Quote:
Originally Posted by csb
David, that's a point that was put forward during the campaign. However, if 5% of the population are homosexuals then they are a minority. This vote was actually about giving full equal rights to that minority group.
|
I failed to comprehend the debate... My friends who were most strongly in the Yes camp were all in defacto relationships. Some who quite bravely supported the No campaign were married yet even within that group some were in de facto relationships.
At the end of the day, Civil Marriage is an anachronistic institution. I am simply amazed at the number of collum inches devoted to the Yes campaign, amongst those proponents Ms Gillard who is quite famously in a de facto relationship.
What new rights are conferred on Gays' who choose to be married? Do they have new property rights etc:? If they had previously chosen to live in a de facto relationship then they have already had conferred upon them every single right and responsibility that can be granted via Civil marriage.
There is no distinction between a Civil Marriage & a De Facto relationship. This debate has made the Political Elite happy, possibly pleased a proportion of the 5% who are Gay, but beyond this, the debate, the vote, was a huge and costly distraction and the entailed most rampant use of Motherhood statements I have seen in an age.
If Civil Marriage was important, then the majority of couples would be getting married and they are clearly not getting married. The Elites are happy, the SMH is happy, therefore we must all be happy.