I wonder if the snake is male or female.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1654386.htm

In keeping with the conservative view of love, any marriage may be considered null and void if:

Couple engage in anal sex.
Couple fail to produce offspring.
Both wear trousers.
Both wear dresses.

Also, in the event that a married couple do produce offspring and any of these offspring turn out to be homosexual or lesbian, the married couple shall be sterilised and, of course it follows that their marriage be considered null and void.

Men and women are hence forth banned from giving birth to gay people. That’ll wipe ‘em out.

;0

“Denying someone the right to be known as a committed partner to a relationship, simply on the basis of the gender of the partners, is no different to apartheid.”

Same old “whack job” hyperbole,

What I associate with “apartheid” is far different to the way the writer of the article has applied it here.

“Gays” are allowed to live where they want, associate with who they want and engage in relationships across racial lines, without fear of retribution by the state.

“Apartheid” would not allow them to live where they want, associate with who they wanted or engage in relationships across racial lines.

I have no problems, personally, with people in a particular relationship finding some representation in law for their form of relationship. I do have a problem when terms are used which are associated with conditions which do not apply.

Apartheid goes far further in the denial of human rights than simply the “right to be known as a committed partner” as the author should know and if he does not, then he should not use words he does not understand.

As for “I value human rights and the principle of equal treatment.”

It is a shame he did not practice “equal treatment” when he was on the bench of the family law court. There are legions of men who can and I am sure will denounce Nicholson in that regard.

The word marriage keeps being quoted, like it was some sort of sacred cow. It is not about marriage, its about two people in a loving and committed relationship, being given legal equality under law to protect their relationship.

This legal recognition will affect no one, but the respective couple. To those who would deny same sex couples this moral right, then it would appear, you have not experienced true love in your life.

"The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others."

I got married in a Christian church, we were adults under English law and voluntarily went through the ceremony. By mutual agreement, we had the children we both wanted. OK so far.

But we didn't remain together 'for life'. Our 'voluntary union' ended when we parted. We divorced in court. We no longer fitted the seemingly all-important definition, but life went on.

After a while I met a wonderful lady who was also married in church and divorced in court and we were together for over 22 years. No way were we going to have children together. We bought a house and started a business, which we operated together. Neither of us saw the need for marriage, but we could have married if we had chosen to.

If only one of us had been working, the other could not have claimed Centrelink benefits. If we had been a same-sex couple, that restriction would not have applied. Something wrong here!

The hospital where my wife [I make no apology for using that term] spent her last few days put a camp bed in her room so that we could be together. We had different surnames and no-one asked if we were legally married. If we had been a same-sex couple, maybe things would not have been quite so easy. Something wrong here!

I have been fortunate to meet another divorced lady and we are bringing love and kindness into one another's lives. There will be no more children. Whether or not we marry is our choice and no-one else's. But, unlike a same-sex couple, we have a choice. Something wrong here!

Maybe the word 'marriage' is the stumbling block to a suitable legal union for same-sex couples [or anyone else, for that matter, who prefers a different term]. Roget's Thesaurus gives a few alternatives. I like 'Love Match'. It carries no baggage and shouldn't upset the superstitious, the dogmatic or the heartless. And it certainly wouldn't cause the world to come to an end!

It's all quite confusing but I know I'll never let anyone who thinks an arsehole looks good to decorate my house.