it was a matter of time before Gay Rights got a run, per Phillips

"Many of you sorry excuses for men, are mere whiners.....weak, bitter and resentful.

"REAL" men, like myself, make a success of their life and relationships, and if something doesn't work, we put in place workable solutions."

The song is called Real Men, remember the punch line

"So don't call me a faggot
Not unless you are a friend
Then if you're tall and handsome and strong
You can wear the uniform and I could play along
And so it goes - go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men are"

full lyrics here http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/toriamos/realmen.html

hence my comment in the book

4.1.2. De facto provision [which I don't cover in this book] as
it is called is covered under state laws [and courts] and I have no
idea or interest in "de faggoto" provision, mainly because the
taxpayer will already be pouring out millions of dollars into such
boo hoo groups that cover such matters. That is once again no
reflection on "people who take it up the arse" per se, but simply to
say this is a book for the race of blokes who "do it the usual way"
as I detail in an earlier chapter, and get done over in the usual way
once Buttercup starts on her DIP.

the only reason this Bill is happening so quickly [when there is REAL discrimination out there] is the fact so many in power [politics/law] are faggots and control the pursestrings

George perhaps I didn't make it clear. My piece was preparing the ground for the religiously inclined in a regime one I was proposing. I thought made more sense, that as I understand the laws today and under the system that is being proposed.
The central registry would be the govt as it is now but it is not up to them to moralize on peoples emotions and decisions with regard to their relationships.
For practical reasons I favour defacto as a flexible arrangement with minimal statutary remedies outside equity court. And marriage as contractual (gender mix is therefore irrelvant) arrangement.
Hope that helps.

examinator,
>>For practical reasons I favour defacto as a flexible arrangement with minimal statutary remedies outside equity court. And marriage as contractual (gender mix is therefore irrelvant) arrangement.<<

I completely agree and I find the proposed legislation, if I understand it properly, absurd also from the religious point of view given the separation of church and state.

What I, as a legal non-expert, find too restrictive is the coupling of the sacrament of marriage with a purely secular marriage, a “contractual arrangement” . Why cannot somebody ask a priest to get a sacrament (of marriage like, e.g. baptism or communion) without the state getting involved? Of course, the priest could still act also “as agent of the state“ to perform the civil marriage, if the bride and groom wished so, but why should this be compulsory? This would be more consistent than the status quo with the fact that the Church can REFUSE to marry (as a sacrament) homosexual couples or polygamous groups or what you have, but could - like anybody else - only ADVISE the state against practices that IN HER OPINION are not beneficial to the society as such. The Church might not like couples living together without being married, i.e. “irresponsibly”, but it has no power to punish them for that. And neither should the state.

yes indeed the song Real Men was NOT in fact a Gay Pride song

it was in fact essentially a thought provoking song, and as we all know the act of thinking conceptually [as Kirby J said in his Keynote address to austlii] vacated the planet circa 1985

so a key word in the 3 times chorus is "wonder"

"And so it goes - go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men are"

maybe he should have said we SHOULD wonder

but in the final verse, just before the chorus, we have

And if there's war between the sexes
Then there'll be no people left

IMHO this observation of what was to unfold in the war of the sexes [and what that would MEAN to society] was just as clever as Cohen's Hallelujah at that very same time in 1980s, correctly predicting the rise of SNAGs [like Phillips] in our society

please view at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=rf36v0epfmI

this Bill is all about the totally fu**ed society we are left with AFTER SNAGism was accepted by entities previously called men and everyone is totally confused, so just resort to "tit screaming" about "MY rights"

and the lawyers larf all the way to the bank

Some people may not realise this but in current federal law a same-sex couple is not reconised in any form which causes discrimination, its only the states which reconise a same-sex couples as defato, the bill tabled in parliment is designed to remove discrimination, not create discrimination for defato - gay or straight couples. Unfortunatly some people have not learnt from history and want to live in a society filled with discrimination and they are attempting to create confusion about the bill as they have a hatred for gays.

Divorce Doctor - You have taken TORI AMOS - "Real men" song out of context. Do you actually know who orginally wrote and what the song means to the orginal artist ?