Courier Mail columnist Des Houghton certainly had something to say about the whole affair in Saturday’s paper with a fine spray of venom titled, cleverly, ABC SEES SHADES OF GAY ALL OVER. The brief piece included this interesting passage:

‘Radio National is awash with all kinds of gay activism these days, with almost obsessive reporting and soft backgrounders on everything from gay pride and gay marriage to gay judges, gay mardi gras, gay literature, gay suicides, gay asylum seekers, gay adoption, gays in the military and gay anger at the Pope. In my opinion it’s excessive coverage of such a small community group.’

The reason, perhaps, that the word ‘gay’ is seen in every daily newspaper or mentioned on the radio seven days a week is because there are so many homosexuals in the community. The Age on Monday reported the gay epidemic on its front page with the headline ‘Major party dilemma as mainstream embraces homosexuals’, pointing out that ‘The Roy Morgan Research survey data shows areas with the most positive attitudes towards gays and lesbians include affluent Liberal seats in Melbourne and Sydney such as Kooyong and Higgins’.

I have my views on this topic, that being 'gay marriage'. This is not the place for me to necessarily share those views (perhaps read some of the posts or wait for a specific one on my views).

Marieke Hardy's piece in Unleashed (abc.net.au) is reasonable enough as a commentary, not so much about 'gay marriage' - but you wouldn't know it from the commentary.

More interesting, to me at least, is perusing the reader-commentary below the post. Whether or not you have an opinion, agree, disagree, etc etc. just spend a few minutes having a read of some comments. -> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41126.html <- thats the one.

As I often point out though, whenever this topic comes up (the 'gay marriage' one, in relation to the federal Marriage Act), I just reiterate, how many of these people (and you for that matter!) are aware of what exactly is in that legislation? Perhaps being a bit more informed might help make informed comments ;)

The Marriage Act is not a religious 'act' its a part of our governing laws! At least be informed people! sheesh! (its here btw -> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/ ).

The proposals here are about changing this act of parliament, that's all folks! How about knowing what you are commenting on (and good on you if you do already) before jumping the gun ;)

Sylvestor

Mr Arbib, a powerbroker and former faction leader, was pivotal in sacking Kevin Rudd and promoting Ms Gillard.

But last week he became the first minister to defy the PM, calling for the party's opposition to gay marriage to be overturned and a conscience vote to be taken in Parliament.

There are two things that I find of interest here. Primarily, and what most people have disregarded, is the "defiance" and "undermining" Mark Arbib has shown to his party leader and Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

Remember last time, this all happened behind closed doors, and saw Kevin Rudd ousted as P.M. only to be replaced by Gillard, and Arbib was pivotal during that.

Its a curious act by Arbib, and, even tho Graham Richardson recently (during the election campaign) noted that this particular topic will eventually become a topic of debate, and whoever supported "Gay Marriage" would obtain an advantage; even Richo felt Australia was not ready.

The second point of interest is in the topic itself. Marriage. I am still bemused by it all. Yes, my same-sex-partner would like to "marry" me, frankly I don't think it matters to our life. I still sit back and smile a bit when I think about the fact that non-same-sex-marriage is defined by legislation. Its law.

I wonder how many 'married straight folk' are actually aware of their obligations under this law? Rest assured, it goes much further than just saying 'must be man and woman'. Yes, why not left laws define you as a person, as a couple, define your lives.

Laws already exist that define my relationship, for legal purposes, the concept of marriage is not for law, but between me and my partner.

Go Mr Arbib! This distraction (from NBN and carbon taxes) is, indeed, a bit of entertainment (not that I want to devalue YOUR marriage acts ;)

Sylvestor

(as always, the readers' comments in the original article make for some entertaining reading)

Prime Minister Julia Gillard remains opposed to gay unions, putting her at odds with right-wing Labor powerbroker Mark Arbib.

Senator Arbib is the first frontbencher to say he believes his party should support gay marriage.

He says gay people should have the legal right to get married, and MPs should be given a conscience vote on the controversial matter.

"If I was the parent of a gay son or daughter I don't know how I could tell them they didn't have the same rights as I did," Mr Arbib told News Ltd papers.

"I understand the Labor Party platform does not reflect that view at the moment but I hope one day that view changes."

Ms Gillard said Senator Arbib was voicing his personal views and would need to raise the matter at the ALP's national conference if he wanted to change the party's current policy, which opposes gay unions.

"Mark has expressed his personal views and no doubt he will take them to the next national conference, which is the proper place to have this debate," Ms Gillard told reporters in Melbourne today.

"We have currently a party policy, the party policy's crystal clear, that marriage is between a man and a woman.

"That's what the marriage act says and that's how it should stay."

As a gay man, in a long term relationship, I am actually happy that our relationship is not defined by an act of parliament (legislation).  How do you married folk feel about that? If "marriage" is about love and commitment, what happens when you break THAT law? If its about religion, then why do we need law to define it?

Apart from all that, because, frankly, I don't really care if heterosexual (man and woman) couples need laws to define their relationships (bit sad really), more to the point, will Mark Arbib now move to destabilize the Gillard Prime Ministership as a result of this 'disagreement'? 

Afterall, he did it to Rudd over Mining taxes!

Sylvestor