No phanto, making state and territory acts uniform (if ever a thing was achievable) will not create marriage equality as they still won't be marriages recognised by Federal law. The Constitution won't allow the states/territories to have like for like legislation and the High Court has already ruled that the Federal government is the only jurisdiction that can give legislative recognition for same-sex marriages. The states/territories have been sidelined.

You don't create financial/legal equality by redefining marriage. Most gays in Australia already have such things. Another reason not to do it.
Why denigrate in a religious way an accepted institution for no reason. Why "lessen" MARRIAGE by changing its definition.

Minotaur:

You said that the Marriage Act should be changed to give “same-sex couples the same rights and protections afforded to heterosexual married couples that are provided by the Marriage Act 1961.”

Then you said “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.”

If same sex couples can be given recognition under certain state acts why can’t they be given that recognition in the other states which do not give them recognition? Why are not same-sex couples demanding the same recognition in all states without having to get married to obtain that recognition?

If it is recognition as a couple that you want then it can be had in some states. The task remains to make sure that recognition as a couple is available in all states. Your recognition as a couple has nothing to do with marriage and so the Marriage Act is irrelevant.

If it is marriage that you truly want then what is the point of bringing up the discrepancies between states in regard to recognition as a couple? Those discrepancies are irrelevant if your aim is to legislate for marriage. If you want to change the Marriage Act to include same-gender couples then you need to have a good reason to do so. Obtaining recognition as a couple is not a good reason since recognition as a couple is already acknowledged in some states. Where it is not recognised then it needs to be changed but that does not require a change to the Marriage Act.

So what is your reason for wanting to change the Marriage Act?

zzzzzzzzzzz

I thought it was pretty straightforward phanto...amending the Marriage Act to include same-couples will give them the same rights, protections and privileges that heterosexual couples get.

You can have all the state/territory 'recognition' available but none of them equate to having a marriage recognised under the Commonwealth Act. And that extends to having your marriage recognised in other countries.

One thing you do get right is that for people, including heterosexual couples, who don't want to be married and have that given Federal sanctioned recognition then the Act is irrelevant.

Minotaur:

So which rights, protections and privileges are people missing out on by being only recognised as a couple and not being recognised as married? How important can they be if so many couples are prepared to forego marriage?

There is not much point in just making the general statement about rights, privileges and protections if you cannot name any. It just sounds like you are avoiding the issue. Why would you avoid naming one or two of these things? Unless you can specifically point to advantages of a marriage certificate you have no argument. Just claiming that it is 'obvious' is avoidance.

EmperorJulian:

The discussion is obviously getting under your skin but you are too gutless to get involved.