One thing that no one has mentioned ref, 'what happens now' is that SS married couples will be able to leave property both personal and real to the surviving partner, (after marriage is made legal) as the law stands at the moment (correct me if it's been changed) the surviving partner can legally claim only that part of an estate to which he, or she, has documented proof of contribution.
This is also where who is Mister or Mistress will come into play because, particularly in divorce, the portion due to the wife is different to that due to the husband.
There have been cases where surviving partners of a long time permanent SS relationship have lost all to blood relatives of the deceased, even to the extent of an accepted attendance at the funeral.

SSM will change much of this but new law will have to be enacted and other laws changed.

Is Mise,

Not mentioned because same sex partners have been able to leave property to surviving partners, and all the other things normal de-facto couples do for some time now. Fake marriage will not make any difference to those arrangements.

Foxy,

Nasty, whatever. Anything's better than being an ignorant windbag like you.

ttbn,

But they're still not the same as marriages.

<<Not mentioned because same sex partners have been able to leave property to surviving partners, and all the other things normal de-facto couples do for some time now.>>

De factos can see themselves caught up in expensive court battles and subject to the whim of a judge's discretion much of the time.

So, your argument is invalid.

<<Fake marriage will not make any difference to those arrangements.>>

So, yeah, they will.

I like how you refer to them as "fake", though - as though there were some objective standard as to what constitutes a marriage, beyond what society deems a marriage to be.

Wow ttbn, You just outed yourself as a moron again calling Foxy a an outlandish name like that. You aren't very strong in the brain department are you?

There is more intellect passed on in one of Foxy's full stops than in anything you type. lol

So which part of your belief system empowered you to say that rubbish about Foxy?

I agree with you Foxy but I take the fundamentalist point a little further.

In my mind fundamentalism also means being willing to hurt people with their fundamentalist view of the world and hang the consequences. To hide behind I am a good religious person and then uncaringly injure and hurt others.

So if someone uses their religious book to justify them hurting others that too is fundamentalism.

The people who voted no using their religion as their pathetic excuse don't care about the wellbeing of people who are different to them. They don't care about all the suffering that gays have experienced at the hands of their ignorant religion.

They are fundamentalists as well, who don't give a damn that their book is rubbish and that innocent people, who are different and just trying to cope with all they have suffered, get destroyed or injured by the fundamentalist clap trap they have been brainwashed into believing.

Tough words I know, but if they can dish it out to minority groups then they should be able to take the same back.

On the whole they are pathetic judgemental souls who use their rubbish religions wrongly as a terrible weapon against the psychologies of those they really hate.

They too are fundamentalists and wolves in sheep's clothing

ttbn,

You missed commenting on,

"This is also where who is Mister or Mistress will come into play because, particularly in divorce, the portion due to the wife is different to that due to the husband."