Deuc,

Yes, you are technically correct about the non-exclusivity of Marriage law. However, the enactment of the federal Marriage Act makes this a moot point. As you acknowledge, it invalidates any contrary state law. As Em pointed out, the High Court in Telstra v Worthing made it clear that "if it appears from the terms, the nature or the subject mattter of a Federal enactment that it was intended as a complete statment of the law governing a particular matter or set of rights and duties, then for a State law to regulate or apply to the same matter or relation is regarded as a detraction from the full operation of the Commonwealth law and so is inconsistent."

Deuc said: "If it had said 'marriage shall be' instead of '"marriage" means' then it would have explicitly excluded marriage for homosexuals"

This is just playing semantic games. "Marriage means..." was clearly intended to define what is and is not a marriage. The definition implicitly excludes same-sex relationships. It is not intended to limit the applicability of the Act.

DavidJS, man+man or woman+woman can never be equal to man+woman no matter how loudly you complain. Moreover, homosexuals have never been denied the right to marry. They simply cannot marry someone of the same-sex. This is no more a violation of human rights than disallowing a person to marry someone under age, or someone who is already married.

Bad news for you DavidJS, you lost the same-sex marriage debate - and by a long long way. And we haven't even started yet. We haven't even scratched the surface! No lobby group can compete with a unified and focused Church.

Actually, the rise of gay and anti-family lobbiests has been a good thing for the Church in Australia. They have woken the sleeping giant.

DavidJS, "homophobe" describes an irrational fear of same-ness, but is usually used to refer to people who object (for good social and moral reasons) to homosexuality.

Let me assure you, DavidJS, I do NOT fear you or any other homosexual.

It is an issue of semantics Aslan, but not as a game. The definition section only describes what the word means within the context of the act -- it does not have its own legislative force. Parliament doesn't have the power to define what marriage means, although it can impose limitations on it.

Is there really any point in you making arguments that don't even rise to the level of speciousness? Anyone can see that those demanding gays be given the right to marry are shortening themselves for convenience. The right to marry is effectively no right at all without the choice to marry who you want, clearly the issue is securing for homosexuals the right to marry the person of their choice. (With the other persons consent etc.)

But since you brought it up, why not examine such situations. Assuming that the right to marry is a human right, do you consider that making it illegal for people of different races to get married be a violation of that right? What about restricting the choice of marriage to only those people accepted by one's parents? People with similar genetic predispositions? Only people born in the same month? There is no difference between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual relationship that would distract from the nature of marriage.

The "Church" does not have a unanimous voice on this matter, there are many Xians who would consider that the spirit of Jesus' teachings requires nothing less than marriage rights for gays and many more that believe that they're views should not dictate the law. Pro-marriage for gays is pro-family; there will certainly be a reaction but that's what happens when people feel their identities are being attacked.

Say what you want about the word homophobe Aslan, but you're the one playing semantic games.

Aslan inadvertently reveals his/her contempt for marriage by asserting that homosexuals are actually allowed to marry now - but someone of the opposite sex. I am familiar with the havoc this sort of marriage wreaks on the lives of people involved. I think it used to be more common in the 1950s and 1960s when homosexuality was illegal here (or rather "homosexual acts" - effectively the same thing). But the point is religious fundamentalists would prefer a gay man to marry a straight woman - regardless of how destructive it would be for all concerned. Better to have ideological purity than happy relationships. But then, marriage for religious fundamentalists has always been abstract. They tend to talk about "marriage" rather than actual marriages.

As for the point that the marriage debate has been "lost", well, what is this then? "Lost" implies it is over. It is not over, it is a long process that is happening RIGHT NOW in case you hadn't noticed. If Aslan is referring to the aborted Senate Inquiry, I'd hardly call that a debate. And both the ALP and the Coalition oppose same-sex marriage. There was no debate.

No, events won't move overnight. But neither did they in Canada, the Netherlands or Belgium. But I'm patient and, as we've seen with decriminalisation and age of consent equalisation, patience and work is rewarded.

Aslan, your capacity for sweeping generalisations never ceases to amaze me:-

"although funnily enough, most gays themselves couldn't care less about marriage - they don't want to be bound by such restrictive - as they see it - institutions".

Where do you get such ridiculous information? On what survey, with what size sample of the gay population, do you base your claim? (It can't be based on the views of any actual gay persons you know, because I'm certain you can't ever possibly have met a real live homosexual). Not to mention the fact that there are many heterosexuals who don’t want to be “bound” by the “restrictive” institution of marriage - doesn't lessen their right to it.

[Deleted for flaming] You have NO NEED to be afraid of us. As novelist John Irving put it in a recent interview, when lamenting the cultural divisiveness encouraged by the Bush administration:-

“Why do so many people care about gay marriages? How do gay marriages affect those of us who have heterosexual unions? How are we threatened? Mind-boggling. I thought the real endangerments to heterosexual marriages were other women or other men, or maybe spousal abuse. Wife beating – how about that one? When the president talks about the sanctimony of marriage, why doesn’t he address that? He’s a f*!#*!g moron. You can quote me on that.”

Jane,

Information came from numerous sources one of which is a document written by gay activist Matthew Loader: "A RECIPE FOR RECOGNITION OF SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS":
"The differing views about relationship recognition are unsurprising – certainly our experience in South Australia when undertaking consultation with the lesbian and gay communities mirrored the results of consultation by political lobbies in other states: ‘Lesbians and gay men come from all walks of life and are so varied that they will never all agree on anything’. So, in queer communities as elsewhere, even though we are bound by common experience of alienation, it goes without saying that the answer for one will not be the answer for another."

Loader continues: "Presenting an equality claim that is based on a premise of normalisation and ‘sameness’ is, therefore, both intellectually unsound and at odds with the political task of the lobbyist to represent: it would be to homogenise our communities’ political views. If our political claim is simply to prove we are the ‘same as’ heterosexuals, we betray the diverse identities and voices we claim to represent. By deferring to a claim for ‘equality’ as ‘sameness’ – which is so politically palatable and easy to advocate – we ignore the more complex task of deconstructing binary social concepts of normativity and ‘otherness’ and border dangerously on essentialising our relationships – by making them ‘fit in’ with current heterosexual relationship constructs. Thus, rather than progress towards acceptance of diverse identities, sexualities and relationships, such an equality claim portrays a bland sameness and will end up fulfilling the wishes of few lesbian and gay partners."

There you have it Jane. From the words of gay activists themselves.

Also see gay sympathiser S. Sarantakos "Same-sex Marriage: Which wat to go?" Alternative Law Journal 24/2 April 1999.

Of course I have "NO NEED to be afraid" of you. That's precisely why I said I am absolutely not afraid of you. Duh!

Aslan's quote from Matthew Loader does indicate that gay activists do have differing views about same-sex marriage. That seems reasonable. After all, heterosexuals have differing views about marriage per se. I have plenty of straight friends who wouldn't dream about marrying themselves. However, they do support a campaign to allow gays to enter into marriage if they so want.

Let's make this clear: same-sex marriage differs from adult-child marriage or polygamous marriage because it is based on equality. Other forms are unequal. In democratic societies based on human rights an adult-child marriage would be seen (rightly) as a violation of human rights.

Btw, if people want to quote Leviticus or any other part of the Bible at me you go right ahead. Because quite frankly, I couldn't care less. However, I am interested in the fact that Jesus got angry to the point of physical violence with the money-changers in the temple. He specifically had the Hillsong people in mind when he did that.

But while you are at it, don't forget that Leviticus reserves the death penalty for (amongst other things) adultery. So how many of you selective Bible quoters out there are campaigning to have Tony Abbott and other adulterers stoned to death? And if you had any principles you'd be publicly campaigning for the death penalty for homosexuality, prostitution and any other "sin" deemed worthy of death instead of mealymouthed whingeing about same-sex marriage. Bring it on!