Dear Yuyutsu,

I have already voted and I shall leave it up to others
to have their say. It's been made quite clear that all
we are being asked is that same-sex couples be granted
the same legal rights as the rest of Australia has.

I do not have a problem with that
request. And I cannot see that request of theirs having any sort
of impact on anyone else's marriage.
I got married in a church. They will
be having civil ceremonies. Most couples these days have
civil ceremonies. And the civil ceremonies are not in
any competition with church weddings, nor will they impact
on anybody else's marriage.
How these are supposed to affect other people
I really think is a lot of nonsense and a diversion by the
religious extremists. Why should
they be given the right to dictate
the law of the land to other people. Nobody is taking away
their right to marry in a church. Why should they be allowed to
dictate as to who should be allowed to have a civil ceremony.

When the results of this survey are in and a resounding yes vote? Were I a bold and confident Malcolm Turnbul, I would call a snap early election, to return stability to parliament, ostensibly?

Then rely on/take full advantage of, the slow boiling rage in the wider community!? To take a truly terrible toll on One Nation and other, far right wing, climate change denier/anti gay candidates? ALL OF THEM!

And then allow the energy debate and energy prices that could be as low as 1.98 cents P.K.H to win the day for him and the genuinely moderate middle!

Or should we allow our near neighbour, Indonesia, to become a nuclear powered and powering ahead economy, before we do!?

Choose wisely, and very soon, as a true statesman would!

With all due respect, the never ending story (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) needs to conclude! Or conversely, continue to swim like a stone in the polls!?
Alan B.

Dear Alan B.,

I don't have much faith in Malcolm Turnbull anymore.
I don't think he's got the spine and gumption to
do what you suggest. He'll continue to allow the
disunity to continue within his own party until
the polls are so bad that they will replace him with
(heaven forbid) Peter Dutton or even the baying at his
heels Tony Abbott. There's hope yet for Mr Turnbull,
but he'd have to act fast and not allow himself to be
led by the nose by people who really only have their
own interests at heart. Sad, really. We all had such
high hopes for Malcolm.

Dear Foxy,

What you wrote would be true if the couples in question married only in church.

However, based on the 2004 definition of marriage, many couples who married in church asked their marrying priest/minister to also register them with the state - and now the definition changes and they are stuck with a contract that they did not agree on.

If you want the state to conduct civil marriages under different terms and conditions, then you need to release those who signed under the previous terms and conditions and (for whatever reason) do not agree with the new ones. I know that there is at least one such couple, because there was an article about them on the ABC (I cannot seem to find it now).

Once this happens, let religious people marry in church alone and let non-religious legally-marry through the state alone if they still see a point in that, then indeed none will affect the other.

I would like to encourage ALL legally-married couples, regardless how they feel about same-sex marriages, to use this unique opportunity to deregister their state-based/legal marriage, thus rendering it empty and meaningless as should.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I don't understand what you are trying to say.
It doesn't make sense. How will civil ceremonies
affect anyone else - when civil ceremonies have
been around for decades and generations have
been married that way. And nobody has questioned
them previously. I suspect that the fuss this time
is because it involves same-sex couples - who some
people don't feel should get equal rights under the
law.

Ignore them - personal prejudices should not be involved
with the law of the land.

Dear Foxy,

Perhaps some people have prejudices against homosexuals - that's not me, I'm not concerned about this-sex or that-sex, yet this SSM business presented an opportunity to reduce government involvement in our private life and I don't want to let that opportunity go.

My objective is to remove the government/state from our lives, specifically here, to reduce the number of government-based marriages. If the number of government-based homosexual marriages increases but the number of government-based heterosexual marriages reduces by more, then the overall result will be good.