cont'd ...

I've been stating that a Referendum is the
way to go! Of course a free-vote would have
settled this matter much earlier and quicker.

Regardless of sentiment a referendum is only for constitutional matters. The High Court has determined that this matter of same sex marriage can be determined by parliament. Indeed that is why they were elected for the will of the people.
The will of the majority is plainly for same sex marriage. So let it happen.

lamp, the constitution does not require a referendum for this, but nor does it prevent parliament from setting one.

The will of the people is far from clear, firstly because many haven't given it serious thought and secondly because phone polls don't guarantee a true representation.

A referendum's the best option, but it should be BEFORE the next election.

To me, it is not a question of the people or the guvment having to do anything in relation to SSM.

It is rather a question of what "we" must stop doing, which is to say,

1. We must not presume that we have any legitimate right to regulate sexual relations between consenting adults.

2. We must stop discriminating.

3. We must stop "hurting" these people in all of the ways that we do.

We would do well to remember the quite recent apology made to the gay man who cracked the Enigma code during WWII by Charlie Winza on behalf of the crown.

What an inspired and towering intellect that arguably changed the course of the war (so much for Coventry though.)

Unfortunately, he was terribly persecuted in the aftermath of his remarkable achievements for his sexual preferences.

..

If we stop/remove discrimination etc then matters such as SSM etc will naturally follow as a consequence.

The constant claim that the issue is "discrimination" is a non issue, as it is not a basic human right, otherwise single people could also claim discrimination. The marriage contract is not based in the love between two persons; it is a contract of denial of personal rights and self sacrifice to the exclusion of and the responsibility to the mutual care of family. It is a contract between a man and a woman [an agreement at law] not a human right that causes discrimination if excluded.

DreamOn, it's been many a year since any homosexual was chemically castrated, imprisoned or electro-shocked.

Those days are long gone.

People are claiming they want "marriage" when they actually want the romantic trappings (weddings), which are symbolic and have nothing to do with the law.

Government bureaucracy and most private business policies already "recognise" gay relationships *without* the legal status, just like de facto straight couples.

You can have the symbolism (cakes, rings, etc) any time you want.
You can already have the relationship "recognised" in almost any context (whether you want it or not. See: Centrelink).
You can love and have sex with any other adult.

So what are the activists "fighting" for that is worth the hassle and cost of a referendum?