Brian, thanks for your piece, it's an interesting proposition. And I was upset also at the ALP's seeming right-shift to court the "family" vote.

However, ALP state Governments (most notably Tasmania) have done a reasonable job of moving the legislative agenda forward in recognition of the rights of same-sex couples.

If the 2004 election had any lessons, it's that people need to feel relatively comfortable (relaxed and comfortable?) in order to consider changing their vote on the basis of a social agenda.

Saying to some one who is afraid they're going to lose their house when interest rates go up if they're concerned about same-sex marriage rights (or childcare availability, healthcare for seniors, funding of education, Indigenous poverty, etc) is a little like asking a drowning man if he thinks salinity is a problem. The vast majority of people will tell you that what changed their votes were economic issues, not social ones.

What's more, I don't think the Liberal backbenchers' support of same-sex unions IS evidence of a seismic shift - it's merely a political ploy for Howard to have his cake and eat it too: the same way he's facilitating an internal debate on childcare and abortion.

By letting his backbenchers off the leash he appeals to a his own demographic by expressing the "Party" view and the Party retains its "democracy" by appealing to another view using backbenchers to voice dissent. If the Government holds the line, at least the backbenchers have been heard. If they change their mind, well, that's democracy for you.

Sadly, I think it's a shrewd win-win rather than the evidence of a groundswell of community change you're hoping for.

Playing Devil’s Advocate we should really look at all marriage before condemning homosexual marriage.

I will leave aside, for the time being, the majority reason for marriage that is when two people love each other and wish to raise a family (by natural, normal methods) the traditional marriage that we all understand.

A few scenarios that maybe should not be defined as marriage are:
An attractive young woman marries a rich old man; she gets financial security he gets his rocks off. Have you seen how often this happens? They both get something from the union but should this be called marriage.

An elderly couple decide that they like each other and want to live together, the retirement village they live in will not let them live together unless they are married and their friends would be horrified. They marry have separate bedrooms and have a wonderful friendship. But is it marriage?

School sweethearts who marry because it is the thing to do when they leave school they grow apart and divorce three years later.

My idea of marriage is a commitment for the rest of my life to another person.

Leaving the obvious moral questions aside if two people wish to commit to each other for life then surely we should have some form of recognition of that commitment.

There are many sham heterosexual marriages we condone and there are many loving, long term homosexual relationships we condemn.

On the defacto question when I was transferred to Canberra to work for the Government I applied for relocation assistance for my live in girlfriend who was moving with me. I was told by The Bureau I was working for, that we were not in a defacto relationship so no assistance. When my girlfriend applied for the dole before finding a job she was told she was not eligible because we were in a defacto relationship!! How very strange.

Whatever time Brian Greig thinks the federal government's policies on marriage belong to does not matter. The fact is that John Howard is the first Prime Minister for about 30 years to have a majority in the senate.

Meanwhile the Australian Democrats did not retain a single senate seat in the election which handed Mr Howard this historic victory. There should be a lesson about who is out of touch in this for the Australian Democrats, I think they haven't got it. Rumor is that they will be removed from the senate at the next election.

If this is anything to go by then there was good reason why Brian Greig is not sitting in our Gov anymore. While I’m quite happy to see gay marriage/unions politicking the issue is a bit silly. Also why does the author say that labor didn't do anything and liberals have? Was the country ready for the laws in 85?, did the liberals rush these new laws in as soon as they got into power? Has Howard made changes to the federal marriage act?

Maybe i'm missing something here but i just can't understand what the logical argument against legitimising same-sex unions is.
There was an article on this forum that summed up the opposing arguments fairly well: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2185
So is there more to it than that?

As for Labor, well it's a curious idea that they might actually be in "opposition" to the government one day. However when i questioned my magic 8-ball about this it said "Outlook not so good" so i'm not holding my breath.
I think Seether summed up the politics of the matter very well in his post above. It's unlikely to be a major vote-winner for Beazley to run with this one.

Our Western culture, government, law, and society (were) clearly based on Christian principles. The concern for the minorities, a commitment to human rights, and respect for the greater good all grew out of Christian convictions.

For the last 50 odd years, (the church) has been gradually displaced by the reign of secularism.

The permissiveness of modern society can be traced directly to the fact that modern society acts as if God is powerless or does not exist.

Without God, there is no basis for identifying evil and good. But when the christians speak, on any issue (moral or not) of public debate, they inevitably find themselves at odds with a culture of non-belief; they are criticized, by the new lost secular culture, as outcast, outdated and irrelevant

The very notion of right and wrong is now discarded (or distorted) by secular society.

“Right and wrong” has been changed to “rights for wrongs”.

What was once “wrong” is now made right by “rights”; anything is permissible and if the majority don’t like it…tough… (Complete abandonment of all morality and disregard for the consequences).

This reality is observed on our TV shows, news, movies, video games etc…

To think that this new godless generation is going to govern our countries is nightmarish stuff.