After having another quick peek at Mr Lyle SHELTON'S article, and I'm not a Christian, nor do I support any of practices or ideologies of either homosexual men or women, why then don't we let the people decide through the process of a plebiscitary, the issue of 'same sex marriage', after all it's the democratic process, is it not?

Like most people I neither trust nor believe in many of the deeds from our 'treasured', elected representatives. So as this issue seemingly remains intractably unresolved, it continues to have a most deleterious effect, particularly emotionally, upon many of the Gay folk in our community.

Their situation does however remind me of an old saying, oft used in my former industry, illustrating - despite how tough, aloof or emotionally cold we may present to others; 'we all bleed when we're cut'! Outwardly many Gay people may simply laugh it off, inwardly however they may bleed? I wouldn't really know for sure, but from my experience with most of them, I can only suspect ?

Unquestionably this issue, being allowed to drag on ad infinitum, must have considerable impact upon many Gay men and women, some may be experiencing profound emotional consequences all as a result of these ridiculous delays?

By encouraging our ineffectual Prime Minister, to immediately introduce the necessary documentary 'letters patent', to the Governor General, and in doing so, allow the electorate to arbitrarily decide on this highly contentious 'same sex marriage' debate, one way or the other.

Whatever the electorate decide - same sex marriage will become law within ten years, of this I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever.

Good grief...
This could be settle and easily with a plebiscite.
It should be settle with one as that is the only true way the people will get a real say on the issue. A say about their society and its traditions and institutions. A say about the makeup of our society.
Most gays are not interested.
Most gays are happy with their lifestyle.
We should not change the definition of marriage for the minority of a minority... that is just pure stupidity.
It seems that perhaps some little girls who were brought up to believe that Marriage is a the big goal of their lives and who suddenly realise they are lesbian want this change.
It seems that little boys who played with dolls and are effeminate have similar issues.
Both are in the minority within the gay community.
If they want to "marry" let them come up with some other TERM... let Marriage remain what it has always been THE UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN, because those who cry and scream equality do not know what they are talking about. This is not about equality

Those whinging about needing a plebiscite need to get a grip on reality; it is dead and buried. And rightfully so as if a plebiscite were to be held it would set a terrible precedent for governments. People would be calling for plebiscites for any legislative change or new legislation they didn't agree with. The democratic process elects a government to govern; not to run to the people when it comes to a simple legislative amendment.

I'd still like to know what great societal change would occur once same-sex marriages are given legislative recognition? Gay people are already in relationships; gay people enter into 'marriages' (although not covered by legislation and the rights and protections that provides, which is what it is all about). Gay people have families, including children.

Trying to argue marriage is about 'tradition' is simply a fallacy. 'Traditions' change. It used to be traditional to have all football games played at 2pm on a Saturday (and for Rugby codes it was 3pm on Sundays). That has changed. It used to be traditional for those who did marry to stay married regardless of domestic violence and/or other abuses. It used to be traditional for women to leave the workforce once they married and be a 'housewife'. Just because something is regarded as 'traditional' doesn't mean it is 'good'. And society is not a static entity but one that is continually changing. Embracing change has been an overall good thing.

There is also the fact that the definition and concept of marriage has changed in many countries and jurisdictions to include same-sex couples. That has not resulted in any major change to those societies...other than that they have become more inclusive of married couples who are of the same sex.

To try an argue that embracing change to include same-sex marriages that would be covered by the Marriage Act is not worthy as it only affects a minority is also a fallacy. It is akin to arguing that Aboriginal people should not have been given the vote in Federal elections as they were only a minority.

Minotaur :

“I'd still like to know what great societal change would occur once same-sex marriages are given legislative recognition?”

So why bother with it then? What is in it for the country or the government or the rest of society? Why change something that does not need to be changed – which gives no advantage to anyone? What is the reason why the legislation needs to be changed?

I would have thought the answers to your questions were obvious phanto; it is about giving same-sex couples the same rights and protections afforded to heterosexual married couples that are provided by the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth). That is where the equality issue comes in.

As it stands same-couples can be given recognition under various state Acts that cover 'unions' or de-facto couples. However, there is no uniformity to those Acts. That lack of uniformity used to apply to heterosexual marriages, which is why the Federal government of the day implemented the Marriage Act...to ensure that one law applied to all.

Now that society has progressed and no longer regards same-sex relationships as illegal (something I would have thought that had a greater influence on society than simply recognising marriages) then why not have the Marriage Act amended to reflect the change in attitude and acceptance?

“As it stands same-couples can be given recognition under various state Acts that cover 'unions' or de-facto couples. However, there is no uniformity to those Acts.”

The solution to that is to make those acts uniform. This would bring about the equality that you speak of. You do not have to change the Marriage Act to achieve that equality. Why should people have to get married to receive the benefits that others in neighbouring states get without getting married? Obviously those in neighbouring states are entitled to those benefits on the basis of their relationship and not on the basis of their relationship being certified as a marriage. It is undignified to have to go through a process just to get what others get without having to go through that process. Anyone with any dignity would fight for their rights unconditionally and not succumb to such unequal restrictions.