Yar, well...it was good Christian ethics when I was born to obliterate any identity pertaining to biological parents in the case of children who were adopted.

Still, when I was 41, I found out who my biological mother was (thanks only to my half-sister having the guts to track me down)

Still don't know anything about my biological father....somewhere in America.....

Danielle,

Here is an example,

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fathers-name-stripped-from-birth-certificate-20110817-1ix2m.html

<Father's name stripped from birth certificate
August 17, 2011

A man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple will have his name stripped from their child's birth certificate after a successful legal bid by the birth mother's ex-partner.

The woman took the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and biological father, to court in May to have his name replaced with her name in the document.

The female child was born in 2001 and the women split in 2006, although they continued to share parental responsibility.

The man also played a role in the child's life.

NSW District Court Judge Stephen Walmsley today ruled in her favour, but expressed sympathy for the biological father.

"I am not persuaded there is any contractual right which can affect this application," he said.

"As [the biological father] concedes, there was no agreement before [the child's] birth that he would be on the register when he agreed to donate his sperm."

The judge said the man and the child obviously had a strong emotional attachment.

"I have considerable sympathy for [the man] - he has done what he considers has been his very best for the child."

Outside court the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said he was devastated and labelled the outcome an injustice.

"She's not my daughter as far as the law is concerned," he said.

"The laws are totally inadequate, there are no laws to protect people like me.

"It's a very bad day for fathers, that's all I can say.">

"Obviously if anyone objects to the State regulating marriage, gay marriage isn't something they would recommend."

onthebeach there are a range of things the government does which I consider to be intrusive or unnecessary but which it seems unlikely they will stop doing. In that case I try to state my preferred position then deal with more likely outcomes. I don't see any real good coming to same sex couples from increased government involvment in their lives but I do see why the pointed exclusion from a "right" available to others is an issue. As Danielle rightly points out unions and cohabitation is an emotive issue and many people want the bells and whistles.

None of the arguments against same sex or pluralistic marriage stack up when tested against the way many 2 person heterosexual marriages are played out and yet those who rely on those arguments mostly seem to lack the courage of their convictions to apply them to 2 person heterosexual marriages. The arguments appear to be weak attempts to hide a preference to discriminate rather than genuine positions.

R0bert

I haven't read all of the comments here but referring to the quote in ROberts thread, it may be prudent to consider part v of the constitution, which empowers the commonwealth to make laws for marriage at xi.

I think, without having investigated too deeply, that it is likely that the commonwealth will push over the act laws to the extent of any inconsistencies with its own laws pertaining to same.

Of course, the commonwealth, subject to the constitution is only empowered " ... To make laws for the peace, order, and good government ... "

Thus, it could be argued that to continue what is in my mind a range of abusive practices,, including but not limited to registering gays and lesbians " ... Like dogs ... " to quote one former member of the high court, neither constitutes "good guvment" nor
"Peace" excepting perhaps the peace of the gun.

The other potential constitutional issue re the act laws is that it brings about a situation where gays etc are "more equal" in the act than elsewhere in Australia.

Of course, the other important thing to note is that there are now more than a few religious organisations and others that are more than happy to marry gays etc. thus in effect, they are making a religious law which allows some to practice all of their rights and rituals and others not.

But so as not to be naive, the trash in the parliament knows these things but they care mostly for their positions and getting their own way, so it is common place for them to knowingly write up unlawful laws, such as the so called Malaysian solution, and to have their departments practice policy contrary to the law, which oft they seek to hide under the guise of error and blurred legal boundaries.

Poirot,

I am so sorry that you experienced not knowing the identity of your father. I have friends who had been adopted, and whilst they loved their adoptee parents, they experience "anguish" not knowing whom there birth parents were. This even applies to a couple who, like you, found birth mothers, but not birth fathers. There is something missing, a grief and a sense of loss. One of my friends is well into his sixties and this still haunts him. Humans appear to have a need to know their immediate origins.

Before you were born, illegitimate children were not permitted employment in public service in this country. The treatment of women and children was iniquitous in the past.

onthebeach,

The mother of the little girl, whose father has been erased from her birth certificate, is going to be in for a rough trot when her daughter becomes aware of what she had done. This strikes at the heart of whom the little girl is. Also her having a close relationship with her father, is going to make things so much worse for the mother. I agree. People can be unbelievably selfish when discounting their children's feeling, even if these feelings become manifest in the future.

Danielle,

I agree with you on the wretchedness of the girl and of her father. You are not saying so, but the particular slant of the feminism in Australia that is also dominant in politics, does not regard fathers as having any particular attachment with their offspring, and if any exists, it is a mere flea on the bottom of an elephant when compared with the attachment envisaged between a mother and HER child.

In fact there is a woman ethicist who regularly gets away Scott-Free for arguing without a shred of evidence to support her, that it is of no consequence, it doesn't matter a jot, if false paternity occurs and the man should be liable for the child. Apparently, a child is a child to a man and he has no fatherly feelings, no possibility of any unique attachment for his own offspring. Not so a mother, where the odd case of possible accidental child mix-up in a maternity hospital is very serious indeed, emotionally devastating, even where discovered decades later.

General Comments - gay marriage
Returning to 'gay marriage', it is astounding that the reduction of the spectrum of possible homosexual relationships to a single option, defined and approved by the State is being sold to homosexuals, as their 'right' and a remedy for the 'discrimination' the Australian Human Rights Commission (and the previous Labor government) says doesn't exist anyhow.

One can see how that might suit suitcase lesbians with their U-Haul trailer stacked with their belongings ready for the second date, but it is diametrically opposed to all that homosexuals have previously stood for and regarded as their own, which is choice to form, make and break whatever relationships suit them and without some public bureaucrat or court ruling otherwise.

Gays have been sold a pup. Formalising it into the Marriage Act only puts reinforcing rods in to ensure there is no way back to your free-wheeling days of freedom. Trust the political 'Progressives' who always know what is best for you and pass laws for you for you to toe the line?