The Marriage Act was broken in August 2004, when the then government changed it from a non-discriminatory to a discriminatory piece of legislation, and denied a right to a portion of the Australian population. I have no doubt that getting it unbroken is simply a matter of time.

Brian Greig’s Crikey article could be a tad alarmist. I’m certain that Rudd is aware that same-sex relationship recognition is becoming more and more acceptable to Australians. He knows better than all of us that successful politicians move with the political wind, not against it. If he’s to stay in character, then at today’s ACL conference he will find a way of sidestepping the issue. In fact I’m hoping his speech contains some Bonhoeffer-esque advice for christians to concentrate more on helping the needy, and less on the divisive social issues they have been using to define themselves.

In any event, the cause of same-sex relationship recognition will benefit from today's events, no matter which way they go. If Rudd does announce that he is overriding the ACT's civil partnerships arrangements, then we will be rid of a discriminatory piece of legislation that could be used as a precedent elsewhere (the ceremonies in the legislation are only for same-sex couples, not for all couples). If he doesn't override it, then the principle that same-sex couples are entitled to celebrate their relationships with officially sanctioned ceremonies will be established.

A few hours from now we’ll know.

Cornflower leaving aside the issue of gay marriage I think that there are plenty of indicators that the marriage act is broken. Divorce rates are too high to give any credence to the idea that marriage as it is works well and the harm done to so many in the washup add's to that.

I still think that the issue needs a broader discussion about how much state inteferance we want in consentual adult choices rather than the push for minor ammendments. I think that one of Foxy's quotes should go a lot further 4) "Keep your religion out of my bedroom." can and should be extended to sources of prejudice other than religion.

My preference for a broader discussion is not opposition to allowing gay couples to have the same legal rights and protections (as well as risks) that straight couples have. Some of that's already been done by the sneaky changes to laws around defacto relationships but I have a fundamental objection to the idea that there is no point where those impacted make a choice to change the status of the relationship and take on the rights and risks of a legal relationship.

R0bert

The advocates of same sex marriage do obviously recognise different gender but not its genetic and social roles as distinctly evolved persons as they they talk about same sex intercourse as though it is fulfilling some evolved genetic purpose. Obviously it is a degenerate mutation from normal that needs eradication from the gene pool. In fact it by its character is self destructive.

All

Pilo's last summation is typical of the prejudiced in that it is as inaccurate as it is scientifically hokum based on (prejudicial) assumptions.

The same spurious rationale has been used to justify every prejudice from disability , race even eugenics.

To use terms Like 'degeneration' in the context of homosexuality must be based on the 'belief' that genetics, nature, evolution superiority. In turn this needs the assumption that GNE have a defined hierarchy i.e. end goal.

Might I point out this is merely religious influenced anthropomorphic 'heterosexual' superiority (arrogance)not science. Nature/Evolution are both processes not end goals. Likewise Genetics is an explanation of the observable not a qualitative/moral judgement.

Change our environment and humans may re-evolve into dual sexuality like some fish? Which BTW is in all our genes.

One say that all humans have the genetics for 'homosexuality. And their expression varies from person to person and subject to a myraird of factors.

All our genetics would have 'inaccuracies', 'throwbacks', manifestations of passive/dominant genes and from that perspective we then are all degenerate.

In essence the expressed view reflects the authors religious influenced 'beliefs' not science or objectivity.

My point, as always, is that there is no such thing as absolutes just temporally contextual opinions. Mores are human creations and therefore circumstantial not absolute.

Finally I would propose that it is this propensity to (inaccurately) view ourselves as the standard that allows some of us to indulge in all forms of prejudice. We simply fear that which is different.

NB Unless homosexual marriages become mandatory for all(including heterosexual) I fail to objectively its legalization is anything more that the concern of those whose personal human rights are being acknowledged.
Anything less that that is illogical and plain fear based prejudice.

The Marriage Act continues to reflect the values and priorities of Australians otherwise the major parties would act. Not to do so would spell electoral defeat.

However there is no such pressure and there remains no mandate for change.

The incidence of divorce is a different issue entirely and has as much to do with financial pressures and uncertain social and economic environments as anything else. For example, government reports show conclusively that couples are delaying their fertility and not having the children they would like because they cannot afford housing and their continuing employment is up in the air.

It is in the area of family law where change has been continual and covert that public confidence in the law has been lost. However that is only to be expected where the values of the overwhelming majority of the electorate have been disregarded and a result is legalised bigamy.

Is family law broken? Undoubtedly it is and there is a hardening of attitude in the electorate against the sneaky tweaks of law by the arrogant elites who presume to know what is best for everyone.

Presently, a minor party that only has a toe-hold in that 'unrepresentative swill of a senate' but is certain it knows best, is proposing to fiddle the Marriage Act to entirely change its meaning and the values it represents. Although claiming to value 'equality' and 'rights' that same party has set out to dismiss the rights and equality of any individual or group outside of the small sectional interest it is representing. It is hypocrisy of the Greens to disregard its own multicultural policy (as quoted earlier).

There is growing concern in the electorate about the assault on the Marriage Act. Combined with the loss of public confidence in family law that should make for a most interesting run up to the next election.

In one of the many websites that I've
used in this discussion perhaps this
sums it up best:

"The number one reason heterosexuals marry
is not to establish legal status, allow
joint filling of taxes, or protect each
other in medical decision-making. They marry
because it is the ultimate expression of a
person's love for another. Marriage is a
commitment that says, "I love you so much
that I want to live the rest of my life with
you. I want to share the ups and downs, forsake
all others, and be together until death do us
part." Should it matter that the couple
doesn't fit into what society is used to. Some
people talk about living wills and other legal
contracts. If that is the case, why don't all
heterosexual couples use these legal maneuvers
instead of marriage? Just maybe there's
something more to it."

Examinator, in his recent post on this thread
has summed up the situation rather well.
One of the websites that I've cited in the past
fully confirms his theories, and I quote:

"The 'should-they or shouldn't-they' argument over
same-sex marriage rages on, for the most part,
overlooking a crucial point: there is no
argument. 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."