I've found an excellent article that sums
up the gay marriage issue in Australia.
It can be accessed at:

http://www.actnow.com.au/Opinion/No_argument_against_samesex_rights.aspx

Here are just some quotes:

"In a secular democracy there is simply no valid argument
against same-sex rights."

"To term opposition to same-sex marriage as having an argument
is to flatter their conservative ideals unnecessarily, for there is
nothing to validate this explicit discrimination which outlaws
same-sex marriage that can be substantiated in a secular
democracy... The 'arguments' against same sex marriage generally
take the predictable format...that homosexuality is inherently
wrong, as such it threatens the sanctity of marriage and is going
to contribute to that inevitable moral decay of our society besides,
the whole point of marriage is to make babies and we all know
homosexuals can't do this...Duh."

"Wrong. Homosexuality is not inherently wrong, according to our
secular society, marriage is hardly sacred and the moral decay
of our society is far more likely to be at the hands of people in
the medieval age waving the unfounded-political-opinions-based-on-
unvalidated-conservative-or-religious-ideas trying to infect our
supposedly secular government with personal pet hates and throw away
those old fashioned democratic ideals of equality, rationality, and
freedom. And, as if it matters, homosexuals can now make and raise
babies just as well as Jack & Jill."

Finally:

"If you're still concerned, look at all those countries who have
already implemented gay rights. They're doing OK. There have been
no apocalypses, no moral cringes based on 'well, if homosexuals
have rights, I guess anything goes!' Does Australia really want
to be the last bastion of good old fashioned anti gay and anti
equality 'moral' values? To put it lightly, if you're not
interested in gay rights, you're not interested in authentic
equality or the moral upkeep of our society.
At what point did private relationships only become valid when
a (conservative) government decreed them so?"

"Marriage is recorded by the State to keep descendants for citizenship purposes." - Philo I've not looked the historical reasons for the state keeping marriage records but if that is the case those who chose it had little understanding of genetics and human behaviour. Both now and throughout history a percentage of people have conceived children with someone who they are not married to. If that's the purpose then it's not a very effective way of meeting the goal.

I've not looked afresh at the issues around marriage following the changes to defacto laws but my impression is that the uncertain nature of the latter leaves some issues outstanding. The right to be treated as next of kin in medical crisis etc (decisions about care, visitation rights etc) are issues where a clear spousal status can be very important and where a clear decision to that effect and a state record of that decision is important.

In other areas such the uncertainty around defacto status might complicate (and make much more expensive) issues such as settlement of will's etc.

Have you ever had older friends or relatives marry? Would you deny them the right to formally recognise their commitment to one another and the place they give the other in their lives because having children is no longer wise and or practical?

I suspect that we might be better off if the term marriage was taken out of the debate, that state recognition of the chosen arrangements between adults was given another title without the emotional loading which comes with marriage.

R0bert

If as you seem to think, gays and lesbians really want what goes on in their their bedrooms regulated by the State, why hasn't there been a rush to take up Centrelink's landmark recognition of 1 July 2009 - to advise Centrelink of their committed relationships?

Contrary to what you seem to think, there has not been a rush to register. Why not, if public recognition of their commitment is what gays and lesbians crave?

Recent changes to Commonwealth legislation mean that for the first time people in same-sex relationships may be regarded as living in a “de facto relationship”. This means that gay, lesbian and opposite-sex couples will have equal rights and entitlements under the amended laws, effectively removing discrimination.
Same-sex de facto relationships are now recognised under Social Security and Family Assistance law, with effect from 1 July 2009. This means that you are now required to advise Centrelink if you are in a same-sex “de facto” relationship.
If you are assessed to be a member of couple, your partner’s income and assets will be taken into account and your entitlements may be reduced or cancelled. Some people in same-sex de facto relationships may have new or higher entitlements because income and assets test thresholds are higher for couples.

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/ssr_custinfo.htm

Would you disagree with government using the numbers registered with Centrelink as a reliable indication of the incidence of gay and lesbian partners in the community? If not why not?

RObert

The above was replying to Foxy - I often leave a window open while attending to business and occasionally do not think to check for other replies.

I agree with your last sentence. A concern I have as you may have read is that the amendments proposed by Foxy to the Marriage Act overturns the whole concept of marriage for which this Act was drafted and recently confirmed. I have explained my thinking early in the thread on 9 Nov 2009:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191&page=11

Apart from that, I also contend that the whole area of recognition f and definition of de facto partnerships has moved ahead of what the electorate might want and there has been a dearth of community consultation on it. Democracy is not limited to voting in elections and on such significant change the electorate has a right to be fully consulted. There are well tested models for obtaining community participation and no, the occasional conferencing of 'experts' and representatives of vested interests is not one of them.

Foxy,
You're very wrong.
You dismiss thousands of years of marriage between man and woman as not being validated
and then you validate SSM by claiming no adverse effects.
Societal recognition of such behaviours only creates more problems.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that children raised in homosexual households
are much likelier to engage in homosexual behaviour.
Homosexuals in the Netherlands have won the "right" to cruise in public parks,
where warning signs are now erected to warn others that they are entering a public homosex zone.
Police in Britain have been directed not to interfere with homosexuals having sex in public places
because it interferes with their human rights.
Paedophiles in the Netherlands are so emboldened that they have their own political advocacy group and magazine.
Homosexuals in California openly engage in public sex at such "pride" events as the Folsom Street Fair, while police stand by and watch because to interfere would be discriminatory.
Look it up. That's what the internet is for.
Homosexual marriage is the back door (if you'll pardon the pun) to all these activities.
Validating homosexual marriage is validating homosexual behaviour and the above are just some examples of the consequences.
They fit together like a fist in a ......
You may think these manifestations of homosexual behaviour are progress but there a still a few hateful homophobes who don't want our society to go down this road.

Cornflower if your main concern is about changes to existing legislation alter the meaning or expanding the target group I disagree. If it's about an objection to the idea that people can find themselves in a relationship with many of the same legal consequences as marriage without explicitly choosing the change in status of the relationship then I agree.

It's my understanding that in the past the right to own property was quite selective which is now much less selective, the right to vote has been a series of steps which have widened the list of who can vote etc. I don't think that the whole consept of property rights or voting rights needed to be reworked or seperate new acts created to cover the widening of the target groupings. I don't like it if it's done by subterfuge but a call for legalisation of gay marriage is not sneaky, it's a call for a very clear change.

R0bert