Foxy:

That presumes that there should be a Marriage Act. Why do you think there should be a Marriage Act? Why should governments administer marriages? Just because they do so does not make it reasonable.

Unless you have a good reason why governments should be involved then SSM just makes a bad situation worse and voting for it would be illogical. You can't just agree with SSM without agreeing that it is reasonable for governments to legislate in regard to marriages.

It is illogical for same-sex couples to pursue government sanction marriage unless they can show that it is logical for governments to sanction marriages. You cannot sanction marriages without also sanctioning the emotional attachment of the two participants and governments should not have anything to say about emotional attachments.

The legal aspects of the relationship need to be detached from the emotional aspects and this is a problem that governments and couples of any sexuality need to solve. Marriage only solves the situation for the couple but not for the government and for taxpayers who demand that their government act logically.

The Parliament is often amending Acts, hopefully proactively as it was in this case, where its law officers have advised it necessary because of the likelihood of appeals that might get around or frustrate the purposes of the legislation. Where there is a gap in the fence, fix it.

How many gay marriages were there up to that amendment?

What about the homosexual judges and senior counsel? Were they all stupid? Or there was no demand for it and no-one was interested?

Howard changed nothing.

Hi Foxy, John Howard didn't amend the law, he codified it. The law in Australia and the UK and everywhere else under common law had been that marriage was between a man and a woman. The Labor Opposition also supported this codification. It was basically unanimous. And all it did was state in the legislation what the common law was.

I'm in favour of gay marriage in the sense that I don't think it is the business of the government to tell people what to call their relationship, and if gays want their relationship registered, it's no big deal. I would however prefer that the government didn't register anyone's relationship, and they were free to keep whatever registrations they wanted outside of the government, as used to happen.

I also think one shouldn't discriminate against polygamous and polyandrous relationships. It's part and parcel of the same issue. We used to persecute Mormons for polygamy and that was wrong, and we should allow Muslims to practice the same. And if there are women who want multiple husbands, well, they have a right to be regarded as a married whatever, and they would be under all the laws, such as the family law, succession and for the purposes of the social security act, apart from the Marriage Act.

GrahamY:

“keep whatever registrations they wanted outside of the government, as used to happen.”

This is the best solution. Every person who wants to should be able to register their preference as to who they would like to act on their behalf should they become unable to act for themselves. This could be anyone and there does not need to be any declaration as to the emotional attachment or otherwise they have with that person. The government could facilitate such a system and legislate to protect it in law. Since they already do this it will be no great burden on the taxpayer. This way the government is not seen to be endorsing emotional attachments since it has no information either way to make such a judgement.

People would still be free to marry in the same way they now do but without government sanction.

This should make everyone happy except those who are trying to get government sanction of their emotional relationships for any reason.

I am surprised that singles, large in voting numbers, have yet to rise up to claim the discrimination against them that requires that they subsidise the 'love' choices of others.

Particularly since 'de facto' is 'married' and the Gillard government added gay de factos as well. Although their radical feminist idealism had them choking up and calling it 'relationship' instead.

But the point should be made by singles and many of them are struggling young workers often with HECS debt, that they should not be subsiding for examples, the private health cover of 'marrieds' and employment entitlements such as accompanied spouse travel. Why should the employment agreements for workers give 'marrieds' at all? What about children (maternity leave)? Why should one worker be forced to subsidise the choice of another?

Julia Gillard, who did not believe in marriage and imagined it as embedding patriarchal (gender) discrimination against women, was not backward in claiming the benefits of 'married' (de facto), or as her idealism and law re-jigging had it, 'relationship' with the 'best bloke'.

On the other hand, where the age pension is concerned it is appropriate that the economies of living together are considered.

None of this is to say that there shouldn't be conditions as parental leave. However when 'rights', 'equality' and so on are being sold by the fast-talking and self-righteous, their 'never you mind' usually conceals the granting of valuable entitlements to a well-educated middle class that is already advantaged. And there is always a cost and someone has to pay, even if that is by more user pays for government services, or in the case of the elderly, reduced and poorly coordinated aged care.

But young workers, usually single and the elderly, many of whom are singles too, know that neither side of politics gives them anything but empty rhetoric and considers them unorganised and cannon fodder.

Dear phanto,

We can continue to argue on what should or should not
be the case however the fact remains that at present we
have a Marriage Act that locks down this country's
marriage laws. Governments are currently administering
marriages. And, the Act of Marriage is enshrined as the
sole preserve of heterosexual couples.

Dear Graham,

In 2004 the Howard Government moved to lock down this
country's marriage laws. In a new bill, the Act of
Marriage was enshrined as the sole preserve of heterosexual
couples. Like many Australians John Howard had a clear view on
what marriage is. However, the country's Marriage Act
previously never spelt out in black and white exactly who was
qualified to enter into a union.

After 2004 it did.