It seems that Rudd is now under pressure from the Victorian branch of the ALP to amend the Marriage Act to allow gay marriage:

<< Rudd pressed on gay rights

November 23, 2009

THE Victorian ALP has challenged the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to legislate for gay marriage.

Labor's state conference overwhelmingly passed a resolution at the weekend calling for gay and lesbian couples to be given the same rights as heterosexual couples, including the right to state-sanctioned marriage.

The resolution, which is supported by state ministers and which attracted cross-factional support, calls on the Federal Government to change the Marriage Act to allow for "equal access to marriage, regardless of the gender of either partner".>>

http://tiny.cc/eEqvR

It'll be interesting to see whether Rudd pays more attention to the ACL than the ALP. Methinks that the days of discrimination against homosexuals with respect to marriage are numbered.

Foxy, "Let the country vote on the matter."

Agree totally, you have gone straight to the crux of my concerns.

There really must be direct consultation with the electorate on such significant legislation.

It is also the only way to surface all ideas, give everyone a say, including the many thousands of ordinarily quiet people and ensure any credibility of the end solution.

Many people would like a completely open debate on the necessary limitation of continuing intrusion by government intrusion into their affairs by government and the justification for and necessary extent of government support for married and de facto couples.

What I find incredible is that there hasn't even been any reckoning of the cost of proposed changes.

Sancho, "Well, if you HAVE thought it through, tell us why marriage equality shouldn't be allowed."

With respect, I do not have all of the solutions and no-one else does either and especially the Greens, who continually go off half-cocked to get publicity and never, ever, take responsibility for tying up all of the loose ends. That is why there must be full and open discussion, not more back room deals.

All we hear from is the noisy zealots as they take sides and try to force others into take sides to suit them. There is another, decent, responsible, accountable and democratic path which as Foxy has said is to have a referendum. Or another less costly alternative would be for the Greens to run with 'Changing the Marriage Act' as their number one election issue for the next federal election, which is not so far away anyway.

Oliver,
Two elements the same is not a mixture. A mixture implies different elements.

All this talk about discrimination is absolute nonsense. It is as relative as banning males from frequenting female toilets. It is not a fact of discrimination at all to identify some toilets as male and others as female. I do realise gays want unisex toilets too, and sex changes funded by the State.

Dear Cornflower,

I think a Referendum is the way to go
on an issue such as this.

We're all entitled to our opinions,
but we're not entitled to impose
them on other people.

With a Referendum -
at least everyone will get to have
a say.

@ Philo: "In the biological world of breeding marriage means bringing together two of the opposite sex to form a new being."

Show me one - just one - use of the term "marriage" to describe a biological principle or process. I think this particular application is an original creation of the Philo University for Non-Reality Based Reasoning.

And we're still waiting to hear which religion you belong to that forbids infertile couples marrying.

@ Cornflower, the Caper is becoming increasingly convoluted. First, gay marriage would become polygamy. Unable to provide any sound rationale for that, and with all evidence to the contrary, you dropped the argument. Now, apparently, gay marriage is about the nanny state, Greens policies, and every other conceivable issue except gay marriage.

I admire your perseverance. Even HermanYutic jumped the thread once his credibility was shredded.

Tell us in just one sentence, Cornflower: why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry the same way heterosexuals can?

36 pages this thread has run, and you still haven't tried to answer the original question. I must admit, though, that I'm intensely curious to see which way you'll try to bend next to avoid the core question. Judging by the current trajectory, in a couple of pages you'll be telling us that gay marriage = global warming = Al Gore = US Democrats = Barack Obama = Kenya = Zimbabwe, and therefore legalising gay marriage in Australia directly supports Robert Mugabe.

Please proceed.

Too funny, Sancho :D