Many Australians object to having the state
control their freedoms. The most recent being
the attempt to regulate the media. Yet these
same people do not object to the Marriage Act.

Why legislate marriage at all?

Shouldn't consenting adults be able to make
unions they wish provided it does not interfere
with the right of others?

'Shouldn't consenting adults be able to make
unions they wish provided it does not interfere
with the right of others?'

They Can.

I did.

"Should we get rid of the Marriage Act?"

No... as it constitutes compensation in providing the only physical pleasure for most people who are married.

Dear Houellie,

So did I. However according to the
Marriage Act not everyone is given
that choice. Why should the law
dictate who we should marry?

Dear WmT,

I think you've missed the point.

what freedoms does the Act interfere with?

Thanks Lexi, I fully support!

Get government out of our life - about 90% of legislation should be repealed, including the marriage act.

I think you misunderstand my point.

My union is not recognized by the government as a marriage, rather a 'de-facto' relationship. My long term romantic intentions are irrelevant to the government, as is the government's categorization of my relationship irrelevant to me. I have no restriction on my freedom to enjoy the relationship I have chosen.

I think you're a very confused individual. You question then need to legislate marriage at all, and imply you want the government out of people's lives, yet in the same breath bemoan the fact it refuses to recognize/regulate certain types of relationships or assign them the 'correct' category.

'I think you've missed the point.'

Eminently understandable. Perhaps you could make some kind of effort towards a coherent argument Lexi.

any Government that does not recognise the benefits in a child having a father and mother is inviting social order and destruction. We have already witnessed the decay flowing from the Emily's listers.

Lexi asks

'Why legislate marriage at all? ' Probably would not be necessary if a loud vocal minority who are over represented were not so bent on the destruction of the family unit. The 'all wives are prostitutes ' (a former belief of the PM) is now being replaced by we want a part of this covenant.

Marriage is supposed to be a life long mutual contract between a man and a woman. However the advantages of that contract have been lost with casual short term partners which costs society emotionally and financially. Registering the partnership makes the couple responsible. The self centered immature reasons many have for forming a relationship and the lack of love and respect each have for other has downgraded the contract. Society once held the couple responsible for each of the other's well being, and for the children of that relationship. This was the reason for registering couples because they create new legal citizens for the State. Even children of defacto couples are registered as citizens of the State; so the Government is involved.

The relavence of marriage is as relavent as taxes in the State it is a responsibility of citizenship.

Dear Houellie,

Your choice was not to marry - that's fine.
But this thread is about those that want
to marry and can't.

I'm not arguing, I am merely questioning - why is there a law on
marriage?

Why not give all people the
right to marry whoever they choose. Why should the
government impose laws to define our relationships?

In 2004 John Howard amended the Marriage Act to define
marriage as a "voluntarily entered into union of a
man and a woman to the exclusion of all others."
He justified this by stating that, "marriage is
something that ought to be expressed through the
elected representatives of the country."

I can understand religions and their pre-occupation with
the institution of marriage - but our elected reps?

Not everyone wants a de-facto relationship.
What I am questioning is - do we need to have marriage
legislated and to we want to allow lawmakers to define
who we can marry?

Dear Josephus,

I'll repeat what I've posted in the past:

Each society views its own patterns of marriage,
family, and kinship as self-evidently right and
proper, and usually as God given as well. Much of
the current concern about the fate of the modern
family stems from this kind of ethnocentrism.
If we assume that there is only one "right" family
form, then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole insittution.
It is important to recognise, therefore, that there is
an immense range of marriage, family, and kinship
patterns and that these like any other social
institutions, must inevitably change through time
in our own society as in all others.

Lexi

'If we assume that there is only one "right" family
form, then naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole insitution. '

We can assume one 'best' scenario where a child is not denied a mother or father.

we could assume all are equal and that

polygamist marriages are fine
paedophille is ok
one can marry an animal (bestiality)

I think history clearly shows that society is better under the current definition of marriage

Lexi, You posed the question,"Should we get rid of the Marriage Act?"
The proposition has the very opposite meaning to your last post, on 4 April 2013 6:24:53 PM. It assumes we allow free love and no state contract in permanent relationships. Hence the acceptance by some in defacto relationships as agreeing with your question. It does not pose the right of gays to marriage.

.....But this thread is about those that want
to marry and can't.

Lexi, I am assuming you are referring to gay marriage.

To me, a marriage is between a man and a woman, full stop.

Now even if the gays get their way and gain the right to use the word marriage, then that's step one.

Step two is gaining the acknowledgement from the greater community, something I doubt they will ever get, and something that will continue to haunt them, regardless of whether or not THEY consider themselves as married, as The simple, but unacceptable solution, to them, is to find another word, as their quest to be legally married, is just as much a quest for recognition, as it is for their union.

BTW, as for gays getting legally hitched, go ahead as I say, what ever floats your boat, but the marriage word is taken, so get over it.

If the thread is advocating homosexual marriage that should be stated at the outset and any arguments put. Otherwise it is a bit sly with respondent's opinions are always being marked 'wrong' or deficient, as they are being steered into the secondary agenda.

However we are led to understand that the OP disputes State regulation of marriage. If that is the belief of the poster then 'gay' marriage should also not be favoured.

If State regulation of marriage is objected to then there is a host of regulations that also must be questioned, such as the right of the State to require education for children, or even the right to levy taxes. Why have the State at all? But then again, if it is to be anarchy, where is the argument to support?

Aşk sözleri
çok güzel aşk sözleri

http://www.askasozler.com/category/ask-sozleri/

I do not want to divert the thread.
But would not mind putting another view.
If the idea is to change the act so gays have the right to wed, no.
But by all means get a system that lets them have a version of weddings and legal ties.
At some point in time, we all most stop changes that effect majority,s for the good of minority,s.
NO! I am not anti gay union, but lets find away some get rights they do not have, without hurting others.
A furt6her but important lurch away from threads intent.
A day just has to come, that see,s the family law act drop its bias against fathers after a break up.
Even rewarding women who bought about the break up have stopped dads even seeing kids.
Equality under the law is not happening in this country.

I don't see the part where calling a gay union marriage hurts others. Its hardly the case that the hetrosexual community has treated the idea with such care and responsibility that the word still has really profound emotional significance to many.

The whole concept of marriage as a legal structure seems to be a mess.
Its a unenforcable contract that does not seem to add anything of value to the state, at best a public statement of an often not kept intent to form a long term union.

The marriage state of the parents when children are conceived or born bears only amtoken resemblance to the marriage state of the parents as they are raised.

Defacto laws mean that people who have specifically chosen not to marry find themselves with the similar legal benefits or risks if the relationship ends and someone else determines after the fact that it was a defacto relationship.

The principle drawcard for the same sex lobby to want same sex marriage seems to be that it's denied to them, the principle reason for opposing it seems to be to deny it rather than any actual practical outcome.

We have the incredible situation of same sex lobbyists claiming on the one hand that the government should not judge based on gender but should on number, similar arguments used to attack same sex marriage are used by those wanting same sex marriage to oppose pluralistic marriage.

I'd prefer to see the government right out of the relationship business. If they do want to be in it then it should be blind to the gender or number of consenting adults involved and the committments registered should have some meaning with consequences for breaches.

The ideas that the community or individuals somehow gain from registering unenforcable contracts between two adults (of different gender) or that we would all be hurt by similarly registering other unions between consenting adults are emotive nonsence.

R0bert

Procreation [the purpose for the marriage act] is not emotive nonsense, it is a biological act naturally occurring at the marriage of male sperm and female ova and those involved in it ought both be held life long responsible by the State for the loving nurture and maintenance of the children produced. The parents are responsible to register new citizens to the State. There are no new citizens joining the state from same sex couples. The Marriage ACT held by the State covers the biological reality of a union between a man and a woman.
Why? Because it naturally produces children.

I don't believe that homosexuals support marriage for them at all. The precursor, common law marriage was forced on them through the feminists and Left meddling in marriage and creating a de facto provisions that no-one can understand. A few noisy activists, but largely the self-styled 'Progressives' -the Chardonnay quaffing middle class Left and feminists- are at it again.

No-one, simply no-one, can arrive at a simple understanding of the definition of de facto because there is no definition. There is a jumble of scenarios that the feminists and Left wanted included, but even the federal agencies themselves cannot agree on the de facto status if any in given examples. The result though is that homosexuals are forever at risk, as are heterosexuals too, of being judged by others, the State in particular, of being in a 'de facto' situation without actually choosing to be. The consequences can be very expensive. Where homosexuals once used to begin and end relationships as they chose, Big Sister State now tells them what to do.

Another consequence is that bigamy has been legalised in practice. A person can have numerous de facto claims on his/her livelihood and assets. That is despite the person having an existing marriage and family. It is despite the other party/parties, the 'de facto' claimants knowing the person was married and there being no agreement for de facto status.

One of the compelling reasons to cleanse the Greens/Gillard government from the government benches (to take the rubbish out in September '13) is precisely that - that there has been continual legislative interference in citizens' lives and in the institutions that make our culture what it is, without any prior consultation with the electorate and consensus that change was needed. Always there are unintended negative consequences that the government refuses to even acknowledge.

Josephus, good to see you pushing the same line as the Catholic Church. I say keep the religious ratbags like Archy Pell out of the bedroom.

Dear Lexi,

<<Not everyone wants a de-facto relationship.>>

Fair enough, so people can get married by their churches, and those who do not have a church can get married by their hairdresser.

<<What I am questioning is - do we need to have marriage legislated and to we want to allow lawmakers to define who we can marry?>>

Obviously not, anyone should be able to marry anyone and anything else (and any number thereof). What that actually means depends on the authority that sanctioned that marriage - if marriage is conducted by a reputable church, then the marriage will be respected by that church's followers and most likely by other churches as well. If that's the hairdresser, the respect this marriage carries is then subject to the hairdresser's reputation. If it's the government, then such marriage should be spat on: any hairdresser has a better reputation!

Dear People,

I'm not advocating anything one way or the other.
What I'm trying to do is simply put up a subject
for discussion and get people's views on the subject.
The Marriage Act has been the subject of many discussions
between family and friends, and I thought it might be
interesting to get opinions on it here on the Forum.

I've been reading all of your posts with interest - and
you've all raised some valid points.

I certainly don't have all the answers - and I find
myself with more questions than answers.

RObert's post made a great deal of sense to me.
And I'm looking forward to other opinions on this
topic.

For any married person who believes that marriage has no meaning -ie it is 'outdated', or it is simply the State interfering and nothing else, or the contract is not worth the paper it is written on- her/his way ahead is clear: be honest enough to inform your husband or wife and get a divorce. Because the vows meant nothing. You have no comprehension of what marriage is about and you are wasting the other person's time with your deceit.

Worst are those who dismiss it as being solely about 'love'. Honestly, just who do they believe they are kidding? Or, what is more likely, their superficiality shows they have no idea.

Josephus would you then ban and or disolve marriages between heterosexual adults unable to biologically produce children?

Enough heterosexuals get married with no intent of producing children to make the production of children as a reason to both keep marriage as a state regulated event and not allow it for other than a two adults of dfferent gender emotive nonsence.

Would you prosecute those who produce children outside of marriage? Perhaps charge those who marry and fail to produce children with fraud?

Unless you are proposing massive change sto existing marriage laws to ensure that they are about procreation the procreation argument is largely null and voiid.

R0bert

Dear Onthebeach,

<<For any married person who believes that marriage has no meaning>>

I don't think there is anyone on this page answering to that description, who thinks that marriage has no meaning or that "vows are nothing".
Rather, it is the piece of paper given by the state which claims that one is now married, that is meaningless - and so, if not more, is that other piece of paper given by the state that claims that one is now divorced. As a vegetarian, I tell you that if I needed such papers, I'd rather obtain them from the local butcher.

Marriage is primarily before God, then secondarily before the family and friends. The state/government are uninvited guests!

Dear RObert,

I agree with you. There are many couples who
either don't want to have children, or are unable
to have them. And child-bearing plays no part in their
lives - this doesn't make their marriage lesser in
any way.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It's my understanding that historically marriage evolved
due to the desire to secure property and ensure
legitimate succession. From my understanding the Catholic
Church stopped priests marrying in the 4th century to prevent
their kin making claims on church property after their
death.

Legalised marriage can be used as a tool of oppression -
whether for child brides of elderly men or in cultures
where women are murdered for refusing to be treated
as the property of others.

In our country unmarried women were forced to adopt out
their babies into the 1970s. And in the 1980s unmarried
women were faced the degrading discrimination of being
unable to take out a bank loan.

As you point out:

In liberal democracies - consenting adults should
be able to make their own union choices without the state
regulation of marriage. If one believes in the separation
of church and state in our secular society than I guess
it stand to reason that the state
should stay out of the instituion of marriage.

Lexi, "In liberal democracies - consenting adults should
be able to make their own union choices without the state
regulation of marriage"

But homosexuals were able to do precisely that before the self-styled 'Progressives', the Left and the feminists, decided to regulate their relationships as 'de facto'. Now the same flying wedge, unabashed by the complete cock-up they have made of de facto regulations and family law, are trying to force homosexuals under State regulation of formal marriage.

Before, homosexuals could form and dissolve relationships at will and without interference. Now Big Sister presumes to define and judge their relation ships and set State requirements for their dissolution and disbursement of assets.

How does all of that fit with your claimed aim of abolition of 'State controlled' relationships? You presume to regulate even the minutiae of 'relationships' and involve yourself in their personal affairs and in bedrooms, while claiming the opposite. That is double talk.

As superbly demonstrated by the Netherlands experience with homosexual marriage, they don't want it and are not going to marry.

Or is the goal to destroy another of the institutions so hated by the Left and feminists? Feminists incidentally, who do not represent women, never consult with them and yet presume to always know what is best for them.

BTW, how does any of this help un-parterned homosexuals and particularly unpartnered homosexuals with children?

Dear onthebeach,

The question that is being asked here is -
"Should we get rid of the Marriage Act?"
And what I am questioning is - why is
there a law on marriage? And do we really want
to allow the law makers to define our relationships?
And why is marriage legislated at all?

This isn't about those who choose de-facto
relationships. This is about those who want to
marry and are not allowed to do so.

I am aware that the evolution of de-facto
rights has in many instances negated the need for
marriage laws for matters of estates, finances
and custodial disputes. However the Marriage
Act still defines marriage as a "union of a
man and a woman to the exclusion of all others."
Therefore it does allow lawmakers to define
our relationships - does it not?

With respect, what you are doing is ducking a number of issues, none of which support your agenda which is to advocate for 'gay' marriage.

Of course the laws passed relating to de factos and family law are relevant. But it is easy to see why the architects of those changes would like to escape scrutiny and accountability.

What is going on here is that you are unwilling to accept the democratic decision that has reaffirmed the definition of marriage. The Marriage Act has been done over and over and over at the behest of the Greens in the Senate and in the media, an to nauseating lengths by the publicly funded broadcasters, SBS and ABC. It is stale. Unless of course the Greens would like to put it up as a signature policy for the coming election, which they will not of course.

Given that you are unwilling to accept the democratic decision, you are unlikely to engage with any arguments that dispel your own proposition.

For interest though, since you criticise the democratically arrived at State law that gave you your marriage and you maintain that the State should never have been involved, will you now act to dissolve the artifice you so object to in your own case?

Dear onthebeach,

Perhaps I'm not stating things as well as I should.
I am not trying to avoid anything here. I simply
did not want this to turn into a "gay rights,"
issue. I only wanted to question the legalities of
the Marriage Act in a secular society such as ours.
As for my personal circumstance. I was married by
a priest in a church - which was my choice and I
was legally allowed to do that. The law did not affect
me in this case. The same as it does not affect those
who prefer de-facto relationships to that of marriage.

The principles of liberal democracy holds that
consenting adults should be able to make any union they
wish - and what is being discussed is the state
regulation of marriage that forbids some from having that
choice.

But prior to the interference of the 'Progressive' Left and feminist interference in family law and laws affecting de factos homosexuals could make any union they liked.

Now they need a lawyer in their back pocket, because Big Sister State doesn't believe they were capable of arranging their own affairs, and dissolving them. That would come as quite a shock, since homosexuals have been comfy out of State control over their personal affairs for countless years.

What was once carefree and a matter of personal choice and agreement is now highly regulated, right down to the minute details of domestic arrangements, comings and goings.

You say you are opposed to State interference and control, but you propose more.

Dear onthebeach,

No that is not what I am proposing at all.
On the contrary. What I am doing is merely
questioning, or at least - trying to
raise the issue of, - the need for state regulation
of heterosexual marriage, homosexual marriage,
et cetera, in a democracy.

Thank You for your opinion. It is appreciated.
And hopefully will inspire others to give
their views on this issue.

Lexi,

You are an advocate for homosexual marriage looking for a lever, some back door way to get traction.

The Netherlands has homosexual marriage. But very few have availed themselves of the opportunity offered. Why not?

In Australia, at the behest of a few noisy activists, but largely because of Left 'Progressives', government passed laws that enabled (read as required) homosexual couples to declare their relationship with Centrelink. Bugger all have. Even though not advising Centrelink can result in overpayment and likely investigation for welfare fraud. Yet activists and Left 'Progressives' argue that homosexuals are depressed because they are 'denied' the opportunity to 'publicly declare their love'.

The question remains, why are you spruiking for trashing the Marriage Act when you yourself have no intention of divorcing yourself from it? If you truly believe what you say, it would be intolerable to retain that status. The offensive piece of paper would have been binned.

Dear onthebeach,

You're absolutely correct.

You know me so well.

I'm binning it right now!

My purpose was not to simply raise this issue for
discussion. It was as you state - to promote
homosexual rights.

There, that should make you happy!

The homosexual 'rights' brought in by Left Progressives and the Greens have corroded homosexual freedom forever. Rather than give homosexuals 'rights' the patronising changes removed their freedom to arrange their affairs as they wished and had done in the past.

It is seemingly impossible for the Left to comprehend that homosexuals might want freedom from interference to live their lives as they choose. The intrusive, patronising Left believe that people are incompetent, cannot be trusted and cannot be relied upon to make their own best decisions and be responsible for them. The Left just HAVE to make more and more laws for State interference in people's lives.

That is the record of the Greens/Gillard government too, endless laws to interfere in private lives and more and more State control. Wasteful State control with thousands more public servants and endless cock-ups to go with it.

It is all legislating for the behaviour of others isn't it?

Dear onthebeach,

I find myself questioning the need for state
regulation of marriage in a democracy.

However there is one caveat - and that is -
if constitutions, human rights bills ,or
other laws, are unable to ensure fundamentals
of adulthood and choice, then appropriate
legilsation may be warranted.

Lexi, You said, " I only wanted to question the legalities of the Marriage Act in a secular society such as ours.
As for my personal circumstance. I was married by a priest in a church - which was my choice and I was legally allowed to do that".

You are misrepresenting the point of marriage; the fact is you married your husband in a church wher the Priest declared you husband and wife. The Priest only performed the public declaration of your marriage and filled in the papers for the State that defined you as husband and wife. The State gives authority to recognised persons to perform the public act of registering husbands and wives.

The real meaning of Marriage is for the procreation, nurture and protection of the human race and that by nature means the passing on of family assets to any offspring. All other relationships are merely acts of mutual convienience and could be covered by a civil contract if it involves property as do many second marriages if children have resulted in the first marriage. Family is also a biological term meaning sharing the same parent genes. Though the PC brigade want it to mean people who love each other.

Dear Josephus,

Thank you for sharing what marriage means to you.
However, the realities are a bit different.

A great number of both men and women begin sexual
activity before marriage. Many births are to an
unmarried mother, usually a teenager. Quite a few
pregnancies end in abortion. The number of unmarried
couples living together has tripled in less than two
decades. People are staying single longer than ever,
and more than one adult in five now lives alone.
Also more than half of marriages are expected to end
in divorce.

New alternatives to traditional marriage, such as the
single-parent household, are becoming steadily more
common. And to complicate matters further, children
can now be conceived through artificial means,
sometimes in a laboratory dish.

Therefore many of our ideas about the definition of
"What exactly is a Family?" tend to be ethnocentric, for
they are often based on the middle-class "ideal"
so relentlessly portrayed in TV commercials, one that
consists of a husband, a wife, and their dependent
children.

This particular family pattern, however, is far from
typical. A more accurate conception of the family
must take account of the many different family forms
that have existed or still exist both in our country
and in other cultures.

That is wild stuff. Who believes any of that Green Left bumpf? There is no evidence whatsoever that the Australian population is clamouring for:

- the Marriage Act to be trashed; and

- those other alternatives you suggest to become State supported couplings, triplings or whatever?

You think that support for marriage and family is only the invention of TV commercials? Or and ethnocentric middle class ideal? Take a poll of people in the street. Take a poll of women.

But again, why the hell do you continue to take part in an institution you disparage? Have you told your husband what you think of marriage? For goodness sakes, if you believe what you say you would free your husband immediately from the contract and obligations he doubtless believes in.

Dear onthebeach,

Why are you attacking me personally?
This is simply a discussion of a
given subject. It has nothing to do
with my personal life - or yours.
Stick to the topic under discussion.
And not bring personalities into it.
This is not about me. Neither am I
advocating anything.
I am simply trying to discuss -
"Should we get rid of the Marriage Act?"
It's a topic.

Have you never been a debater?
Have you never had the job of raising issues
and arguments simply to partake in a discussion
on a particular issue?

I get that you don't agree with getting rid of
the Marriage Act. But kindly stop trying to
divert this discussion by getting personal
and making assumptions about someone you don't
know. Back off - unless you have something
to contribute to the discussion. I'm not interested
in your attacks. And they're not worthy of you.

More double talk.

Well, it's better than trash talk.

"I know that you believe you understand
what you think I said, but I'm not sure
you realise that what you understand is
not what I meant."
(Robert McClosky on Double Talk).

I would like to Thank everyone who contributed
to this discussion. I now feel that it has
run its course.

See you all on another thread.

Dear Josephus,

<<You are misrepresenting the point of marriage; the fact is you married your husband in a church wher the Priest declared you husband and wife. The Priest only performed the public declaration of your marriage and filled in the papers for the State that defined you as husband and wife. The State gives authority to recognised persons to perform the public act of registering husbands and wives.>>

It is not necessary to fill any papers. My own intention is to be married by a religious sacrament alone, without filling any papers or letting the state even know about it. I do not invite them to my wedding or into my life in any way.

Yuyutsu,
Your type of marriage is the substance of anarchy in the State. Registering with the State gives vality to any children of your marriageas being citizens. Not keeping records of citizen opens the doors to illegal benifits from that State. We are the State and decide who receives benifits, so register your relationship to the mother of your children and be responsible for the primary care of your children.

Maybe you are ashamed to announce publicly your committment to your spouse and let the public know you are accepting your exclusive responsibility to you spouse and your children.

Dear Josephus,

<<We are the State>>

Please speak for yourself: I know who and what I am.

<<Your type of marriage is the substance of anarchy in the State.>>

Excellent! No man should rule over others.

Any person of even minimal dignity should be ruled by God alone.

<<Registering with the State gives vality to any children of your marriageas being citizens.>>

You should note that we are beyond child-bearing age, also that I consider bringing more children to this overcrowded world in this day, age and civilisation a big mistake. Nevertheless, if we WERE by chance to have children (well, Sarah had a son at the age of 99), then I would allow them to grow up first and then decide for themselves whether or not they want to be citizens of the state or have anything to do with that pest.

<<Not keeping records of citizen opens the doors to illegal benifits from that State.>>

While I don't care about legality, accepting ANY benefits from the state is immoral!

<<We are the State and decide who receives benifits>>

You may have power to deny your petty benefits, but you have no power to make anyone receive them against their will.

It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in princes [psalm 118:9, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+118&version=ESV ]

<<so register your relationship to the mother of your children and be responsible for the primary care of your children.>>

You preach about responsibility by grabbing benefits from others through the devil?

<<Maybe you are ashamed to announce publicly your committment to your spouse and let the public know you are accepting your exclusive responsibility to you spouse and your children.>>

When I proudly announce my commitment before the Eternal King of Kings and Lord of Lords (as well as before all our family and friends), why care whether those earth-crawlers know or approve?

Without having read 'The Marriage Act' and any associated Regulations, it must nonetheless be clear that the purpose of the Act is to provide assurances under Law to both partners, and to any progeny of the registered union, regarding property, earnings, assets and offspring in the event of death, separation or divorce, And to prescribe the Nature of the Unions which may be covered by the Act - so excluding child marriage, or underage Marriage without parental/guardian and prospective bride/groom consent, as well as excluding bigamy, polygamy, polyandry or other than male-female consensual unions (currently).

I take it that Legislation would also exist to extend relevant assurances under the Act to qualifying De-facto relationships - though I expect a court or similar proceeding would in this case be required to establish the bonafides of the relevant relationship.
This could be messy.
I also expect such or similar separate provisions would apply in some dominions in respect to non-male/female Unions (ie. gay unions or 'Marital Unions') - given that Aus does not currently have, and may never have, gay marriage provisions.

In our domain (AUS) it appears clear that there is strong support for Gay Union to be recognised, at least as equivalent to any qualifying (ie non underage, etc) De-facto relationship - though this support is by no means universal.

In our accepted national 'culture' Marriage is between a man and a woman (though either or both may in fact be bi- or homo-sexual or possibly trans-sexual - though such non-heterosexual 'Marriages' would be deemed a 'sham' by many, and not worthy of recognition as true Marriage).
As our traditional understanding of Marriage is that accepted currently by the vast majority of Australians, the question becomes whether we should willingly change our culture to accommodate the wishes, whim or fancy of a tiny minority? Is everything equal? TBC>

Cont'd>
It is no longer mandatory to profess allegiance to King (or Queen), let alone to God, but still is to Country, its Laws and its Constitution, but what of allegiance to 'culture' and to the norms and mores at the very foundation of that culture?

We are Not about to legalise child marriage, or female genital mutilation, honour-killing, child abuse, polygamy, rape or domestic violence. Marriage as currently understood in the Act is a foundational part of ours and many other cultures, and it affords assurances and stability regarding who we are and what we believe in.

Let others believe what they will, so long as they do not thrust or impose views contrary to our foundational 'culture' upon us.
The Marriage Act is essential under Law. Have a broad De-facto Union or 'Marital Union' Act if you will, but such will never, and can never define 'Marriage', not in our 'culture', and not in our true understanding of what Marriage is really all about, and upon which the future of the human race actually depends.