That's a total cop-out, Yuyutsu.

<<The way to fix it, is for the state to become completely oblivious to such private individual matters and remove all references to private relationships from legislation.>>

That is yet another line that phanto tried, and failed miserably with. It is merely the Ignoratio_elenchi fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi).

This line doesn't work because it doesn't address what should happen while marriage is in the hands of the State.

Which, mind you, will always be the case, as marriage cannot work on any other level. Spiritual-only marriages are meaningless to anyone who does not share the given spirituality.

Dear Yuyutsu,

It is the federal law.

The Marriage Act amended in 2004 by John Howard
clearly states that marriage must be between
a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.
That same-sex marriage is not allowed in Australia.

It's in Wikipedia if you want to Google it.

Dear Foxy,

I have already gone over the Marriage Act.
This Act is only relevant if you want to have a marriage that is recognised by the state (why would you?).

If you want to marry and do not care for your marriage to be recognised by the state, be it by a religious ceremony or in any other way, then no law prohibits that (in Australia - some other countries do have draconic laws against unauthorised marriages, in one case with a penalty of 2 years imprisonment).
Indeed, the state will not consider you married - so what? If you know in your heart of hearts that you are married, then who cares what others think?!

Now if the state does not allow something, then it is punishable and corresponding penalties are written into the law. Can you show me where those penalties are for the "offence" of same sex marriage? I think not.

As it stands, in Australia anyway, if I marry someone of the same gender, no police will ever knock on my door and I will not receive any court summons - that's because it is perfectly legal.

As far as the state is concerned, all that will happen is that they will look at the Marriage Act and say "this is not a marriage". Ha Ha Ha...

In fact I have asked for an expert advice from a registered marriage celebrant. He told me that there would be nothing illegal about any couple (including same sex) using his services without informing the government or signing official documents. The only legal limitation he would have as a registered celebrant, is that he could not describe such marriage as "legal marriage": to be on the safe side, so long as the word "legal" is not mentioned in the ceremony, no problem whatsoever could arise. Well, I would never want to use that word in my wedding anyway - that would spoil the day!

Dear Yuyutsu,

Same-sex couples (also most people who want to get married)
want to have their marriage recognised legally.

Australian law defines marriage as a union between a man
and a woman. Therefore same-sex couples can not legally be
married in this country and they are fighting for the right
to do so and to have their marriage recognised legally.

They want equal rights that heterosexual couples currently
have. They want to be able to have that choice. You have
that choice at present, whether you use it or not is up to
you. Same-sex couples want to have that basic right as well.

If you have any further questions on this subject you
can give the Attorney-General's Department a call in
Canberra on 1800-550-343.

http://www.ag.gov.au/FamiliesAndMarriage/Marriage/Pages/Getting-married.aspx

Dear Foxy,

«Same-sex couples want to have that basic right as well.»

Having one's relationship recognised by a state/government is indeed a right, but not a basic right.
It is a right which I believe to be unhealthy and which should not exist.

«Therefore same-sex couples can not legally be married in this country»

That statement can become correct once two words are switched:

"Therefore same-sex couples can not be legally married in this country"

And neither should any couple.

«They want equal rights that heterosexual couples currently have.»

They will have equal rights once heterosexual couples also do not have this ridiculous right.

Yes, something needs to change, but if anyone asks me at all (say in a referendum), then I will only agree to changes for the better, not for the worse: expanding a [dis]"service" which should not exist is for the worse, so I will not support it.

I have nothing against homosexuals, I wish them well (and I even have a homosexual in my family), but I have everything against the state registering information about our personal private affairs and playing God with that information.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You have some interesting views.

I personally wanted my marriage to be legal.
That was my choice. We all have choices in
life
except it seems for same-sex couples. They
don't have that choice in this country
and whether you agree
with that or not, it's a choice that they should
have just like the rest of us.