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?