leoj,

Of course Mr Howard wants everything spelled out.
He was the one who changed the Marriage Act in
the first place (2004) - without consulting the
public. However, the postal survey is very
straight forward. And a simple process. It does
not deal with any other issues and those will
be dealt with in Parliament later - depending
on the outcome of this survey. Everything else is
simply scare-mongering.

Dear Yuyutsu,

No. the marriages of same-sex couples are not
legally recognised in this country. Hence the postal
survey to have the law changed. You may not recognise
the fact that marriage in this country is a legal
contract presided over by government - but that does
not change the fact that is what it is - whether
you choose to recognise its legitimacy of not.
We've been over this ground before and I don't see
the point in re-hashing it all over again with you.

Have a nice day.

Dear Foxy,

«No. the marriages of same-sex couples are not legally recognised in this country.»

I never claimed that they are, so why the "No"?

«Hence the postal survey to have the law changed.»

Please read your postal survey form carefully. In the way it is worded, it asks:

"Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?"

It does not ask:

"Should the law be changed to legally recognise same-sex marriages?"

Don't you think this is funny, given that same-sex marriage has not been disallowed to begin with?

$122,000,000 for a meaningless and ridiculous question!

Dear Yuyutsu,

No I don't think that it is a silly question at all because
the law currently does not allow same-sex couples
to marry. Therefore the question is relevant.

Dear Foxy,

«The law currently does not allow same-sex couples to marry.»

Can you please point me to the law/Act you refer to, including the penalties that a same-sex couple might incur if they contravene it and marry anyway?

Thanks.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Under the current legislation, The Marriage Amendment
Act (2004) which made amendments to the original
Marriage Act (1961), the law states that "marriage
means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion
of all others..."

Therefore, same-sex couples are legally unable to be
wed in Australia.

This information is available on the web.

I can't make it any clearer for you.

Why would you want to close down public information and debate? What about some education and balance, answers? Instead you would only allow the public to 'tick the box within the confines of yes and no. So that later it can all be worked out behind closed doors.

Of course the public would be wondering what the hell is going on. The leftist 'anti-No vote' violence at Sydney University for instance, what, who, is behind that?
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/yes-campaigners-show-their-true-colours/news-story/6ad4b71806c4c610329a1cb7dcaa43b2

Background
Avowed Feminist & Fabian, PM Julia Gillard and her equally committed feminist and socialist Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, asserted that they had removed ALL discrimination against same-sex couples from ALL legislation, 84 different laws in all. Their statements in Parliament were cleared by the Labor caucus. Gillard in particular has been critical, dismissive, of 'traditional' marriage and remains so.

Gillard and Roxon would claim credit for greatly extending the coverage of de facto, now de facto 'relationships' as their idealism has it, their feminist and socialist difficulties with the institution of marriage causing them to find a new politically correct term for the 'common law marriage' in use elsewhere. They further extended the de facto relationships to include homosexual couples, giving them married rights, such as to partner superannuation benefits and accompanied spousal travel entitlements in public employment and to politicians (but of course!).

Arguably the political interference and political regulation of homosexual relationships is now the same as was forced on heterosexual couples. And that was something that homosexuals always strived to avoid, State interference and crippling lawyer costs and adversarial days, months, years in the Federal Court of Australia.

Yes, some already entitled, well-to-do, educated middle class have gained more form government and their employers and they have the Court to fight one another over million dollar houses and income streams.

But what about the rest? Who says they needed the State , a public service clerk and the court to tell them whether they are in a relationship or not and how to divvie possessions?