The article says, "When there are no rational grounds..." but there are quite rational grounds. Heterasexual and homosexual are two very different things and marriage was and is intended for man and woman.And the rearing of their progeny.
Homosexuals delight in throwing their different behaviours in the faces of hetero's then shrilly claim they are the same .
Once they have achieved a victory, then they move onto the next claim which if denied will be injurious ,discriminating ect ect.
God only knows where they would stop, perhaps making it compulsory.
Once the wedge is driven in deep enough then all the other "different" claims will come, polygamy cannot be far away and really weird practices cannot be discriminated against. Open for one, open for all. Welcome to the strange new world where anything goes and nothing satisfies.

what is it with this belief that gay people 'throw it everyones faces'?

is it because your only exposure to gay people has been 'queer eye for the straight guy' and the mardi gras?

I have a few a gay friends and I have learnt that 90% of the time you wont even know if someone is gay unless they tell you.

Seriously guys, find something more important to get worked up about.

I'm fed up with the sanctimonius attitude and ridiculous arguments of people who rail against civil registration for same sex couples.

It's very easy to sit back in the smug and comfortable majority, and insist on rightness and dominance over a marginalised group. How utterly cowardly you are. Why don't you look to your own soul and your own behaviour?

Nobody is able to give clear reasons why heterosexual marriage would be in any way damaged by allowing civil unions - without resorting to the irrelevent Old Testament arguments from a religion of 3000 year old goat-herders. Well guess what - the earth aint flat, either.

Justice, compassion and humanity will prevail against your hatred. It already has in other parts of the world, and it will here too.

Wilkinson says, “Gay marriage is a question only for the Federal parliament, and not for debate in Victoria.” As far as same-sex unions are is concerned, by defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the Commonwealth has vacated the field. This means that the states are now at liberty to create a same-sex marriage without conflicting with the Commonwealth.

The Greens have a Bill before the Tasmanian parliament to introduce same-sex marriages there (see http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3352 - uncharacteristically, Leigh refrained from commenting on this article, though no doubt he and his intolerant ilk have been frothing at the mouth about it since).

Nevertheless, as Wilkinson acknowledges, the states can never deliver the same rights for same-sex couples:

First, the most odious discrimination takes place in the federal jurisdiction.

Second, state-based reforms will inevitably differ from state to state, meaning that rights in some states will not be available in others.

The states (SA is a shameful exception) have already removed most instances of discrimination against same-sex couples. However same-sex couples will never be equal until the reforms carry through to the Commonwealth.

Peterpan,

As you use “we”, I assume that you are homosexual. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how it is ‘normal’, as you claim, to have sexual relations with a person of the same sex? I am a non-religious person, so perhaps I’ve got the science mixed up? How can you claim that you are like everyone else? What percentage of the Australian public, do you think, sympathises with your behaviour and believes that you are being victimised.

Here is your chance. Perhaps you might be able explain why my belief that you and other homosexuals are abnormal, is “both defamatory and vile” – i.e. why am I a vile defamor?

Don’t be shy. I guarantee to read and consider what you have to say. You have revealed that you are a homosexual, and I am one of your detractors.

Here, on OLO,you have a chance to prove me wrong.

Sexuality, religion, race, colour, creed, are all tools of conservative governments let's face it that's our choice, conservative, or more conservative. These labels are used to control us, as the union movement has said in this country for a hundred years, the workers united will never be defeated, which is why we have these labels to divide us.