Easy to know when a Right-Wing Blowhard is on the
back foot with no facts to support the narrative.

Hopefully, the people of Australia will be given
a chance to have an input into this issue and they
won't be stymied by the Right-Wing Blowhards.

Butch, I attended their wedding in New Zealand where they were legally married. So unless people are married in Australia they are not legally married? A man and a women married in China are not legally married if they live in Australia as man and wife? Strange!

otb,

It's obvious that Howard had the definition of "between man and woman" inserted in 2004 for a reason.

That reason being that the laws "were not formally defined", and Howard realised that ideas of traditional marriage may not stand the changing zeitgeist.

I can't be bothered to read the entirety of your long-winded claptrap, but before you deny "The law did not define marriage prior to 2004" and berate others:

"Once again, that is a deliberate lie promoted by the gay marriage activists."

Perhaps you'd like to stump up with the portion of the act that specifically defined marriage prior to 2004?

Poirot,

Perhaps you'd like to stump up with the number of gay marriages between 1901 and 2015?

Since you disagree with those High Court judges who stated that marriage was exclusively understood as one man and one women for life.

Now, where oh where is that patient Shadow Minister to play your parlour game of tit-for-tat, where your exchanges are always frivolous and unequal and you keep moving the goal posts?

Just guessing, its all Abbott's fault, yet again? LOL

I am against homosexual marriage. I am not against homosexual unions of two ,or more, people but it should not be called marriage.

Marriage is a union between a male and a female and must remain so.

To call a homosexual union a marriage is demeaning to my wife and myself.

Why not simply call it a union or some other name and keep the word marriage out of it.

The only reason homosexuals want the word marriage incorporated is to take advantage of the respectability that now goes with it.

otb,

It's a shame you weren't on hand to advise Howard when he decided to go to the bother of changing the marriage act to include the clause that it was a union between man and woman.

Apparently (according to you) he needn't have bothered.

(We stated that prior to 2004 it wasn't "defined in the Act".....it wasn't.)