That's a good idea but doesn't get at the problem of low birth rates, and how secular values aren't universally supported at all and are hardly even supported amongst citizens themselves.

Why is it that traditional values have to be 'compromised' for weirdos and wreckers of society?

Compromise, back flipping, now is it?

Don't see the point!

Some folk will never ever compromise and resist to the last dyed in the wool tin eared, recalcitrant, conservative/dinosaur/troglodyte!

Wriggle room is running out and another election is as little as eighteen months away!

And sure to be a binding if proxy referendum on marriage equality? And given this is so, the Labor party has no reason whatsoever, to compromise at this late hour! The time for stealing the Labor party's clothes on this is past!?

You argued quite vehemently and repeatedly, as I recall John, against marriage equality. As have those, who will never ever accept the growing body of evidence that homosexuality is a completely natural aberration, with an underlying genetic cause.

And that's why I say, bring on the next election, even if I have to hold my nose and spit, as I vote for almost any party actually and genuinely, except the anti development greens, supporting the end of mindless discrimination and marriage equality!

And limited in application to consenting clergy, civil celebrants and cake decorators etc, according to their beliefs/religious principles/prejudices/ideology/dogma!
Alan B

I couldn't see a short summary of the point the author is making, so I'll get to the nub of the issue.

If you want a compromise stop calling it "same sex" and call it by the correct term "homosexual" . And don't use the term "marriage". Marriage means between an adult male and an adult female. Find another acceptable term such as "homosexual relationship". If you did that there'd be little opposition.

John de Meyrick,

A nice attempt to find a compromise, but when we’re talking about issues of equality, a compromise should only be necessary if both sides have reasonable concerns, and, contrary to what you claim, those against marriage equality do not have reasonable concerns. Take your list of arguments against same-sex marriage, for example:

1. Naturalistic fallacy which ignores the fact that marriage is a social construct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

2. Appeal to Tradition fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

3. Appeal to Nature fallacy which asserts some apparently important differences between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage that are never mentioned. Also asserts that the actual ceremony is the only legal similarly, failing to account for the fact that children are also often involved in both relationship types.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

4. Irrelevant until it can be demonstrated how same-sex marriage will adversely affect opponents. Discrimination is still discrimination, it wouldn’t even matter if they were only 0.001% of the population.

5. Slippery Slope fallacy. If other harmful marriage arrangements are proposed, then one should save one’s energy for them if and when they are proposed. This is no excuse to discriminate now, and an unfounded moral panic now only weakens any future arguments, that may actually be legitimate, against change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

6. So what if genuine support may not be attained from up to 48% of the population? It’s not an excuse to discriminate and that will inevitably change over time anyway. The younger generations seem genuinely baffled by the objection to marriage equality from many of the older generations, just as older generations now were once baffled by the objection of some of their elders to interracial marriage. Homophobia is merely today’s racism.

7. Pure sophistry. For so long as marriage is not an option for same-sex couples, there is reason for them to feel stigmatised.

8. What constitutes a marriage has always changed. If some privately hold a different view to what they openly express, then that is their problem. This is not a reason to discriminate.

In 2007 The Greens voted down the ETS, and in 2016 with labor voted down the marriage equality plebiscite.

It is clear that they vote according to politics and not according to conscience.