So far I have not seen any comment that states in what way the vote (whichever way it goes) will impact on them. It surely is no concern of mine how other people organize their lives? No-one has demanded that if a yes vote go ahead that I need to find a bloke to marry. This whole debate is little more than a storm in a teacup. There surely are far more important issues to be worried about than who marries whom?

Dear BAYGON,

You're absolutely right - this does not matter to most
people. Our lives will go on. However, it does matter
to those same-sex couples who do want to marry and
have their marriages registered by the government with
all the legal privileges that this allows and it is
for them and their families that we are being given
the opportunity to answer yes or no to the question that
will decide the fate of whether they will be allowed to
marry or not in this country.

Seeing as so much money is being spent on this survey
for us to be given the opportunity to have a say in this
matter the least we can do is respond.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/whats-changed-in-britain-since-same-sex-marriage/

BAYGOB & Foxy,

How is the extension of 'married' status and the gaining of extra entitlements therefrom being funded? Examples being various partner leave entitlements, accompanied travel, living and superannuation. Think of public servants and their conditions.

Where for years workers have been receiving very parsimonious pay rises, the equivalent of a milkshake or cup of coffee, the additional benefits that accrue to more who gain the status of 'married' are substantial indeed. Taking the squeeze on that posting is worth many thousands of dollars.

Since conditions are packaged and costed under workplace bargaining agreements, single workers are barred from the extra entitlements, a loss, and still must subsidise them (a second loss).

Many singles are young workers on lower remunerations anyhow, are far more likely to be casualised or (very) temporary workforce, are the first to be laid off, do not enjoy the advantage of couples such as sharing accommodation (cheaper per each), cheaper private health and other reductions.

Commonwealth superannuation CPS, for example, the Fund, the taxpayer, has to stump up for a very large increase in partner benefits to be paid and for the life of the partner.

SSM must now bring into the limelight and public debate the unfairness of 'marrieds' receiving discounts and entitlements. If such unfairness is to be continued, perhaps a card restricting same to parents and carers of child minors to age 18 yrs and dependent students only.

Why should singles, young workers especially, be supporting the 'love' choices of others who, as well, are far better off than they are?

Sorry, that should be BAYGON