Hi Yuyutsu,

When it comes to marriage, the reality is the government giveth, the government taketh away, not the church, not the boys scouts. not the CWA or the RSL, not even the AFL, unbelievably but true. If one wants to have a say when it comes to marriage, as far as Australia is concerned, one must communicate with the government. The government for reasons of their own choice have decided that, that communication should be in the form of a yes/no survey. If you want those in authority to recognise your marriage then you have to deal with the government.

Supposing I disagree with governments involvement in marriage, and the issuing passports, an invasion of privacy, so my independent thinking tells me. Our good friend Dolly has conducted a "marriage ceremony" for my new wife and I, nothing to do with the government, being solely between us three. We no longer consider ourselves Paul and Betty, we had Dolly bestow new names. I am now Gertrude, and Betty is now Bob. We want to honeymoon overseas in Bongostan. We want to leave the country as Gertrude and Bob, not Paul and Betty. If we don't deal with the government to obtain a passport in our married names, how do we get to honeymoon in Bongostan?

My point is, even if we do not agree, at times reality dictates we must abandon our personal convictions for the sack of the real world situation. Do you agree?

Then if you do agree, this does not necessarily apply in every case.

no wonder that young Frances cannot think outside the square, that it is possible to marry without involving a government.

In short, EVERYTHING in a liberal democratic society is politicised, just like it is in totalitarian regimes. Lenin envisioned that communism would barely touch society: things would be run by the people, and the politics would be so peripheral, so light, that it could be run by a "house maid". We know how long that idea lasted.

The same thing that happened with communism is now happening with democracy - since liberalism was added. The answer to failing communism was more communism. So too with 'freedom' and 'tolerance', more freedom and tolerance is prescribed. We are 'coerced' to be freer and more tolerant by government. It is not homosexuals in the case of SSM who are pushing the bandwagon: it is government. Freedom and tolerance is the only way. Nothing else works. Keep on pushing.

Dear Paul,

Government does not and cannot giveth marriage, nor can it take it away. All it can and does is to give and take a piece of paper and some status in its own artificial creations that comes with it (tax, superannuation, inheritance-law, welfare, control-over-hospital-policies, etc.).

«at times reality dictates we must abandon our personal convictions for the sack of the real world situation. Do you agree?»

Nothing requires us to abandon our personal convictions, only to act differently, outwardly and with contempt.

It is unfortunate and unjust that we are required to have passports if we want to leave this place. It is in fact unfortunate and unjust that we are even required by law to have names. Fortunately however, unlike some other countries, we are not required to legally marry in order to love, in order to communicate our love to our family and friends, in order to live together, in order to have conjugal relations or in order to have a honeymoon overseas.

Regarding communicating with government, what can a flea say to an elephant ("Get out of my way!")? All they allow us is answering in yes/no to a logically-flawed question. Unlike travelling without a passport, marriage of same-sex couples was never disallowed, so why legislate to allow it? It's a question akin to "Have you stopped beating your wife [Yes/No]?".

«If you want those in authority to recognise your marriage then you have to deal with the government.»

Why should I want that? If what I want of them matters at all, then all I want of them is to get lost!

Hi Yuyutsu. I understand your point, and it is not unreasonable in some respects. In fact I agree, government is too intrusive, too invasive at times in peoples lives, and unnecessarily so. There is very little in our lives we can do as free thinkers, exercising individuality.

Under both Labor and the Coalition, government has increased its involvement in citizens personal lives, and that increase has necessitated a corresponding growth in the bureaucracy to oversee, regulate and administer that involvement, punish when seen as necessary, jail, fines etc. That also applies to state and local governments as well.

Is there a fix? If there is. its not going to come from government. What we need is a balance between necessary government intrusion, and the freedoms of the individual.

I want to walk naked down George Street in Sydney at 12 noon Friday. Can I? yes. Will I hurt anyone by doing that? no. Well, why am I getting arrested? I don't know. Can you explain?

It is about money. But singles, mainly students and young workers but in numbers scattered through society into old age, miss out.

The already well-off and entitled middle class are plundering public and private company entitlements pertaining to 'married' and 'partner' status. Also with a view to more easily getting their claws on large estates and superannuation.

While it is well worth it to them and their egos and selfishness would likely find anything alive as a prospect to mount, the less mortals, the herd get milkshake pay rises and are lumped with the prohibitive legal costs of divorce and the alienation that goes with the very long delays in the Federal Court.

It is anyone's guess when singles will be waking up to the vastly increased numbers and overheads of married benefits they subsidise in their workplace agreements and as taxpayers. 'Their' love, their squeezes, but single wage earners, mostly in lower paying, casualised jobs and with the higher costs of single life, have no choice, they are being forced to subsidise the advantaged 'marrieds'.

The rational vote, 'NO!' where singles are concerned is obvious, one would imagine.

The real inequity, the discrimination, is in free entitlements for 'married' status, off the backs of singles who are already much worse off. In housing for instance, where two do live much more cheaply than one and there are far more options.

The subsidisation of 'married' status comes from a situation long ago where, to take some examples, women had diminished opportunities, educational and vocational, there was no support for single mums and there was no female contraception pill. Also, after WW1 and WW2 there was the necessity to increase population rapidly, not that it was a problem with women having no Pill and no access to abortion. So women had many children and no access to reasonable conditions to survive if on their own.

In modern times the single household is common, women are not obliged to carry an unwanted pregnancy and they most likely have enjoyed better educational access especially to tertiary education and most likely earn more. On top of that mechanisation has destroyed and will continue to diminish the traditional male jobs that required strength. But even military jobs may now be secured, set aside, for women.

So where is the fairness, the equality, in trampling over singles' rights to have them subsidising the 'love' of marrieds, de facto (Common Law Marriage) and traditional marriage? Why should singles be stumping up to support married entitlements for Common Law Marriages for starters, the 'revolving doors' that are so often the environment and root cause of the lion's share of domestic violence and child neglect and abuse?

There is a host of 'wicked' subjects surrounding marriage and de facto that must be discussed before lumping the public with the limited yes or no vote. However whichever way it goes, 'NO!" is the only rational choice for singles who challenge the BS that is being spread by both sides.