Malcolm Turnbull has called for a conscience vote on this issue. What is impressive is that he is the first politician to have come out and publicly stated that in a secular society the state should not be concerned in dabbling in issues about what does or does not constitute marriage. The role of the state is to distribute the burdens and benefits from social co-operation fairly. To do that it needs to know how people define the relationship they have to one another. A couple that is living as a couple should be treated as such. Leave it to the plethora of civil celebrants and churches to decide what is or is not a marriage - all the state needs to know is the nature of your relationship.

Yes the desperate Turnbull. He got so close, but fortunately he was kicked out before he could do much damage. So much like Labor, he'll try to buy a vote anywhere he can.

That would be fine Baygon, provided you realise that the benefits given to married couples are to support "breeding pairs" mot just those living together.

If you are going to give the various government funded benefits to pairs that have no chance of breeding, you will have to offer them to all share accommodation people. That would surely be fair. After all, many "normal" people share flats for longer than many homosexual pair bonds last.

If you can't breed you have no point or right to any marriage benefits.

Dear Baygon,

Thank You for another interesting thread.
I think Malcolm Turnbull is great! I may not
always agree with everything he says - but
when he speaks he's coherent and makes sense.
In this case - his take on same-sex marriage -
I do happen to agree. As do most Australians.
It's only a small minority that insists on
imposing their will and beliefs on others.
It should be a consience vote in Parliament.

I see much more here than hasbeens dislike of the next leader of his party.
More than a dislike of same sex couples.
I suspect Church wedding is not the wanted out come, if it is start their own religion/Church.
After all it would seem clear existing thought is that is not the place.
However we have no right to judge them or in my view stop them.

Of interest attention hasbeen, if every party in the Parliament, say conscience vote.
Except Lib/Nats, and it fails by say ten votes.
Some who have never.
Not ever
Voted for other than Conservatives have reason for never voting that way again.
Same sex couples are not freaks, not all leftist,and Turnbull is aware Abbott should not wedge his party yet again.
Abbott's fall, Turnbulls rise is needed, by Australia, and the ALP it seems only that will see the end of Gillard.

The whole idea of a conscience vote is mysterious. People who support 'gay marriage 'already have had their consciences seared to what is right and wrong. Why could we not have a 'conscience vote' on the carbon tax? It would have no hope of getting up. Once again social engineers fooling those who already have seared consciences.

I wounder, truly, why even consider talking to runner.
But I have no doubt I too, have equal rights.
Rights to say Gods, the world is full of them, far different or much the same.
Are fables.
And that those who follow them judge in their name, have too much power, not enough understanding making laws based on one of the thousands of Gods is blindness.
Failing to understand, in the minds of all followers of every God theirs is the true one too is blindness.
As all Gods are different, and every one says theirs made us all, he/she made same sex couples too.