, the couple could not marry in the church. You may recall Chaucer's Wyf of Bath "housbondes at chirch dore I have had five". The custom was to marry outside the church, and then go in for Mass to celebrate and bless it. So obviously it didn't emanate from the church in that sense.

And that was in the 14th century. The common law distilled the common features of different marriage customs of the ethnic patchwork of England. So it is also likely that the farther back in time we go, and into the Anglo-Saxon period, when life was much more tribal and localised, that church action was even less required, or rather invoked.

And before that, before the Christian period, obviously people still married. For example, in Caesar's Gallic Wars, he talks of the men of the pre-Roman populations having wives - of course they did. But obviously the institution didn't emanate from the Christian church.

So while the church courts had jurisdiction rather than the royal courts - it being rightly deemed none of the king's business - I think it is more accurate to say that marriage evolved from the usages of individual males and females and their families in forming sexual and reproductive relations.

Once mankind first recognised physical paternity, it is likely that marriage evolved from the woman and her family imposing a condition that she would not consent to sex unless the man solemnly promised in front of witnesses to support her and her children. In exchange for him committing his substance to one woman for life, and foregoing other women, he in turn required her undertaking that she would not deny him sex when he wanted (hence the traditional female vow to "obey").

Canon law never claimed that church action was necessary to constitute or legitimise, but only to bless, a marriage. AFAIK, it was always the case in canon law that marriage was brought into being by the actions of the parties, not of the church.

Thanks, Jardine. I made some unwarranted assumptions from my incomplete knowledge of the history of the Courts, but my simplistic view does not stand up on your detailed account of the background, particularly the former status of women as property.
Nevertheless, the current statutory law is a codification of the law as developed by the Courts from the background you have set out. It is not a construct of the state as suggested by the Hound.