The true purpose of changing marriage laws seems to be to create a mechanism whereby the dechristianisation of western society can continue unencumbered.

There was never any intention by the Turnbull government to protect freedom of speech. Why are people surprised? We live in a Christian-hating, totally amoral country. What is happening in Australia happened in all other countries where SSM was legalised. Either the people who voted YES are stupid, or they wanted to see discrimination occur. There is no other way of looking at it.

We're signatories to a UN convention that guarantees religious freedom and the right to practise, religious practise, And common law grants the right of free speech and or, robust debate. Typically those who opposed every inch of reform in SSM! Now want to construct the legislation that allows it!

Sorry fellas, the people have spoken and are just so sick and tired of the control freak element's interference in their alleged private lives and or private decisions/rights!

At every step these dinosaurs/troglodytes have sort to deny freedom/human rights! As they sort to have the provisions of 18C overturned, the moderates replaced with dictatorial hard right, absolutism.

And SSM put so far back with dusty pigeonholed bills, that it would never ever see the light of day, whilst any of them lived.

An overwhelming majority have voted in favour! The senate passed The unamended bill by almost three to one and now the lower house just needs to call on a vote and get the thing done! Before it goes back to that same senate for final ratification/amendment?

We're are over interminable delays and commonsense solutions rejected every which way and every day, to suit the idiotic ideological imperatives of resident control freaks?

Who are power addicted moths to the flame whenever there is perceived power and for them, absolute control!?

They have said no for so long and so loud, time they listened to a few other folk saying, no way Hosea, to them.

Let's be sure we get their name and number, so we can say, no nay never, no never no more, to them, and their string pullers, when it really counts! At the next, or any election, where they stand!
Alan B.

George Brandis has indicated that the government are not going to 'remove one form of discrimination, and at the same time instate a new form of discrimination.'

That is a completely logical expression of what should be done. End of story. Lets hope common sense prevails.

David

People are to dumb to realise that we already discriminate in favour of aboriginals for many jobs, women to join the armed services and feminist to take many jobs in ' academia'. The abc has been very very dumbed down by their discrimination in favour of Australian hating marxist. Discrimination can be a good thing. I would much rather ' white privileged males' working in security than Lebanese or other Middle Eastern muslims. Like the words racism and sexism the word discriminate is often just a card pulled by the marxist against those they want to discriminate against.

Quote "Before and during the postal survey, assurances were given, by the Prime Minister no less, that 'religious freedom…will be protected in any bill that comes before this parliament.'"

Anyone who believes what politicians say on contentious issues is delusional. Generally believe the opposite to what they promise

When is a politician lying - when there mouth is open.

First, I completely agree with the author.

In the past I have warned the Christian-based traditionalists time and again: "Beware! If you support the state and its coercive powers because it's on your side, it won't always be so! If you want your own freedom of religion, to follow God's ways, then never deny other people's freedoms".

- But they would laugh and not listen.

Now they come to grief, now the Marxist mob rejoicest, using the same traps which they have earlier set - and no saviour is in sight.

"Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him." [Proverbs 26:27]

' In the past I have warned the Christian-based traditionalists time and again: "Beware! If you support the state and its coercive powers because it's on your side, it won't always be so! If you want your own freedom of religion, to follow God's ways, then never deny other people's freedoms".'

Yuyutsu

you are right Yuyutsu especially when you have regressives who know nothing of truth. To put your trust in them is totally naive. As citizens we do have a right to influence and put our case. The Marxist lot in Govewrnment now are gutless and a disgrace. Their are still a few goods men like Andrew Hasting who not only put his life on the line for the country but is a man of high principle.

Wow Nicola, you must be one of the very few people in Oz who actually expect any truth to come from Malcolm Turnbull. He knows he's gone, & like Gillard before him is doing as much injury as he can to all those who rejected him.

A more realistic way of looking at the postal vote result is that only 48.97 percent of all eligible voters voted Yes.

"Before and during the postal survey, assurances were given, by the Prime Minister no less, that 'religious freedom…will be protected in any bill that comes before this parliament.'"

Once again the PM has shown that he is a man of his word. The problem is that his 'word' does not mean anything.

As has been the experience in Canada, the way is now clear in Australia for the totalitarian homosexual culture to suppress the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, conscience and parental rights, for the 'benefit' of a few thousand same-sex or gender-fluid couples.

Rayco. If you want to play with figures, only about 30 percent of the eligible voters voted NO, so where does that leave your argument.

David

While talking about the freedom to discriminate, what about the discrimination against singles?

"Why should a single person be forced to contribute to, to subsidise, the love choices of others?

There is no denying that anyone who is able to claim 'married' status, which includes 'relationship' (de facto) is able to claim an array of entitlements and discounts that are denied to singles. There is an array of extra taxation, financial and work-related benefits that the Human Rights Commission say Gay couples should be getting. But the AHRC says nothing about singles who miss out but still have to pay.

Why should a single worker be subsidising through his/her taxes and through workplace agreements, to married entitlements that he/she is automatically excluded, barred from, because of his her/single status?

But singles are also being singled out to subsidise in other ways. For example, cheaper health fund for 'marrieds', a category vastly increased by Labor through expanded definitions of 'relationship' by Labor over the years.

Of course it goes without saying that the main beneficiaries have been the middle class. That is where SSM advocates Ms Penny Wong and ors come in, of course. But there are many thousands the same in the public bureaucracies, university staff and of course politicians, to name some.

Now, that really IS discrimination. Why should individuals who just happen to be single, ie not in a State defined 'love relationship' they can take advantage of, be forced to subsidise the love squeezes of others? It is not fair. That AHRC list of entitlements that Gays should now be entitled to and getting (a beaut pay rise in effect and just for being 'married') makes it very obvious.

LeoJ

It's effectively the young singles you agonise over, responsible for the support of gay marriage.

I have little sympathy for the plight of the young singles.

The only single folk denied equal rights have been gay! And like all gays, possibly on average pay more tax pro rata, as a demographic than other tax payers, particularly married folk! And a demographic, that the tax paying gay community has supported with their taxes! Even loej's parents?

So any argument that singles will suddenly be forced to support a special interest group falls flat on its face right there!

Anyway, it's time we had real not fraudulent tax reform so that all those liable ought be obliged to pay a fair share! And no more than that, regardless of their income levels or gender bias/natural orientation!

And as an unavoidable simple transparent FAIR system that's far more expensive to avoid than simply pay, as do all other law abiding tax paying citizens!

A very wise man once said, at some point complexity always becomes fraud! Quote unquote.

Finally not everything included in or dug up in our bible is necessarily attributable to the Master or the mighty irrefutable truth! Just medieval cultural conformity and needs readdressing and redefining as.

As a man speaking for me and not knowing my mind, speaks his own mind only or with a forked tongue! Let him walk on water and demonstrably heal with just the laying on of hands first! If he would speak for me!
Alan B.

The number of people living alone is underestimated because many may have a dependent such as a child living with them.

Demographics,
"One in four Australian households is a lone-person household. .

Key messages

Living alone is slightly more common with women than men, and the chance of living alone increases with age.

Women who live alone are, on average, older than men who live alone.

Separation is a significant driving factor for living alone in middle age.

Women who live alone have higher education levels, are higher income earners and are more likely to be professionals than women living with others.

Men who live alone have lower levels of education, are lower income earners and are more likely to be in less prestigious jobs than those living with others.

Living alone is increasingly on the public radar. One in four Australian households is a lone-person household, and rates have increased sharply since the 1970s.

Throughout the Western world lone-person households have become increasingly common, and this trend is spreading to non-Western countries."

http://aifs.gov.au/publications/demographics-living-alone

This is a large voting bloc that is callously disregarded and discriminated against by political parties. However some sectors of it have previously caused politicians to pay attention, such as when the aged vote swings.

Back to that unanswered question which is why should singles be forced to subsidise the love choices of Gays, or anyone else for that matter?

diver dan, "It's effectively the young singles you agonise over, responsible for the support of gay marriage"

Like everyone else they were sold a pig in a poke. They are the unfortunate generations that were most susceptible to the prevailing political correctness in schools and the media, ABC particularly, having grown up with it and knowing no better.

But I am not arguing for or against SSM, just wanting to know what possible justification there is for discriminating against singles and burdening them with thousands more to carry. If 'marrieds' want special conditions for their chosen 'married' status let them pay for those privileges.

Why should singles be compelled to subsidise the 'love' choices of others?

the abc discriminates almost daily. They hate white hetro dads. In their eyes they have ' white male privilege'. Total hypocrites as they bang on about discrimination more than most.

History has proven, and the public know, that the govt can never be trusted to do the people's bidding. They serve a greater master. They know that people either don't care or don't know. More importantly we feel we have no say. By that I mean, we can write all the emails, rally all we want, it is all to no avail. Once we have done the only thing they need us for, the election, we have then passed on the job of making decisions to the govt. They then proceed to do their masters bidding. That's not us. Because the public are not in a position to make fully informed decisions, they vote with only a fraction of the facts and 100% of the bullshite spewed out by those vying for office. A majority, yes majority, vote for the idiots who make the most promises or give away enough lollies because the Aussie public are more like children. They will get off their arse to march for some stupid cause but not something which is fundamental to our wealth and well being. I am for freedom to discriminate as it allows me to speak my mind. To do otherwise makes one's comments moot. Political correctness should be banned as it is the legally and socially accepted means to lie.

Alan B said;
We're signatories to a UN convention that guarantees religious freedom
and the right to practise, religious practise,

Fancy relying on the UN Human Rights Commission !
Chaired at one time by Saudi Arabia and with a number of members
who refuse to sign the UN Human Rights Convention !

I mean really !
Well that UN group will solve the problem easily;

Just throw the celebrants and the bride & bride & groom & groom
of the highest available building.

Appealing to the UN will solve the problem.