And what if it was changed to include marriage and civil union, as being the same thing legally?monotonehell wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:16 pmIt's a cute idea, but opens several other cans of worms.Maximus wrote: ↑Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:35 pmEssentially, remove the fact of marriage having a legal/codified definition at all. It's just an idea -- and not mine. It sounds somewhat reasonable to me, but I'm not particularly in tune with the no camp apart from the 'equality' mantra.
Do you or ...?
Care to elaborate...?
For example: are all the people already "married" still married?
Are all the people who weren't "married" in a church still married?
What is it that gays and lesbians actually want?
To get married in places of worship that don't recognize their homosexuality?
To be legally allowed to be in a "union" recognized by the state for legal reasons and whatever?
What..?
Why does it have to be called marriage in the legal sense?
Special people of the left wanted separation of church and state. They got their wish.
Now they've come back and want the state to take action that affects church.
There's no clear definitions on what voting yes will mean, and similarly voting no.
This whole thing has been a setup by the cowards in Canberra to divide.
What they should have done is get the various groups together, the gay & lesbian groups, the church/religious groups, and state/governments. Figure out a way forward that everyone is happy, so religious groups aren't forced into accepting any bs, and gays get their unions recognized by government legally. Probably would have been cheaper too.