leoj,

Say something intelligent and relevant and
you may get people interested in what you post.

Dear Foxy,

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

I agree and this was never disputed: undoubtedly indeed they cannot legally marry, or in other words, they cannot use the law to achieve a marriage between them.
[and I believe that nobody, regardless of gender and sexual orientation, should be using laws to that end anyway]

But they can still achieve marriage by any other means (other than by relying on laws) and no Australian law that I am aware of declares such marriages that were obtained by other means to be "illegal", nor imposes any penalties for such marriages.

Yuyutsu,

I understand the point you are making.

However as outlined in my post on the previous page, feminism's and socialism's replacement for their despised 'traditional'(sic) as in heterosexual marriage has already been implemented AND extended to homosexuals.

That was done and dusted behind closed doors by Gillard and her Attorney General Nicola Roxon and of course with the full knowledge and beavering away behind the scenes by the big hitters of Emily's List, including key feminist academics, lawyers and other educated middle class feminists. See here,

leoj, Sunday, 17 September 2017 4:41:44 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7926&page=12
And my posts on the few pages before.

It is State compulsion, the very broad and murky provisions of de facto 'relationship' [aka 'common law marriage' elsewhere, but the term studiously avoided by feminists], that are easily and AUTOMATICALLY triggered and without the motivation, intent and decision of the parties, which could be otherwise. The 'equity' is that both heterosexual and homosexual partners are affected, and it can consider bigamy, but not treat it as such.

By way of example of the last mentioned, a woman could be married to a man who is in undeclared (to her!) affairs with another man or woman or both or several, (or a blend, tres 'Progressive'!) and any and all of them could have legal demands on the married family's assets and income.

Now the same feminists and 'Progressives' who refuse to accept any of the negative consequences of their previous social experiments are storming, bullying, to have homosexuals and the rest of the community allow them free rein again after a 'yes' vote to get behind closed doors again to fiddle some more.

Dear Leoj,

I was trying to avoid the political dimension.

Marriage is what it is, regardless of what the state says it is.
Who are they anyway but a gang of thugs?

I don't care whether they support traditional or progressive marriages - states should have nothing to do with personal relationships, as indeed they should not even exist in the first place.

For the record, I have no issues with feminists or homosexuals, yet since you mentioned 'progressives' and Gillard, I am yet to suffer a massive blow from them:

Once their NBN reaches my area and my copper connection taken away, I will no longer have any communications, no phone, no internet, I would be completely isolated - or I may be forced to sell my house and move away to an area that is not affected.

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for the civil reply.

The point is that the choice has already been taken away. The de facto 'relationship' [common law marriage] provisions are most intrusive on the private individual and are the dead hand of the State.

My preferred, default, is 'small State' with minimal interference in the private individual's affairs.

Dear Leoj,

Yes, de-facto provisions can be intrusive, though I wouldn't say that they are "most intrusive" as there are so many other things that government does which are even more intrusive.

«My preferred, default, is 'small State' with minimal interference in the private individual's affairs.»

Yes, this would be much better than how it is now, but I'm confused by the word "default" since no state, even a small one, can be created without deliberate intention. The default as I understand it (which is actually not my preference as some readers here may believe), is having no organisation whatsoever.

My preference, is for people to organise themselves voluntary into society(s), on the basis of common values rather than on some arbitrary territorial basis.