Minotaur

No – this is not a “simple legislative change” as you suggest. This would change the entire meaning of the Constitution of the Marriage Act which has served us well for centuries.

So before those in “twitter feed” start storming out of their proverbial sandpits on masse, John Howard’s change to the Constitution of the Marriage Act (in essence) being between a man and a woman (or male and female) – I haven’t got access to the actual words with me at time of pending this note, however, if you peruse the “actual” words it will confirm above.

You state – “To even propose such a thing is lunacy and abrogation of parliamentary responsibility”.

Parliamentarians come and go – these proposed changes to the Constitution of the Marriage Act will last FOREVER, as such, we – as voters – don’t accept a plebiscite as lunacy and/or abrocation of parliamentary responsibility – as you assert.

We voters DEMAND a plebiscite on the following basis -

If the Australian public say - yes - RESULT MUST BE RESPECTED.
If the Australian public say - no - RESULT MUST BE RESPECTED.

Liberals went to the last election with the promise that Australian voters would be permitted to vote on change to the Marriage Act.

I don't believe the Australian public require any funds for the "yes" or "no" campaign. As this issue has been ongoing for decades, I believe we all know how we will vote.

Labor and others voted this down? With the most "shallow" of excuses. Shameful behaviour by Labor and others.....yep and we as voters are watching this sham

O Sung Wu – your post to Maricus on 25/11/

You state - One thing I can share with you, quite authoritatively as well - the number of really serious, violent crimes committed against the person, in the name of male homosexuality, would positively amaze you MARICUS. Jealousy among male homosexuals alone, has accounted for some of the very worst of murders I've seen in my over 32 years in the job, including those committed in NSW maximum security gaols!

As a further person with knowledge of same – they don’t get it do they?

As a mainstream male I chose to marry an accepting mainstream female and was part of a mainstream family. I didn't have to have any of this approved by a plebiscite of other people with different life choices. It was nobody else's damn business but ours.

Why then should I have the unalloyed arrogance to make it part of my business how and on what basis another couple wish to commit themselves to marriage? And why should anyone else display such arrogance?

All decisions on matters affecting the whole nation are the whole nation's business and in a democratic society (which Australia isn't) these would all be subject to popular vote. But not individual couples' personal business. Turnbull's failure to call a parliamentary vote to clear away hangover laws with-holding same sex marriage rights shows him up as not a leader committed to doing the right thing.

Emperior Julian

You state - As a mainstream male I chose to marry an accepting mainstream female and was part of a mainstream family. I didn't have to have any of this approved by a plebiscite of other people with different life choices. It was nobody else's damn business but ours.

I advise - neither did I.

Why then should I have the unalloyed arrogance to make it part of my business how and on what basis another couple wish to commit themselves to marriage? And why should anyone else display such arrogance?

My response - It's not a matter of arrogance on any ones part. You need to look "further" into the implications across all avenues of legislation.

Thanks for demonstrating you have absolutely no credibility Saints.

Emperor Julian
You have not been paying attention, this is NOT just about changing a few words in the Marriage Act, it would require changes to a whole lot of other laws too and infringe on others' rights as has happened in countries where SSM has been legalised, where people who in all good conscience and sincere religious beliefs oppose SSM- despite supposed freedom of religion and speech- have been dragged
before courts, fined thousands of dollars, even threatened with jail. This is the model favoured by Shorten, the ALP, the Greens and the gay lobby.
Phanto, the term same-sex marriage itself is illogical so SSM should be ignored/rejected altogether.
Minotaur, plebiscites are a democratic tool and this is not just about a simple legislative change as I and others have already pointed out. Australia has had plebiscites before.