Philips:

And why is 'equality' for same-sex couples more valuable to society than non-involvement of the government in marriage?

Dear phanto,

As I am not aware of any downsides to having the government involved in the registration of marriages, this question of yours, however apt, appears to me to be a no-brainer.

<<And why is 'equality' for same-sex couples more valuable to society than non-involvement of the government in marriage?>>

Nevertheless, there may be some drawbacks to government involvement in the registration of marriages that I am not aware of. Therefore, if you would be so kind as to list what these drawbacks are, I should be able to either answer your question more to your satisfaction by weighing up the risks and benefits of the two scenarios, or perhaps even come to an agreement with you on the matter.

I would note, however, that even if you are right, and that no government involvement is indeed better than greater equality, the survey is not asking if the government should remain involved with the registering of marriages. The survey is asking if same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Therefore, your message would fall on deaf ears and we would be left with less equality (in the event that the ‘No’ vote wins), and still have government involvement anyway.

For your point to have any validity, one would need to explain how having reduced government involvement in the registering of marriages is preferable, despite the discriminatory manner in which you propose we achieve this.

The results of the postal survey on same-sex marriage
should prove to be interesting. The Australian Electoral
Commission has finished processing nearly a million
changes to the roll including adding more than 100,000
new people. Two-thirds of whom are around 25 years of age.
That leaves more than 16 million Australians eligible to
vote.

Dear Paul,

This seems like the old argument of evolution versus revolution (or "things must get worse before they can get better").

My preferred option is also not to pay for this (or any other) survey with my tax-money. This option is now gone.

But since the survey is already out, I rather use it to support those two rare things: 1) that ordinary people are being asked at all, about anything; and 2) that the survey is non-compulsory.

I have seen people harassed by the demands of the ABS when randomly chosen to fill a compulsory survey. I know one case where the person involved was desperately crying and wanted to commit suicide. Eventually she relocated as a result and left her (rented) place in the middle of the night without leaving a trail (such as mail forwarding), so the ABS will not be able to follow her.

Thus my second-best option is mitigation, not unlike what I do in general elections.

---

Dear Foxy,

«at present same-sex couples are legally unable to be wed in Australia.»

Can you see the difference between "legally unable" and "unable to legally"? Or between "legal marriage" and "marrying legally"?

When you are "legally unable" to do something, you may still be able to do it without breaking any law, but if you are also "unable to legally" do it and still do, then you could be charged and incur criminal penalties.

"Legal marriage" is marriage that is enshrined by law.
"Marrying legally" is when no law is broken by one's marriage.

In summary:

You are correct in saying that at present same-sex couples are legally unable to be wed in Australia. However, they can still wed legally since no law stops them from doing so.

Philips:

"Therefore, if you would be so kind as to list what these drawbacks are, I should be able to either answer your question more to your satisfaction by weighing up the risks and benefits of the two scenarios, or perhaps even come to an agreement with you on the matter."

No.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Same-sex couples currently do not have the same
legal rights unless they are allowed to marry in
this country. If their marriage is not recognised
legally problems can arise when a partner dies
regarding what happens to property and other assets
as well as Superannuation funds. Then there is the
emergency medical situations that can arise where
partners can be excluded from not only hospital
visiting rights but also exercising medical power
of attorney.

Having a marriage recognised legally does have
its benefits as things currently stand and to deny
people that same right as the rest of society -
is simply wrong.

The following link explains:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/why-samesex-couples-still-struggle-with-legal-recognition/news-story/730d8202ee2b19f6bd6cb60a331d9088