RE - Marrying porcupines...don't knock it till you've tried it : )

(Although I've heard that they're notorious drink spikers)

"In a secular society the state should not be concerned in dabbling in issues about what does or does not constitute marriage. ... [The state] needs to know how people define the relationship they have to one another."

These two statements contradict each other.

The state should not be concerned to inquire into, nor to register other people's sexual relationships, nor to distribute favours and impose disabilities on the basis of people's sexual relationships. State registration of gay marriages doesn't solve any of these problems - it merely changes the categories a bit.

Furthermore the state is no better at deciding what is fair in terms of the fruits of social co-operation, than is society itself. Society does a much better job than the state does, or can ever do, simply by its *voluntary* decisions. The idea that every decision should be made by government, just because "we live in a democracy" is absurd, because it doesn't explain why a given decision should be private and not political.

Rather than expanding the categories of state-sanctioned sexual relationships, the best and fairest solution to the gay marriage issue would be to abandon the governmental registration and regulation of sexual relationships - repeal the Marriage Act.

"Why do we think it is our right even duty too tell gays how to live?"

Actually we don't.

De-facto partners, whether gay or straight have the same rights under the law as married couples which are legally enforceable, and marriage is in reality different to de facto partnerships in name only. Gays are not excluded from any part of life that their straight cousins have access to.

While I personally support gay marriage, and feel that it is more a matter of when than if, I don't see it as one of the most pressing issues of the day, more a gesture than a fundamental change.

That Labor has done yet another spectacular back flip, and in only a year from making an election pledge not to change the act, to pushing it through parliament, does not mean that everyone else needs a synchronous rush of blood to the head.

There are some significant differences Shadow Minister some of these relate to rights people have regarding inheritance or being consulted when one's partner is seriously ill. Basically the problems seem to arise when the family does not approve of the relationship and so under cover of the law can basically reassert its authority. (The same applies to de facto couples.)
I agree that as a society we have far bigger fish to fry and I do wonder at the sort of priorities our politicians place on their legislative programme when this takes up so much time. The issue is not trivial to gay couples so lets get it out of the way quick smart os we can get back to the real business of government.

Don't worry, within 50 years, Islam will fix it.

Dear Hasbeen,

Things will get sorted very quickly when things
are put to a conscience vote in Parliament.