Coming out of their self imposed redundancy and in an attempt to outbid the Greens, I dare the Senator to do what should be done: get rid of the affirmative action for heterosexual couples!

Most of the above posts seem to agree with Billie: "The bill is about changing the laws that discriminate against same sex couples."

Sorry, folks, but this bill is about a paradigm shift away from the nuclear family as the basis of civilisation. De facto recognition of relationships have already seriously undermined this State sponsored (and Church.culturally endorsed) policy. So the extension to other 'family' models means that the policy position has shifted from supporting families to supporting just about everyone.

Many modern couples figure why bother entering into a social and legal contract with society? I say, if we no longer support the model, rather than extending benefits beyond the original intention - ie. to support non-waged spouses and children - lets scrap the benefits, given the new circumstances society and the economy presents.

The best way to remove discrimination is to bring everyone to the level playing filed of a single person with no repsonsibility for children.

Try that Senator - good luck!

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I first like to point out;
Hansard 2-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
.
Mr. HIGGINS.
I do not see, speaking in ordinary language, how the insertion of such words could possibly lead to the interpretation that this is necessarily a Christian country and not otherwise, because the words "relying upon the blessing of Almighty God" could be subscribed to not only by Roman Catholics and Protestants, but also by Jews, Gentiles, and even by Mahomedans. The words are most universal, and are not necessarily applicable only to Christians.
.
My views are not religious based and neither should be the Federal Parliament.
.
Having this out of the way now could my wife complain that she being retired isn’t getting the same income as you do as a Senator, is that discriminatory also? Obviously not, as-there-are-different-circumstances-that-are-applicable.
.
People entering in a gay relationship do so knowing that between themselves they never can conceive a child. Heterosexual ordinary can (apart of those who due to medical problems cannot) and this is the difference why the constitution in Subsection 51(xxii) refers to “paternal rights” which was in regard of a divorce between a heterosexual couple.
.
The Constitution was based upon a heterosexual relationship being a marriage. As a Senator I view you should at the very least then support the constitution in that regard as after all aren’t you being paid being a Senator, which was it not for the Constitution you would not have been?
.
I view that a street cleaner is very important to keep people healthy but even if they work the same hours as a doctor they are unlikely going to get the same pay. Is this unfair? Is this discrimination?
.
It might be easy to scream “discrimination” when you are trying to compare different circumstances but in reality there can be no discrimination if all gay people are treated the same. If they choose a certain lifestyle then so be it and if they by their choose do not get the same benefits as heterosexuals then that is something they choose!
.

To respond to the above comment:

The Constitution provides no argument against gay marriage.

Marriage in Australia is not defined in the Constitution. Until 2004, it was not even defined by statute law. It was the Howard Government who made the political decision to insert this discriminatory provision into the Marriage Act 1961. As we know, governments can make mistakes.

Moreover, even if marriage were defined in the Constitution, it doesn't make it "right". Until the 1967 referendum, Aboriginal people were considered non-citizens by the Constitution. Thankfully, the laws changed. Now it's time for the laws to change again.

Contrary to your claim, gay people are not treated the same as heterosexuals. They are clearly denied a right heterosexuals take for granted: a heterosexual person is allowed to marry the person they love; a gay person is not.

Why does this discrimination continue? It's not, as you claim, because gay people "choose" their lifestyle. It's because the Government - shamefully - disapproves of same-sex relationships.

(1) Jpw, I was referring to pederasty you’re quite right but you haven’t shown how I equated it with homosexuality. Read carefully.

(2) I bow to your impeccable reasoning, I thought being natural allies (gay academics etc)you might be persuaded to see far from being illusory the slippery slope is real. Nevermind. You’re quite right their argument still has to be valid, just because numbers of people believe a thing doesn’t make it true – well said.

Perhaps then, if you're not happy with their argument, you could provide us with an in principle reason why if being of opposite sex is arbitrary why the number getting married isn’t also? Otherwise jpw I’m afraid I’m going to have bow to what seems a logically valid argument.

Saying in essence “nah we’re not talking about that” won’t do.

(3) You haven’t shown or even bothered to argue (3)

(a) Same sex attracted people are allowed to marry their lifetime partner if they’re of the opposite sex that is what marriage is. Many marriages contain a spouse who has had same sex attractions and relationships.

(b) Did you read my reply further down? I stand by that.

I begin to wonder why, rather than showing how if all the privileges of marriage are granted to homosexuals they could then be denied to all kinds of ‘love’ partnerships, you instead call me a liar, a spreader of falsehoods, and insincere. This won’t do.

Rights? What about duties? I don't think you or Allison have thought about them. Allison spoke mockingly of religious belief – she’s a scoundrel using the same tactics as Bolshevism or Nazism in her Homosexualism rather than being honest about what these demands mean for Australia.

Jpw consult your philosophy lexicon - morally inverting the victimizer and the victim won’t do. Ordinary Australians have had enough of being cowed by gay lobby rhetoric.

Jpk, the Constitution is not just what is written!
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten,
.
HANSARD 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. BARTON.-
Of course it will be argued that this Constitution will have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That will be true in one sense, but not true in effect, because the provisions of this Constitution, the principles which it embodies, and the details of enactment by which those principles are enforced, will all have been the work of Australians.
.
The principle embedded is marriage between a man and a woman!
.You neither understand that Aboriginals were “citizens” since federation but become “non-citizens” because of legislation enacted after the 1967 con-job referendum!
.
See also my blog at http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH
.
Gay people have the same rights as other gay people. Heterosexuals have the same rights as other heterosexuals. To simplify the example, if you have to travel one hour to your job and your neighbour only has to travel 5 minutes to his job are you then going to argue that you should not have to travel that long? Or, would you accept that if you choose to take a job that causes you to incur to travel one hour then that was your decision and you cannot then claim the benefit of your neighbour!
Neither could your neighbour demand your higher pay where he doesn’t accept to travel for that long to get such a pay packet.
.
Hence, a person who chooses to live in a gay relationship cannot then demand the benefits of a heterosexual relationship.
.
Perhaps before you argue as to constitutional issues you might do better at least to research it to avoid undue attacks on another poster?

Stop trying to torpedo the debate by tossing in unrelated issues, Martin. This is not about duties, it’s about rights. The duties discussion belongs in another forum.

Name-calling doesn’t help either: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum Associating the people on the opposite side of the argument with humanity’s worst evils does nothing to promote civilised discourse.

I commend to you your own advice about reading carefully. I didn’t say you equated pederasty with homosexuality. I referred to “conflating homosexuality with pedophilia” and I also used the word “associate”. Any mention of equating came from you.

Similarly, I said you are spreading lies. We could indeed have a separate discussion about when it is accurate to say that someone who is spreading lies is also a liar, but I haven’t gone that far in your case.

You said, “Our entire civilization is unanimous that homosexual unions are less valuable.” I don’t believe that homosexual unions are less valuable, Martin, and the Prime Minister has recently been presented with the names of 25,000 Australians who agree with me http://www.getup.org.au/files/media/getuppetitiontoentsch.pdf In the best case, your assertion is a muddle-headed piece of silliness. At worst it’s a lie, provided here to build a rhetorical point.

You stated that Robert Spitzer “doesn’t believe in the gay lobby’s sexual determinism.” This is not true: “Spitzer says he was ‘appalled’ by much of the coverage, which he charges misrepresented his research and distorted his findings. ‘The problem with many of the stories was that they raised the question of choice. Of course sexual orientation is not a matter of choice.’ ” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2001_June_19/ai_75435305

You’ve repeated a lie which NARTH continues to spread about Spitzer and the APA.

And on the subject of the APA, their position on homosexuality did not change in response to social pressure. It changed when new scientific data came to light. Social pressure slowed down the change (a lovely radio documentary called “81 Words” gives a very personal account of this http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=204). However the mounting evidence that homosexuality is not a disorder had made it inevitable.

Continued