Australia’s record with referendums are against a yes vote and I would suspect Abbott and any one else would be aware of that. 33 No Votes and 8 Yes votes over the time of AU parliament. This would just be another nail for Tony’s cronies

ttbn, sadly, even if the people do decide to leave things as they are, the gays won't accept the verdict.

Even if the gay activists get what they want it will not stop there. But then they only imagine they are running the show.

There are homosexuals who already have the rights they want and would like to live their life unobtrusively and in peace. Fat chance!

Then there are the attention-seeking, bullying gay activists who are being led by the nose by the Cultural Marxists with their own secondary agenda.

Against the will of the broader homosexual community, many of whom do NOT want to be hobbled by State regulation, the leftist 'Progressives', the Cultural Marxists who dominate Labor and the feckless Greens, have already legislated changes to de facto 'relationships'(sic, 'relationships' NOT marriage is the feminist-sanctioned and preferred PC word).

As a result, homosexuals' private lives are 'equally'(got to love that!) as subject to State control as heterosexuals, with public bureaucrats and courts presuming to tell them if they are in a 'relationship' or not and ruling how they should divvy up their assets when they go their private way.

Whereas not so long ago, before the interfering leftist 'Progressives' secretly tuned-up those de facto relationship arrangements, homosexuals could sort out their relationships and break-ups all by themselves. Now the State intervenes, so call that 'progressive'!

The Cultural Marxists could not give a hoot about homosexual freedom and lifestyles, they are just using homosexuals as a wrecking ball against 'traditional'(sic) society and its institutions.

otb,

Let it go.

Your obsessive consistent bleating regarding the Greens,
the Leftists, the so called "cultural Marxists,"
should be backed up by relevant evidence and facts.
Otherwise you come across as just another Right-Wing
Blowhard - who should be ignored.

Sad-really.

Certainly the term marriage as needed to be recorded by the State needs clear definition. Example: "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman who intend to raise a family".The State only needs to record couples who are intending to have children and raise a family from their union. Marriage has always included that intent.

The reason being the birth of children changes the population of citizens, and identifies those responsible for children. Those that have children before registering their marriage at the registration of the birth of the child must be recorded as married and responsible for the upbringing of the child. Those intending marriage should have their genetic map recorded to ensure there are no gene deformities likely in any children they wish to have, so as to reduce future health costs to the State.

People who cannot have children because of age or physical disability should be able to form relationships that are not recorded by the State, this would include homosexuals.

Josehpus,

I suggest there is a middle ground where the best of both worlds could be preserved. That might not suit those at eithe end of the spectrum, but it would give practicality, peace and coexistence to the mainstream, who are quite fed up and want to get on with their lives.

What I have said elsewhere is that a 'yes' or a 'no', black or white, is a recipe for a running sore of discontent on both sides.

It does not encourage and cater for diversity and pluralism, which Australians could well prefer, ie 'live and let live'.

It should be possible to preserve the marriages that millions of Australians entered into and enjoy. Marriage is not as simple as the 'love' that the activists claim.

The only position of true tolerance is not to force both under the same definition and provisions. That might be possible with different sections in the same Act, or preferably, two Acts