It is the duty of anyone proposing change and in the change is very serious indeed, to trash the Marriage Act and turn the whole meaning of marriage on its head, to:

- not only detail specific and compelling reasons for change, but to,

- demonstrate clearly, simply and unequivocally how the change will retain the meaning and purposes of the Act for those already married, and,

- show what the future will be, ie how the institution of marriage will work in the future. That considers child raising and even how more 'marrieds' affects singles, the other forgotten half (when do they get to speak).

The discussion on gay marriage has once again been unedifying, just the broken record and a slew of ad hominems directed at anyone who might challenge the proposal, as I did for example.

The starting point must be the statement of previous PM Ms Julia Gillard and her Attorney General Nicola Roxon, who publicly and emphatically announced that their overturning and amendment of 85(87?) individual pieces of legislation, had removed totally and forever any discrimination affecting the homosexual population.

It is worth noting that they did NOT regard the Marriage Act as any risk at all where 'gay' discrimination was concerned, otherwise they would have targeted it too.

By their actions, all the leftists, feminists and homosexual activists who participated in the back room rejigging of all of that legislation did NOT see the Marriage Act as problematical (a much used feminist term at the time) for gays. Marriage was a hated institution for the leftist 'Progressives' and especially the many radfems of Emily's List. Homosexuals also despised marriage as the sorry out-moded, manacles of heteros.

Now Fox and ors want the electorate to believe that PM Gillard, her Attorney-General and her parliamentary comrades lied.

Coincidentally, none of the many homosexuals, lesbians included, who were and remain opposed to State regulation of their personal affairs and for damned good reasons too is heard and definitely NOT heard on the ABC. Arguably the ABC has relentlessly championed gay marriage.

My first sentence should read, "It is the duty of anyone proposing change and IN THIS CASE the change is very serious indeed, it is to trash the Marriage Act and turn the whole meaning of marriage on its head.. "

Dear OnTheBeach,

It is indeed concerning that those already married would find themselves in a status they never accepted and is not the deal they signed and paid for, without being able to renege on the deal after it was modified by the other party.

The very minimum requirement for changes in the Marriage Act, is to include a clause that will allow those that already married prior to the date it is changed, to become un-married (without being required to separate for a year).

The right thing to do of course, is to abolish the Marriage Act altogether. Surely this will provide marriage-equality!

Yuyutsu, "The very minimum requirement for changes in the Marriage Act, is to include a clause that will allow those that already married prior to the date it is changed, to become un-married (without being required to separate for a year)"

Many would agree with you.

Besides, it would be only humane to set the cowering trained manginas free from the yoke of their bullying feminist cowdozer handlers. Imagine them walking free again, life regained.

Er, make that 'spouses'. Yes, 'spouse' appears to be the PC new-speak to dispense with the inconvenient one man and one woman of marriage. Has 'spouse' replaced 'partner' and why? It is hard to keep up with the spin.

Dear OnTheBeach,

I was not previously aware of this term, "manginas", so I made interesting observations looking it up.

Please note that those who wish to separate and divorce can do so already: if they want to but do not dare, then no new clause in the Marriage Act would help them.

Rather, I was referring in my post to couples that are genuinely married, often bound together for life or even beyond by a religious sacrament, whose beautiful relationship is written in big letters up in heaven and have neither wish nor intention to ever separate; but who no longer wish to be considered married for civil purposes once the civil authorities changed their definition of 'marriage' so that it no longer reflects their own understanding of the nature of their relationship.

Yuyutsu,

I understood your meaning and I agree with your para 4 above. It would change the very essence of marriage for millions already married. Totally unnecessary too, because the Marriage Act should be left as it is and a new regulation specific to homosexuals can be drafted.

However 'gay marriage' also finalises the State's control of homosexual relationships set in train by Gillard and Labor. That also puts pressure on the great many homosexuals who never wanted State interference in their relationships, ever.

My reference to mangina was tongue in cheek. It is simply astonishing how many feminists who trash men, fatherhood and marriage at every opportunity and in some cases for decades, also lay claim to having a feminist trained male partner ('spouse' appears to be the new-speak PC term), presumably neutered, who adores them, totally supports them and shares their radical views etc.

Mangina
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mangina

Of course to feminists and those leftist 'Progressives' who have never supported marriage anyway and would like to deep six the institution ASAP, gay marriage is just a blunt weapon to belt men and 'conservatives' and to cause disruption. To cynical Greens and Labor it is a political distraction and wedge. -Much better than facing up to the CFMEU and other nagging problems.