In my opinion, I believe we're over governed - Federal; State; & Local Governments. Surely there must arise some expensive duplicity.

Undoubtedly we can dispense with one layer of government. Or am I being too simplistic about the whole issue. The only real impediment to reducing the size of government is the enormous size of our great Continent? Lets be realistic, I can't begin to count how many times I've seen Western Europe being superimposed on a map of our Nation, giving one the real sense of how massive our land mass really is.

I realise our Constitution has drawn up the precise manner, we should endeavour to govern the place. Surely though there's no reason why we can't amend our Constitution for the overall good of the Country? It's been done on several occasions in the past.

It's not as though there's an attempt to overthrow the Nation; though with a change of government structure, some displaced politicians might not take things too lightly though? My answer to them is simply 'tough titties', politicians have had it all their own way for far too long in my opinion!

<<It appears to have been important since at least the 1890s, as that was when it was decided by the colonies that the Commonwealth would have the powers to legislate with respect to it (marriage). There's nothing sudden about that.>>

Sudden, yes. If the matter (like recent marriage reform) needed to be dealt earlier (and was important) it would have been dealt with a lot earlier.

So decision making was sudden in that context. Now regarding decision making, if the Constitution becomes the main focus of Government, other focuses are limited, due to the written limitations in a constitution.

<<Why? In what way?>>

To cherry pick out of a Constitution in areas one wants dealt with, and leaves out others is problematic. See this page regarding those who get questioned, for selectively quoting out of the Bible.

<<Are you now pissy at our Constitution because it doesn't allow states to legislate with respect to marriage? That would be rather odd, given that you've argued for the abolition of the states.>>

No.

<<Okay, so there might be some jurisdiction out there somewhere in the world that doesn't recognise any marriage performed in a different country. You are splitting hairs now. (in terms of "an internationally recognised institution").>>

No, the term is simply false. Google the term. Nothing can be found, so it's not hair splitting.

<<Just because all countries legally recognise an institution, that does not necessarily mean that everyone in each of those countries acknowledges the legitimacy of that institution. You're getting your knickers in a knot over nothing.>>

No. For people who disagree with a position, stance or institution imposed by a State or Federal Government, it can be difficult to live. Look internationally. Respectful, local communities are a better way forward, not impositions from State or Federal Governments.

<<Perhaps, but I see no other realistic option at the moment. If you ever figure out how your suggestion would work exactly, and how we would transition to it, I'm all ears.>>

As a person for community development, less petty politics and for less government try: https://bankofideas.com.au/

That is some incredibly fallacious thinking there, NathanJ.

<<If the matter (like recent marriage reform) needed to be dealt earlier (and was important) it would have been dealt with a lot earlier.>>

The speed with which an issue is addressed is not necessarily indicative of its level of importance, nor the extent to which it needs to be resolved. Your logic assumes that our ability to prioritise issues, or gauge the importance of any given issue, is perfect. It also fails to account for the fact that there were other factors influencing when same-sex marriage was introduced, apart from its need or importance.

According to your logic, slavery in the US didn’t need to be abolished until 1865 because it wasn’t, and was unimportant because it took them 245 years to abolish it.

<<Now regarding decision making, if the Constitution becomes the main focus of Government, other focuses are limited, due to the written limitations in a constitution.>>

Yeah, well, that’s kind of the whole idea. The federal government may only legislate within the confines of the powers granted to it by the Constitution. The states can do whatever they want, so long as they don't impinge on the powers granted to the Commonwealth by the Constitution. If you have a problem with this, then I would recommend that you contact your local federal MP about abolishing the Constitution.

<<To cherry pick out of a Constitution in areas one wants dealt with, and leaves out others is problematic. See this page regarding those who get questioned, for selectively quoting out of the Bible.>>

Please, by all means, tell me which section of the Constitution, or High Court case, cast doubt on a literal interpretation of s 51(xxi). You can accuse me of cherry-picking all you like then.

<<No, the term is simply false. Google the term.>>

I did. There were no webpages stating that the term "internationally recognised institution" was "false". Many seemed to acknowledge the validity of the concept, though:

http://imgur.com/a/quSvZDs
http://imgur.com/a/K3dCgHs

I think you are confusing “internationally” with “universally”.

Here's a more relevant Google search for you, NathanJ, in case you had a problem with the results in my last one referring to universities:

http://imgur.com/a/XJbg5Su

http://www.google.com.au/search?q="internationally+recognised+institution"+"marriage"

yes, it was interesting enough and important