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?