A J Philips:

It is not a ‘red herring’ to argue that the government should not be in the marriage business. If they can be persuaded by argument to get out of the marriage business then the question of whether same-sex couples should be included in legislation would be irrelevant.

It is irrelevant whether the issue has only come to the fore now. It is relevant now and it is a valid question to ask. A question is valid or it is not based on its own merits – why it has not been previously raised is irrelevant.

Dear Suse,

<<Why don't the politicians just do what the majority in their electorates want and just legalize it for goodness sake?>>

Or decree that all triangles must have four sides?

How can one possibly legalise what is not illegal in the first place?

Suse,
You know you are wrong, it makes a lot of difference to me in the way I see marriage. Firstly because I valued our marriage very highly and would not even consider being unfaithful or doing something that put that at risk.

Now some fools want to lump my wife and myself together with others that have weird and unsavory practices. Marriage is a respected institution, not so homosexual relationships.

Homosexuals have stolen the word 'gay' from our language in effort to appear in a better light and now they want to steal the word 'marriage' and the respectability that goes with it.

So those that advocate the word 'marriage' be applied to homosexual unions are fraudsters and con artists who are bent on advantage for themselves. Married couples have long earned respect from others in the community. Homosexuals have not any respect for their way of life and are now trying to thieve respect from us.

There is no other reason that homosexuals want to use the word 'marriage'. To hell with them, they can find their own word.

Hasbeen,

I’d doubt there’s much truth to your suspicions. Either way, what’s good for one is good for all.

As for polling, you can check that out for yourself. The polls in Australia have consistently been in favour of same-sex marriage since 2004, and the number of those in favour only continues to increase.

I can’t speak for gay people, but I’m against a vote because it’s an enormous waste of money, and I find the idea that our elected politicians need to put a vote to the people on a basic issue of equality as both antiquated and bizarre; just as I would find putting a vote to the people on whether or not interracial couples should be allowed to marry as both antiquated and bizarre.

phanto,

The question of what the government is doing in the marriage business is a red herring because it’s a separate issue that distracts from the more immediate question of why same-sex couples should be denied the “privilege” of being able to have their relationship and commitment legally recognised while the government *is* in the marriage business.

I disagree that the question of why the issue has only come to the fore now is irrelevant. Because if the government got out of the marriage business for no reason other than to stop same-sex couples being able to marry, then that has implications. Motivations count, as you are well aware of.

Moreover, if “What is the government doing in the marriage business anyway?” has become the only socially acceptable way to say, “I don’t want same-sex marriage legislated because I don’t like those bloody poofters”, then that’s a silver-lining that we would should be pleased with and is in our interests to know.

A J Philips:

“The question of what the government is doing .... in the marriage business.”

Just because the government is in the marriage business does not mean that it has good reasons for being there. If you do not think that governments should be involved then you will not want to pursue a government issued marriage licence so it becomes an important consideration for all those thinking about the pursuit of such a licence. Firstly you have to acknowledge their authority to be able to define marriage. If you do not acknowledge it then you would not bother to seek a certificate from them. If you do acknowledge it then you have to have good reasons for doing so. It is an integral part of the logic that each person must consider before they decide to pursue a certificate. It is not a separate issue – it cannot be divorced from the decision making process.

Unless you have good reasons why they should be involved then it is illogical to pursue same-sex marriage. Otherwise you could be seen to just be taking advantage of the situation. Your integrity would be questionable.

“I disagree ... Motivations count, as you are well aware of.”

The government should only get out because it is reasonable to do so. Getting out for any other agenda would be wrong. Same-sex couples might not be the only ones affected by them getting out.

“Moreover, ..... interests to know.”

We should not bother about what is ‘socially acceptable’ but what is reasonable. It does not matter what the motivation for wanting the government out of the marriage business is so long as the arguments presented are reasonable and logical. If it can be shown that there is no reason for their involvement in marriage then they should leave the business. Whatever the fallout from that might be is irrelevant. Not having a government issued licence will not hurt anyone.

I do find it interesting that many Australian neo-liberals are cheering Brexit seeing it as a victory for self determination over economic imperatives, yet we did not hear a peek from them when our very own deputy prime minister was warning all and sundry about the dangers of proceeding with gay marriage as it risked upsetting our trading partners in Asia.

The majority of Australians seem to feel we should just get on with it as do I. The current party in power doesn't have the guts to stand up and do the will of the people so they have deem an expensive plebiscite as the answer. Well so be it.