With the gay marriage debate seemingly occupying the majority of our politicians valuable time, I just don't get why gays won't compromise because after all, the best result is for both sides to give a little, and the gays don't appear to want to budge an inch.

It's my opinion that there is a very simplistic approach to this whole debate, and that's to not just amend the marriage act, but to add to it with one simple clause, 'a union between two people'.

Seriously, what is the problem with having two choices when choosing ones vows, the first being as is, between a man and a woman, and the second, between two people.

By making this simple amendment, those who believe marriage is between a man and a woman can continue with their long held tradition, while gays, or anyone who openly supports gay marriage can choose 'between two people.

Could this be a simple option that can end this debate?

Dear Rehctub,

Nothing will end this debate because what drives it is anger and hatred. Even if gay-marriage was supported by the state exactly as the campaigners claim to want, they would then find a different pretext to continue their war. They are probably angry at their missing or abusive parents, then project their anger at anyone and anything which resembles their authority, first and foremost - religion. They fail to realise that no amount of changing the future can fix their past and broken childhood.

One thing I'm happy about, is that "our politicians valuable time" is spent on this trivia (as well as tax-payer funded holidays with their family) - otherwise they would be spending this time to actively devise new tortures for you and me.

rechtub,

You may be interested to know that the Howard govt came up with the definition of " marriage as the `voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others'." when they changed the Marriage Act in 2004"

Previous to that, laws did not define marriage.

"Gay couples will be banned from marrying or adopting children from overseas but will be allowed to inherit their partner's superannuation under proposed changes to marriage laws announced today.

Less than an hour after Prime Minister John Howard announced the changes to the Marriage Act, the government rushed legislation enabling the changes into parliament.

Mr Howard said the Marriage Act would be changed to include a definition of marriage as the `voluntarily entered-into union of a man and a woman to exclusion of all others'.

The laws currently do not define marriage.

``We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage is something that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation,'' Mr Howard told reporters.

''(It should) not over time be subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country.''

The change would mean that couples could not marry overseas in a country where gay marriage was legal and then hope to have the union recognised on their return to Australia.

Mr Howard also said the Family Law Act would be changed to prevent, where possible, gay couples adopting children from overseas.

``We are also going to amend the legislation to ensure that same sex couples ... will not be eligible as prospective adoptive parents under any multilateral or bilateral agreement concerning the adoption of children to which Australia is a party,'' he said."

Etc....

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/27/1085461876842.html

Love the abbottphobia on this one. Gillard supported normal marriage. Labour had 6 years and did nothing. Now the outrage from the gaybc et. Pathetic, fancy Abbott keeping his election promise.

Yes Butch, it's very simple, at present in their solemnisation speech the celebrant must inform the couple that the state recognises marriage as the union of one man and one woman, all that would have to change is for that to be rephrased in the case of same sex couples, "the state defines same sex marriage as the union of two people".

The tail is once more waging the dog with the five percent party, The Nationals, running the Coalition's agenda on the issue of gay marriage. Malcolm Turnbull continues to defy the 'Fearless Leader', what else is new, openly denigrating the indecisiveness of the government on this, as he has with other issues, Turnbull continues to be his own man, distancing himself from Abbott, Turnbull warned of the political damage the issue is doing to the Coalition in the run up to the next election. When government leadership and resolve is required in support of the overwhelming public opinion favoring gay marriage Abbott is trying desperately to fight a rear guard action to forestall the inevitable.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-12/tony-abbott-defends-call-on-same-sex-marriage-vote/6690388

An example of a misinformation hate campaign being run by some newly formed shadowy anti gay marriage organisation. The group behind the ad is the 'Marriage Alliance', which claims that marriage equality “takes away the rights of a child” and will “accelerate the deterioration of everyone’s freedoms”.
Perhaps that’s no coincidence, given that the group was reportedly founded by ACT Liberal Party member Tio Faulkner.
Former Liberal president Ashley Goldsworthy is also a founding director of the group. Meanwhile its spokesperson Sophie York, whose book was launched by Tony Abbott, is a Liberal Party member who once ran as a Member of the NSW Legislative Council.

Read more at http://www.mamamia.com.au/entertainment/marriage-alliance-ads/#RAZBQFqOJkE77UUe.99

p/s Having dinner next week with friends, a legally married same sex couple, who have been together for about 15 happy years and the sky hasn't fallen in.