Hi Yuyutsu.

As a conscientious objector to state involvement in marriage I assume your preferred option in this survey is to not vote at all?

<<My preferred, default, is 'small State' with minimal interference in the private individual's affairs.>> Leoj, pull the other leg.

"As a conscientious objector to state involvement in marriage I assume your preferred option in this survey is to not vote at all? "

The only logical option would be to vote NO in order to stop a bad situation from becoming worse.

You cannot vote YES without implying that you agree with government involvement in marriage. The question remains why would anyone agree with government involvement in marriage.

Dear phanto,

Many people are voting yes - simply to give same-sex
couples the same legal rights as the rest of us
have regarding marriage in this country because
at present same-sex couples are legally unable to be
wed in Australia.

Foxy:

But they are also voting to give the government powers which they do not need. You can't vote YES for SSM and NO for government involvement without being totally illogical.

Hi phanto, cannot agree, voting yes or no is participation. and that implies from the voter that government has legitimacy in the determination of what constitutes a marriage. If one was to agree with me, then one would also have to agree that religions have no legitimacy in regards to marriage.

I am not perturbed, by people who want to marry, be it of the opposite, or the same sex, be it once, or multiple times, those marriages could even be concurrent, providing they are all consenting adults, and there is no harm to anyone.

If people really need a certificate of marriage, maybe all they should have to do is go online and with the help of 'Photoshop', knock one up. Or if they are 'old school' buy one down at the local newsagents when they put their 'Lotto' entry in. two gambles at the same time.

Foxy,

Homosexuals have had Common Law marriage for years, since the Gillard government grossly altered and extended the de facto to de facto 'relationships'.

Homosexuals are deemed to be in Common Law marriages whether they want it or not. As any who happen to deal with Centrelink would be aware.

And those who are now forced to pay expensive lawyers to represent them in the Federal Court to dissolve their married status and decide assets, would be feeling in their wallet and through the delays. Delays in Queensland can be between two and four years.

Gillard's changes were beaut and very advantageous for the well off such as herself, enabling Gillard to claim married entitlements for her coupling convenience, as she also enabled for a lesbian coupling if that was her thing. However, few people are advantaged like Gillard and others of the feminist and 'Progressive' elites, being able to come out well on top out of the expanded Common Law marriage, de facto 'relationship' law changes.

Many people lost on the swings and roundabout of her changes that increased State involvement and power (automatic and deeming especially) and the lawyers and Federal Court processes are adversarial.

To think that formerly homosexuals were able to sort things out themselves and decide if they were couples or not. So easy to gather possessions and leave if things were going pear-shaped or just because.

But not after they allowed the feminists and 'Progressives' to take control. Now they are like heterosexual couples, forced to line the pockets of lawyers and going cap in hand before a judge of the Federal Court, to have him/her pass opinions and final judgement.

Now the same suspects want carte blanche to do all again behind closed doors just like before when Gillard was in the seat! Meanwhile, thousands of ordinary people are waiting years and losing their life savings to lawyers writing letters to each other, enabled by complicated family law. Then there is the increased acrimony.

To ALL politicians, fix the mess from before, NOW! As well, 'NO!' 'No way Jose!'