It isn't just minority groups, as ex-Labor leader Latham says. Gay marriage is the red herring debate L'il Willie Shorten chooses in lieu of policies, where his cupboard is bare. The Greens Protest Party* is the same. *As decribed by Julia Gillard who should have known from her experience with her treacherous Greens side-kicks.

Latham,
<Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams Labor over gay marriage

FORMER Labor leader Mark Latham has slammed his party’s “obsession” with gay marriage saying it should focus on the nation’s “Struggle Streets” instead.

He said the biggest social issue facing Austalia was unemployment, drug use and homelessness in suburbs such as Mt Druitt which was the focus of the SBS documentary, Struggle Street...
“They’re obsessed, instead, by gay marriage.”>
http://tinyurl.com/p6kts6c

G'day JAY OF MELBOURNE...

I too agree with BUTCH, I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head ! Interestingly I was referring to a legal interpretation (entirely on another matter altogether) in 'Osborn's Law Dictionary' 7th ed. , where I stumbled across the legal definition of 'Marriage' ?

To wit; '...the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others...' the definition meanders on somewhat speaking of prohibitions, capacity etc. but essentially it remains as we all commonly understand it to be; between a man and a woman.

I'm not sure what all the high-fiving is about. Jay of Melbourne doesn't appear to me to have hit anything much on the head.

<<...same sex marriage and opposite sex marriage are not the same thing so why should they be treated equally...>>

Because there's no reason not to. When talking about equality, the question should never be, "Why should we?", but, "Why shouldn't we?" We don't withhold equal status until we can find a reason to grant it, we grant it until it can be argued why it should be withdrawn/withheld. Laws should be made as if we didn’t know who we were going to come into the world as.

<<...what's wrong with creating a second act defining and recognising same sex marriage?>>

Duplication. Having to amend two Acts instead of one. Unnecessary duplication should be avoided. It's the KISS rule.

<<Liberals and progressives constantly blather on about the benefits of greater diversity in society yet their activism tends toward assimilation, standardisation and homogenisation.>>

Do they? I hadn't heard of those three concepts attached to the argument for marriage equality. I even did a Google search for "marriage equality homogeneity" (http://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=marriage+equality+homogeneity) and most results were only returned because "homogeneity" was removed.

I suspect "assimilation, standardisation and homogenisation" were only mentioned to introduce this next little red herring...

<<When you bake a cake you mix flour, eggs, butter and sugar but once the process is finished none of the ingredients are individually identifiable, they've changed and combined to become something else.>>

The definition of "marriage" will be broadened slightly. So what? That hardly presents us with an unbaking-the-cake conundrum.

<<To a the majority of Australians who don't share the progressive religious outlook...>>

The majority? I would like to see the stats on this. All the stats I've seen since 2004 suggest otherwise.

<<Because there is no valid reason for this push for "equality"...>>

Yes, there is. Greater equality is always beneficial for societal health and marginalisation is always detrimental. There are mountains of evidence for this from thousands of studies spanning multiple disciplines, and nothing to contradict them.

Sorry, I don't think I read this quite right...

<<Liberals and progressives constantly blather on about the benefits of greater diversity in society yet their activism tends toward assimilation, standardisation and homogenisation.>>

It appears there was just supposed to be some sort of irony or contradiction there. So the comment was an even less relevant lead-in to a red herring about unbaking-the-cake that I gave it credit for.

Incidentally, rehctub, have you given it any more thought as to what we can call the relationships we have with our wives? Because the word "marriage" was taken.

Whatever it is that we have with our wives, they are not "marriages" in the traditional sense.

//1. Please state what you believe marriage to be?//

A social construct. Whatever the government of the state of which I am a citizen legislates it to be. If I don't like it, I can argue for democratic change. Or move states to a new state that has a government whose policies align more closely with my personal beliefs. Or just ignore what the government says and do my own thing: hey, it works for anarchists.

//2. Please state why the State should record this that a civil contract does not already give?//

They should record civil contracts as well. Census-taking is a no-brainer when it comes to good government; they've been doing it since at least the Domesday Book (published 1086 A.D.).

//what's wrong with creating a second act defining and recognising same sex marriage?//

Because ALL people should be equal under the law. Having one set of laws for straight people and one set of laws for gay people is as reasonable as having one set of laws for wealthy people and one for poor people, or having one set of laws for gingers and one for people who actually have souls. We should all be the same before the law: rich, poor, tall, short, black, white, disabled, able-bodied, insane, sane, etc. Whatever our differences, we are all members of the set of people and there shouldn't be different sets of laws of different sub-sets of people. Set theory in mathematics and logic is a fun diversion on a boring afternoon. Trying to apply it to the law would be horrific.

//When you bake a cake you mix flour, eggs, butter and sugar but once the process is finished none of the ingredients are individually identifiable, they've changed and combined to become something else. To a the majority of Australians who don't share the progressive religious outlook the whole marriage equality push looks like and attempt to change marriage into something different to what it is now by combining it with other, very different lifestyles to change it's meaning and significance.//

Worst analogy ever. You should win some sort of prize for that one, Jay. Especially when you had the more obvious choice of drawing an analogy with fruit salad.

Theoretically with enough energy it is possible to unbake a cake. Practically it is a bloody nightmare because of our old friend the second law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics, Jay, was not an Act of Parliament. It cannot be changed by statute, common-law precedent, referendum, revolution, praying, wishful thinking or by anything less than supernatural means.

Unbaking a cake is more likely than making an over-unity engine but I still can't see it happening within my lifetime.

Our gay marriage law looks likely to be an Act of Parliament, rather than a constitutional change. That means they can easily be repealed by a subsequent Act of Parliament. If we find that the gay marriage laws are having the deleterious effect on our society so confidently forecast by some, we can repeal the laws and revert to an earlier paradigm.

You can't just repeal the second law of thermodynamics like that: the second law is 'descriptive law' - it describes how things are - while marriage law is 'prescriptive law' - it describes how things should be. See the difference?