I don't really understand the furphy. In NSW at least, Marriage was rendered meaningless by laws which give de Factos the same rights as married couples. So why bother getting married anyway?

Woulfe,
It seems reasonable to point out an apparent pattern of misrepresentation to put something or someone in context.
Rodney was quite happy Outing Australian Men (OAM - is this the origin of his honorific?) to advance his agenda even when those men (Graeme Murphy and Peter Sculthorpe) were surprised by his public revelation that they were homosexual and not heterosexual as they had hitherto supposed.
To his credit Rodney admitted to his mistake and apologised to them both, although why it would be necessary for him to apologise for the apparent honour he had conferred on them is unknown.
http://www.rodneycroome.id.au/comments?id=684_0_1_0_C
Rodney promised to clean up his act to restore his lost credibility but he still pushes the 10% myth.
The 10% of the population claim and the gay gene claim are just some of the distortions still used by "gay" propagandisers to advance their agenda even though they have been thoroughly discredited by reputable sources.
Or are we just supposed to swallow these untruths because to do otherwise is homophobic?

The claims about how well-liked Mr Croome is have absolutely nothing to do with equal marriage rights for same-sex couples: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8779#139285 To what extent he is supported by the "Tasmanian homosexual community" is also irrelevant to a discussion of a federal issue. None of the personal enmity here contributes to the discussion.

In addition, there are significant problems with the non-personal claims:

"Tassie has very advanced acceptance of homosexuals, the majority are happy with civil unions, giving them legitimacy." Tasmania does not have civil unions: http://www.relationshipstasmania.org.au/registrationmarriagecivilunions.html Under the Tasmanian Relationships Act, Tasmanian residents can enter into a Deed of Relationship. Since 2003, 120 couples have done so, according to the print edition of last week's Sydney Star Observer (story not available online). I'll need some help in understanding how this constitutes "the majority."

In any event, marriage falls under Commonwealth powers: http://www.aph.gov.au/SEnate/general/constitution/chapter1.htm In order for a same-sex relationship to be equal with marriage, it must be recognised as equal by the Commonwealth, not by a state. A relationship formalised with a Tasmanian Deed of Relationship attracts all the benefits received in Tasmania by married couples, but as soon as that couple crosses Bass Strait, the recognition of their relationship is determined by local state law, rather than by Commonwealth law as would be the case if they were married. In short, Commonwealth law and the laws of most other states do not recognise a couple in a Deed of Relationship: most likely they treat them as a de facto couple. Regardless of the rights it confers, state-based relationship recognition is not equality.

Damnit, let them marry. Let them call their unions, marriages.

I'll be encouraging he next generation in my family to have Christian Church Sanctioned Unions in Christian Churches who refuse to conduct gay marriages and I'll be leading the charge to have those Christian Church Sanctioned Unions legally recognised by Government alongside all the other pseudo marriages.

I don't think I'll have any problem with the wider community accepting the term Christian Church Sanctioned Unions ... or it's wider implications.

Jeez he dumber people are the dumber they and their demands become.

Very generous christian attitude, Keith.

Why thank you sparkyq. But I thought I was merely being practical and copying the actions of those who want to usurp the traditional marriage. Do you think them as generous as I ... too ... or are you being selective in your praise?