It's simple the term marriage should be defined in modern Australia as "The voluntary union between two or more adults for as long as is mutually agreed, The union can be dissolved at any time if one or more parties violate on the terms of the union".

These sort of issues should be sorted out at a state level.

The High Court would surely find that the word "marriage" in the Constitution relates to a union between people of opposite sex. On that basis, the federal head of power regarding marriages only relates to such unions. Indeed, the Commonwealth government has gone out of its way to ensure that this is what the Marriage Act is about. They wasted parliamentary time in the process, because there was never any likelihood that the courts would find that people of the same sex could get married under the Marriage Act as it previously stood.

Anyway, they can't have their cake and eat it. If marriage is the union of people of opposite sex, then the union of people of the same sex is not marriage, and is not subject to a head of power possessed by the the Commonwealth.

Sylvia.

In Western Australia the removal of the Crown as head of State by McGinty, is now in question to the lawful authority of those who administer and preside over Birth, Deaths and Marriages.

We don't quiet know where we stand on the definition nor acknowledgement of a union between two people?

Interesting that one bit of the definition "the voluntary union for life" seems to be missing from the debate. My "marriage" did not last for life - does that mean it was never a marriage? If the gender and number of the participants is so important then why not the term of the union.

Really the concept seems to have little meaning in modern Australia.
- People are free to walk out (probably better than being forced to stay in a really bad one but it violates the idea of a union for life)
- you can end up in as difficult a legal mess without a formal committment based on some vague criteria - you don't have to live together full time to be defacto.

It's about time that the law recognised a variety of types of unions and only recognised such unions where they are formally entered into.
- The traditional one man, one woman till death do us part with consequences for breach of contract.
- Something like Kenny's definition.
- A range of options in the middle as agreed by consent at the time the union was entered into.

Things like fidelity, expected contributions (employment, housework, yardwork etc), care of kids, division of assets at termination of the union can be specified to up front.

No place for someone having dated someone for a while and finding themselves needing lawyers to protect their assets if the relationship fails.

R0bert

Same sex "couples" should receive no formal acknowledgement of their "union". Decriminalising homosxuality was the limit. A Catholic bisop in Italy recently received expected booing and hissing when he opined that perhaps 10% of people may have been born with gender problems, but the rest were all "perverts".

Even if we are not interested, not affected, quite happy to have gender benders in our midst, science and common sense should tell us that homosexuality is unnatural and disgusting.

It is just one of the areas of decadence which will see the end of Western civilization.

Leigh, it may be that our collective tolerance of "the different" is one of the things that has helped set us apart from other civilisations. The things that get tolerated may not always be to our personal taste or liking but I doubt that there is a realistic way to have freedom and progress without fairly wide tolerance for different ideas and choices. We could try and limit freedom to specific areas but I that creates an easy door for restrictions which do stifle progress.

That is in part why some of us fight so hard to protect the freedoms of others to live lifestyles we don't like ourselves. The cost to our civilisation of any other approach is to high. Admittedly we walk a fine line between liberty and responsibility, sometimes getting the balance wrong but mostly over time hold it together well.

Do you really want a civilisation where personal morality is more closely controlled by others.

R0bert

Of course he does as long as it is his crowd doing it. The far right is no better then the far left both wish to oppress and control.

The only reason some homosexuals and lesbians want the right to marry, is because they don't have it. Its the I want, I want syndrome, rather infantile. There are already adequate means to formalise and secure a relationship, even to the point of power of attorney, wills and registered agreements. These are used by many couples wishing to secure their relationships.

Marriage is a failed religious concept, fight the churches if you want some of their stale bread. Or maybe you feel inadequate in your sexuality and want to feel more normal. What you are is what you are, no illusionary rights will improve your life, just you.

Society has many people who spend their lives together either short or long time, yet never marry, nor have their relationship formally recognised. Get a life and stop whining, you defeat your purpose by constantly pushing to disrupt society.

Who cares whose sleeping with, or living with who, as long as its not harming anyone then just get on with it.

The only proviso I have on any relationship, regards children. No child should be brought up without and equal involvement of both biological parents, unless its not possible or can be proven to be dangerous.

Marriage, you gotta be pretty primitive to want a failed religious practise. Get someone to throw a bottle of grog over you both and wish you well, but stop whining

Kerry, you appear to be setting up a test for marriage-like unions when you say “with both marriage and civil registration, you can only be in one relationship at a time. And, for all intents and purposes under ACT law, a civil union is the same as a marriage.” In most jurisdictions, you can only be in one de facto relationship at a time. Is that the same as a marriage? Do you really want to claim that every exclusive pairing is a marriage? This definition could easily be extended to bridge partners, co-authors and dancing-with-the-stars duos.

It’s a really confusing article, Kerry, and it’s not at all clear what your point is. Next time you post, you might like to take advantage of one of Online Opinion’s volunteer editors.

jpw2040

We volunteer editors have enough to do, thanks.

Alchemist, marriage is an older practice than the practice of any of the monotheistic religions. The idea that a marriage actually has a divine, sacremental significance is a religious concept. Marriage has many functions, the primary one of which is to ensure that enough children are born into our society, and that those children get the upbringing that they deserve: the support of its biological mother and father (where possible) and the stability that comes with that. Marriage is not just about two consenting adults... it is a thing which concerns the whole of society, a thing far greater than mere individuals.

"The voluntary union between two or more adults for as long as is mutually agreed, The union can be dissolved at any time if one or more parties violate on the terms of the union".

So, we're fine for a child to be living in a situation with both multiple mothers and fathers? C'mon! The rights of the child, which always should come before those of parents, would be so obviously violated in that situation, and you'd be setting them up for a life of dislocation, confusion and broken homes.

There are two, in my eyes, driving forces behind the push to expand the definition of marriage: 1. recognition. 2. benefits. On the first, you don't need to get married to recognise a relationships... a family can get together and celebrate two people without a marriage. On the second, apart from being able to see a person in hospital, the are fiscal benefits which are directed to heterosexual families because they bear children.

On the issue of the article, I think that the prediction that anything that mimicks marriage but does so under another aim might mean that the issue will only ever be determined federally might be correct. If the federal government tried to legislated penalties for criminals under another name, the courst would strike that down, and so they should for marriage in any other name.

"Things like fidelity, expected contributions (employment, housework, yardwork etc), care of kids, division of assets at termination of the union can be specified to up front.

No place for someone having dated someone for a while and finding themselves needing lawyers to protect their assets if the relationship fails."

R0bert: Important points, though difficult to monitor and actually evaluate at the end without a lot of (presumably intrusive) bureaucracy. Still, I think these are pretty serious issues. I'm extremely wary of marrying, or at least of marrying a western woman.

"It is just one of the areas of decadence which will see the end of Western civilization."

Leigh: Well why not I say?! Western civilisation began with a bunch of guys who enjoyed a bit of man lovin' (the ancient Greeks) and was often continued in a similar vein (eg. Michaelangelo, Wilde). No doubt someone was knocking Michaelangelo back in the day and proclaiming the apocalypse, but that's right, he didn't paint perhaps the single greatest and most recognisable tribute to Bog, someone "unnatural and disgusting" did! Oh the irony.

The true test of whether marriage should be continued as an institution would be to desolve all marriages and to see how many would remarry the same person.

I personally think marriage is an archaic institution and it certainly pre dates any of todays formalised religions.

I agree with Robert that if we make one part of the marriage act so important - the opposite sex bit - then we should also hold equally important the - for life bit.

Let gays marry and move on.... Homosexuality isn't catchy... so having gay neighbours living in love and harmony (the great fib of marriage) won't make it spread up the street.

It may just make us all a more tolerant and fair society ... Gee now wouldn't that be a worry for the people who call themselves Christians but then cast the first stone...Ha!

Given the way that 'marriage' is treated in modern Australia, perhaps in some post-modern form we should get rid of the concept of marriage altogether, for everyone.

Either that, or the government, at all levels, should butt out of marriage completely.

Marriage used to be, for centuries, a type of two sided contract in which both sides were expected to respect, and that governments had the responsibility to hold people to, in one way or another. Government no longer holds people to this contract, in fact, there is no longer a contract and marriage 'vows' are not vows at all.

It is a 'contract' that one side can opt out of unilaterally, without penalty, and often with reward.

Now the involvement of government in relationships is essentially to ensure fairness of property division and the best interests of the child. These are admirable goals, but they can be carried out without the need for marriage. In the same way that the Family Court deals with children born out of 'wedlock' (what an obsolete term that is - nothing locked in in weddings anymore - except exorbitant caterers bills) and the Supreme Courts of each state deal with financial situations in de facto relationships, there is no reason why this cann ot continue without government being involved in the formalising of relationships.

The Courts can still do their job, the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages can keep registering Births and Deaths, and the churches can keep holding ceremonies.

I say abolish the idea of state registered marriages completely. Marriage no longer exists as the instituation that even two generations ago considered it to be.

is not this christian-based federal definition of marriage, including as it does the 'for life' term, inconsistent with the act providing for divorce? which prevails? has divorce thus been abolished? alternatively, is it not a fundamental breach of the secular nature of the Constitution itself? barbh.

DFXX, I think your god has got to you, thats not my quote, “The voluntary union between two or more adults” etc., and I disagree with it. Marriage as we know it, is a religious concept and like all religious concepts, they fail in practise.

Basically the debate is over semantics, not reality. Its only those that are fearful, have feelings of inadequacy and lacking in intestinal fortitude, that wish to have what they think others have. Sadly they end up with the same problems and no solutions.

Relationships, can only be judged by their outcomes, anything else is illusionary. Marriage is just another form of control by government and religions. Having a marriage, won't change the problems faced by society, only exasperate it because people expect certain things from a marriage. When you look at the amount of money thrown at the marriage ceremony, you can see how infantile and stupid it is. All it does is create false hope for those participating, but lacks the reality of what you find after the honeymoon period.

The happiest people I know in relationships, aren't married, their in love. No god nor beleif gives you love, just the opposite, it instills fears

People should try spending 2 years living together in a non intimate relationship, that'll develop friendship, trust and compatibility. If you can do that, you have an excellent chance of success in the long term, no ceremony will help. The commitment needed to do that, will show you where your feelings and veracity lie. Without the sex, it won't take long to sort out the reality from the illusion.

Alchemist - spend 2 years living with someone I really want and NOT express my feelings? Thats not assessment of a suitable partner - its living hell. You have got to be kidding!

Anyway - not really sure just what point author is trying to make here. All I know is marriage is not for me (failed on the forever part). However I can't see what the fuss is about two people who wish to formalise their love for each other (regardless of sex). Hardly going to bring on the end of the world (Leigh, is there anything you like or approve of? Must be a real downer living with you).

Finally it is just religious conservatives yet again sticking their noses into the privacy of other people's lives. If they are so anti-gay sex, they should check out what many straights get up to in the boudoir - a lot more than just the missionary position.....

Cheers m'dears

Could I suggest that most of the commentators refer to http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/vecase/Behavior/Spring2004/laird/Summary.htm as it would appear that their level of anthropological development is actually being demonstrated in real time by this community.

As for the majority of people who, over the centuries, have valued the intrinsic worth of marriage as a social, moral and economic way of developing society, we, in the long run, will triumph as the chaos of the free livin' contributors will see that their kind are not reproduced and no followers or practitioners means no society. Just ask the Pharoahs or Roman Senators of old. Demographic suicide by lifestyle is well recorded in the annals of history...

But I do agree with the other posters...what was the authors point, other than judges appear to be out of step with Parliament / democracy and the majority of thinking (but silenced by media lefties) Australians?

What is marriage? It is just a word describing the joining of two people. However when it is applied to two people of the opposite sex, it means legal safeguards under Australian law.

Two people of the same sex in a committed, and loving relationship, have no legal safeguards under Australian law, and must use the expensive legal system.

They can be denied access if either partner is hospitalised.

They can be denied any say in medical treatment of their partner.

They can be denied involvement in the funeral, if death occurred.

They can be denied attendence at their partners funeral.

They can be denied access to their partners superannuation.

They can be challenged on their joint accrued assets.

These are only some of the issues that same sex couples have to deal with.That is why the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission headed by John Von Doussa QC, are now looking at the problems for same sex couples.

My partner and I this year, celebrate thirty very happy years together, and we look forward to when we will no longer be second class Australian citizens.

Love comes in all forms and is never wrong.

I think we are barking up the wrong tree here. What we should be defining is a family. The term marriage carries too much baggage.

I am thinking we should have something similar to a "business corporation" ie a legal entity to do business. A "family corporation" then becomes a legal entity to run a household.

I am not a lawyer but I reckon this would take all the emotion out the debate.

I live with a lesbian and, to be honest, I wish she would hurry up and get married so she would move out.

Seriously, though, after watching Insight last week, my housemate, her partner and I had a discussion about gay marriages. One point that was raised was the right of the de facto - were they to live together for ten years, her partner would have no more right to her stuff than she does now. After ten years of living together, my housemate's parents would have complete control of her estate and her partner would have none. If they could be recognised as a married couple, surely this would be different?

I have never really given gay marriage much thought. As a Catholic, I would not like to see my church conducting gay weddings, but I don't see the harm in letting two gay people gain legal recognition of their commitment to a monogamous life together. Even as a religious person I would hate to see religion dictating to government.

If, as I have argued previously in Online Opinion (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2206), marriage has a legal definition requiring the involvement of one man and one woman, then how can the Constitution be interpreted as giving the Federal Parliament power to legislate in respect of civil unions for homosexual people? The only way the Federal Government could challenge state legislation creating civil unions would be to admit that marriage, as the term is used under the Constitution, comprehends "gay" marriage as well. The logical extension of that admission is that any attempt by the Federal Parliament to define marriage as being exclusively limited to the union of a man and a woman would be unconstitutional.

There are important social reasons for giving special recognition to the traditional form of marriage which have already been traversed in this discussion, but Kipp raises important reasons why, as a matter of justice, homosexual unions should be given recognition. That is not to say those unions should be treated as marriages but just to say that two persons so committed to each other should be given some legislative protection in circumstances such as those raised by Kipp.

To argue that it is against God's plan is to argue that one knows God's plan. To argue that it is "against nature" lacks any meaning. To argue that it is perverted is to equate every homosexual with the extroverts who prance along in the Gay Mardi Gras.

Each of those propositions is plainly ridiculous.

We are supposed to be a liberal society. People should be able to live their lives with some measure of justice. The law should encourage commitment between people and honour the commitments people make to each other.

Since marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman, woudn't the constitution be out of date? As part of the society, many same sex relationship are coming up and therefore certain countries have recognize them. Australia however do not recognize such act as the constituion defines marriage as a union between man and woman. Isn't the constitution out of date?

If, as is mooted by Nick Ferret and jaadoo, that marriage is defined and enshrined under our constitution then to my way of understanding of our constitution, the only way a homosexual relationship can be recognized is to change the wording, or provisions held under the constitution by way of a referendum and have it passed by a CLEAR majority of the citizens of Australia.

A decision of this importance is for the majority of the people to decide, WE ARE THE PEOPLE - it is not something for politicians or judges to pontificate over, because, believe it or not we are the masters, not the servants, WE give the orders - they SHOULD obey them.

But in reality, since when did politicians do anything they were elected to perform anyway?

Just as Kekenidika has mentioned that the people of Australia should decide on the changes made in the constitution, basically it simply means that the constitution is OUT OF DATE. It isn'ts just the definition of marriage but rather many other social issues whhere the constitution does not reflect the people of today.