Most people won’t even register that there is something different about this year’s census, but I will be cracking open the champagne and waving a flag. A big, bright, rainbow flag.

Now recognised by the ABS as a married couple. Photo:AFP.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics gets a gong this week for being the first government department to recognise my overseas same-sex marriage to my partner, Sarah.

One small tick for the box, one giant tick for the ABS.

On August 9th, when the kids are all tucked up in bed, Sarah and I will have our own quiet, private ceremony. We will hold hands and put a line through the box Husband or Wife of Person 1 in Question 5. Then we’ll raise our glasses for a toast.

For the first time, in the country we have both chosen to be our home, our marriage will be recognised. And that is cause for celebration.

It was seven years ago now that Sarah and I first attempted to have our Canadian marriage recognised when we returned home to Australia after our fabulous lakeside wedding in southern Ontario.

But before the courts had the chance to determine the legal validity of our marriage, the then Howard Government amended the Marriage Act, by inserting the words “one man and one woman.”

When the rest of the world was moving towards a greater acceptance of gay people, Australia was doing the opposite.

The amended Marriage Act effectively knocked out our legal challenge and ensured that no overseas same-sex marriages would be recognised. And so Sarah and I found ourselves in a permanent state of relationship limbo, playing “now we’re married”, “now we’re not” whenever we visited relatives in Canada and the UK.

Having the ABS acknowledge us in the latest census is a great big step in the right direction. Thanks, guys.

Perhaps what the ABS has realised is that the world is changing. Perhaps it has heard that 75% of the Australian population believe same-sex marriage is inevitable.

Perhaps it knows that it will be counting Australian same-sex marriages in the next census and thinks it should start practicing now. Whatever the ABS knows, I think it should share it with the government.

This month saw the first same-sex weddings in New York. Looking at the pictures of the couples getting married and reading their stories, I was struck by how ordinary they were – old and young, black and white, every class and background, every shape and size – yet at the same time, how extraordinary.

The first couple to be married were Phyllis Siegel, 76 and Connie Kopelov 84, who left their walking frame and wheelchair at the side of the room so they could stand before the judge.

Ray Durand, who married his partner of 42 years said after his wedding: “We feel a little more human today.” Mr Durand reminded me once again why we are fighting this battle in Australia.

When I married Sarah in Canada, when our celebrant officially declared us married, when we signed our marriage certificate, I felt a little more human, too.

Sarah and I don’t feel not married, just because the government doesn’t recognise our marriage certificate. The crazy thing is, our entire community – parents, teachers, neighbours, shopkeepers – thinks of us as married. It really is about time our government did, too.

To be honest, most people just don’t see what all the fuss is about. The oft quoted opinion of ordinary Australians who support “one man and one woman” just doesn’t ring true anymore and everyone knows it.

Sarah and I go about our business everyday surrounded by those ordinary Australians and, quite frankly, they don’t give a stuff. Every other married same-sex couple I know say the same thing.

I’ve filled out a lot of official government forms in my life and it galls me every time. Do I tick Married when I know my marriage isn’t recognised? Do I tick Single, which I’m not and haven’t been for 20 years? Do I cross through all the categories in black pen and write my own.

Thanks to the ABS on August 9th I will be able to fill out a government form honestly. I am married, and it will be nice to tick the box that says so.

117 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Mahhrat says:

      06:54am | 09/08/11

      Congratulations Jacqui.  Apologies in advance for hijacking your post a little.

      I know people here are unhappy about the use of the word “marriage”, but I’m happy to see it used for more than traditional hetereosexual marriage.

      Why? 

      Because at the moment, non-custodial parents (which, yes, are usually men) get the raw deal in divorce proceedings, and I think that once the gay communities start going through their own bitter divorces, judges everywhere will be confronted with two dads, or two mums, and THEN what do they do?

      At that point, whatever they decide will have to flow back to hetero marriages as well.  I would hope that is a good thing.

    • Erick says:

      09:19am | 09/08/11

      I look forward to the day when heterosexual men get equal marriage rights.

    • AliceC says:

      09:40am | 09/08/11

      They do, all heterosexual men can marry heterosexual women.

    • adam says:

      09:46am | 09/08/11

      Erick, we’ve got the same marriage rights. It’s at the other end of the deal we lose out

    • Erick says:

      10:22am | 09/08/11

      Considered as a legal institution, marriage can’t be separated from divorce and the other legal issues that are associated with it.

      In this sense, heterosexual men have fewer rights than women (or gays, should they also be legally married).

      In view of the numbers involved, and the huge injustices perpetrated over the decades, there is very little media attention paid to this topic. Yet we have gay marriage campaigns in the MSM every week.

    • ZSRenn says:

      11:14am | 09/08/11

      @ Erick Thank you and keep up the good fight! I am sure you have read my story before so I wont tell it again. However, It is nice to know someone has my back. I guess misary loves company.

      We will one day be known as the “Robbed Generation of Fathers.”

    • Huey says:

      12:12pm | 09/08/11

      @ Mahhrat, never considered the point you have just made…good stuff!..thanks.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:44pm | 09/08/11

      I disagree Adam, we blokes loose out at both ends of the deal. We give up a healthy active, if not genuinely freaky, sex life….and then when divorce rolsl around we lose 75% of our stuff, the kids and the house…..and then we are too old for an active, if not freaky, sex life wink

    • George says:

      08:39am | 10/08/11

      In a divorce where children are involved scenario:

      Given the ‘no fault’ divorce law in Oz! (The only ground for divorce is the irretrievable breakdown of the relationship, demonstrated by 12 months of separation).

      - Father gets kicked out of the family home.
      - Father loses part or full access to children.
      - Father has to pay for own accommodation whilst paying maintenance.
      - Mother asks for more maintenance money.
      - Maintenance money is unaccounted for.
      - Mother gets new partner, lives in family home with children.
      - Father can’t afford partner, no more money to spend.

      Different story of course when domestic violence and male infidelities are factors.  But recorded male infidelity as a reported cause of divorce is very small compared to that of reported female infidelity.

      Still the male cops it!

      So yeah if lesbians want to get married and have kids, good luck!  But if ever you do find yourself on the wrong end of a divorce just remember that the same Family Law legislation will potentially apply to you and if you are the scorned party you’ll have the same rotten luck as men I described above, whether you like it or not.

    • ZSRenn says:

      08:06pm | 10/08/11

      You can be a

      Gay Activist
      Urban Gay Activist
      Animal Rights Activist
      Political Activist
      Amazon Rainforest Activist
      Climate Change Activist
      Green Activist
      Whale Activist
      Internet Activist
      Permaculture Activist
      Shareholder Activist
      Palestinian Activist
      Peace Activist
      Quantum Activist
      Grassroots Activist
      Teenage Activist
      Human Rights Activist
      Women in Buddhism Activist
      Logging Activist
      Spiritual Activist
      Android Activist
      Web Activist
      Anti-Apartheid Activist
      Scientific Activist
      Lazy Activist
      Egyptian Activist
      Joyful Activist

      But if you are a father actively fighting for yours and others rights to see their children you are a joke, an obvious loony and a criminal.

      Not to mention, it is against the law to talk about and active custody case, in the media.

    • Richo says:

      07:24am | 09/08/11

      Yawn! No big deal.

    • acotrel says:

      07:53am | 10/08/11

      I don’t mind gay marriage, as long as it doesn’t become compulsory!

    • Dave says:

      07:54am | 09/08/11

      On ya Jacqui!

    • NSW says:

      08:02am | 09/08/11

      Why the constant articles on marriage? Its really quite simple - anyone stupid enough to want to get married should be allowed to do so. Gay, hetero,cat, dog whatever.

    • Ed says:

      08:30am | 09/08/11

      The people who think marriage is great are the people who aren’t married…

    • Jane2 says:

      09:10am | 09/08/11

      Good reply NSW.

    • Kika says:

      10:45am | 09/08/11

      I agree! Why would you want marriage? It’s not that great. I got married and woke up the next day which didn’t feel any different to the previous day.

    • Alicia says:

      11:24am | 09/08/11

      Just because you have a poor experience being married doesn’t mean other people will.

    • Ed says:

      12:52pm | 09/08/11

      @ Alicia

      Yes if does. It says it somewhere in the Constitution.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:45pm | 09/08/11

      You obviously didn’t drink enough the night before Kika…..

    • Kika says:

      03:07pm | 09/08/11

      A respectable bride doesn’t overdrink on her wedding night! I was warned my whole life not to as my mother did on her wedding night and spent her entire first night married driving the porcelain bus.

    • Tom says:

      03:34pm | 09/08/11

      Kika, I somehow suspect that the earth didn’t move for your husband either.

    • Hank says:

      04:10pm | 09/08/11

      Dont worry Tom.  This is the same Kika who hates kids, baby boombers and obviously thinks the universe revolves around her.  Im sure it would have been a real treat being married to her.

    • Dean says:

      08:14am | 09/08/11

      Definately a step in the right direction.  I have to wonder why it’s been included though, seeing as though it’s not recognised, would it be for statistics purposes or for the same reason Centrelink ‘recognises’ gay de facto relationships?

      It always amuses me that the definition of marriage can be amended to ‘exclude’ all others, yet they never bother amending the ‘for life’ part…

    • Margaret Gray says:

      08:23am | 09/08/11

      Another week…another irrelevant Punch article on “gay marriage”.  You can almost set your watch by it.

      “...Perhaps it has heard that 75% of the Australian population believe same-sex marriage is inevitable….”

      So are death and taxes.

      Perhaps you’ve heard that 98.6% of Australians could care less.

      Bigger things going on in the world than the endless bleating over this issue.

    • Shane* says:

      09:14am | 09/08/11

      With a subtly anti-religion article directly alongside it! Wow, Punchers, way to break the mould.

    • Phil says:

      09:18am | 09/08/11

      Exactly, there are other super important things that must be covered like why cant we shop at odd hours of the day or night, i mean it must be important if there was a good 3 or 4 articles about it and another today!
      Tackling the big issues here at the punch.
      Gay marriage is only important to the gay community, this is just another article bleating on about the same old crap.

      So over it.

    • AliceC says:

      09:44am | 09/08/11

      Gay marriage is important to me, and I’m not gay.

    • AndrewC says:

      10:32am | 09/08/11

      Yet you reply to every article Margaret… obviously there isn’t anything bigger going on in your world! Oh yeah thats right you are straight and are fully recognised by the government that takes your taxes… lucky you!

    • Margaret Gray says:

      11:21am | 09/08/11

      “...Oh yeah thats right you are straight and are fully recognised by the government that takes your taxes… lucky you!...”

      Oh please…spare me the dramatics, princess.

      There is nothing I ‘get’ from the government that you don’t.

      Your whole ‘argument’ is premised on the use of a single solitary adjective.

      Get over it.  Find another one.

    • mel says:

      11:54am | 09/08/11

      I always thought people could be engaged about more than one issue at a time. Obviously, Margaret Gray, you can’t, so I’m somewhat bewildered that you expend the effort to comment on such an “irrelevant…issue”  when there are bigger things going on in the world. If the rights of our citizens isn’t an important issue to you, why waste your time commenting on it?

    • Jo says:

      01:55pm | 09/08/11

      Another week, another irrelevant comment.

      Margaret Gray, if you’re not interested in the articles on The Punch, why bother reading, or even commenting? And inequality IS a big thing. But I take it you’re an Anglo, middle-class “Aussie”, so you have no experience of this, right?

      I’m not part of the “gay community”, Phil, but this issue is important to me. Again, if you’re not interested, don’t comment. Don’t read it in the first place.

      Oh, and Margaret, the phrase you’re looking for is “couldn’t care less”.

    • TheRealDave says:

      02:52pm | 09/08/11

      Apparently Margaret, whilst 98.6% of Australians couldn’t care less, according to your made up numbers….you are on of the 1.4% who do - despite the careless air of disinterest because you also state further down:

      Margaret Gray says:

      01:59pm | 09/08/11

      “...People like you make me laugh, and by that I mean people who think homosexuality isn’t normal…”

      Being sexually attracted to the same gender as yourself is not “normal”.

      Stop pretending that it is.


      So you DO care Marge, and care passionately, since it goes against your primitive belief system and what you consider ‘normal’ and you can’t help but rush to the keyboard when you see it in print.

      Personally, I couldn’t give two shits about Gay Marriage…..I just want it to come about, hell - I’ll even help campaign FOR it and hand out flyers, carry placards and hand out ‘*fairy bread’...just to piss off religious nutbags like you Marge wink

      * Yes, I said fairy bread….cause I like fairy bread with those hundreds and thousands spread on nice fresh buttered bread and is in no way shape or form a reflection on the topic at hand….much…..

      And what could be more Australian than that??

    • Chris_D says:

      08:36am | 09/08/11

      Wow, a whole article to tell us how happy you are.  Awesome.

    • Benster says:

      09:37am | 09/08/11

      To all those complaining about this article, rather than adding to rational debate on the issues it raises,  I missed the bit where reading it was compulsory.

    • VVS says:

      09:57am | 09/08/11

      @ Benster

      It was in the 2nd paragraph…

    • Matt says:

      12:32pm | 09/08/11

      It’s funny though Benster, it only makes them seem more pathetic..

    • VVS says:

      12:45pm | 09/08/11

      Pathetic like a fox… are we reading the same article…? It was written in ze German, wasn’t it?

      I actually didn’t read beyond the first paragraph…

    • Dave Charlesworth says:

      09:20am | 09/08/11

      You know what? Sorry to say it, but there are far more important things happening in this Country and around the world.

      Basically who gives a .... about this topic!!!

    • Ian Campbell says:

      10:20am | 09/08/11

      I think all those who are being discriminated against and all those who understand how it affects their lives gives “....” about it.

    • julia Day says:

      10:42am | 09/08/11

      That has always traditionally been the response from the people who have all rights under the law. The same response by some given to the civil rights movement in America in the 60’s. This is also a civil right and it’s being denied to millions who just want the choice to marry or not and live their lives with full recognition under the law of their country. It is in effect, “just a piece of paper”, let all Aussies have access to that legally binding piece of paper.

    • morrgo says:

      09:47am | 09/08/11

      Gay marriage would make a small number of people very happy without substantively impacting on the rest of society.  Allowing it should be a no brainer, but for the agitation of an even smaller number of people who, of course, vehemently deny being homophobes.

    • Tilly says:

      11:21am | 09/08/11

      You nailed the whole issue in less than a paragraph, and for that I thank you wink

    • mel says:

      11:42am | 09/08/11

      +1, morrgo (although I would probably take out “substantively” from the paragraph)!

    • Timmy says:

      02:55pm | 09/08/11

      Not that the numbers matter, but the number of people opposed to gay marriage probably outweighs the number of gays who will actually get married.

    • Tom says:

      03:40pm | 09/08/11

      Hang on, I am a homophobe and I am all for them getting married. Anything to get them to shut up their constant whining.

    • Anubis says:

      09:47am | 09/08/11

      This is a non-issue to the majority of Austgralians. There are much more important factors that need to be taken care of by our flip-flopping Government before the issue of Gay marriage. Current and previous Governments trot this one out when they want to divert attention from other issues. If either party had been serious about legislating gay marriage it would have been done years ago. Until it is, it will continue to be a Government diversionary tactic.

    • Hamish says:

      09:48am | 09/08/11

      Why is The Punch so obsessed with this non-issue? Jacqui, even you say…‘Sarah and I don’t feel not married, just because the government doesn’t recognise our marriage certificate.’ Then why are you so desperate for validation from the state? The government recognising your marriage won’t make you any more in love. 

      Has anyone read about the riots in London? Any danger of an article about a real news story, Punch?

    • Anubis says:

      10:03am | 09/08/11

      @ Hamish - “Any danger of an article about a real news story, Punch?”

      I don’t think so Hamish, not while they have fluff pieces and issues like this one to champion.

    • Hamish says:

      10:18am | 09/08/11

      Yeah Anubis, I’m getting increasingly disappointed by the standard of articles on The Punch. Today’s a particularly poor selection, making this article the worst of a bad bunch. The Punch just has far too many articles on gay marriage which is a peripheral issue at best.

      This article is even more irrelevant than most as it suggests the fact that gay people can tick a marriage box somehow amounts to a tacit acceptance of gay marriage by the ABS. It just doesn’t. The Census is simply about recording information. The ABS are just keeping up with the times by recognising that there is now a statistical reality around overseas single-sex marriages which they wish to measure and record. That the author doesn’t realise this suggests a manic desperation for recognition.

    • Missy says:

      10:29am | 09/08/11

      If you would like to read a news article I suggest you go to a website that reports the news as opposed to a website that publishes opinion pieces…

    • Mahhrat says:

      09:51am | 09/08/11

      I’m loving the amount of people on this topic who care so little about it that they feel the need to write in complaining about how irrelevant it is.

    • undertow says:

      10:24am | 09/08/11

      I have a feeling the irony will be lost on them.

    • Margaret Gray says:

      10:33am | 09/08/11

      I’m loving the amount of people who don’t know the difference between a conversation and an endless boring monologue.

    • Drayna says:

      03:36pm | 09/08/11

      My thoughts exactly.

    • Coach says:

      03:53pm | 09/08/11

      I’m loving Margaret Gray’s comments:

      8:23am - I don’t care about this article.
      10:33am - I don’t care about this article.
      11:21am - I don’t care about this article.
      1:59pm - I don’t care about this article.

      Busy day?

    • Anna C says:

      10:15am | 09/08/11

      “Perhaps it has heard that 75% of the Australian population believe same-sex marriage is inevitable.”

      Jacqui so is death ... but I don’t see a majority of Australians clamouring to end their lives. Just because something is considered inevitable doesn’t mean that it’s what the majority of Australians want right this minute. I understand that to gay people the issue of same-sex marriage is of extreme importance, but to the rest of us we have more important things to consider like the economy, Carbon Tax, cost of living, infrastructure etc. And before any gay people start complaining that we are denying them their human rights, I say go and live in parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East where they kill people for being gay and then tell me that we are denying you your human rights. A little perspective would be nice considering that same sex relationships are already recognised by this Government.

      Priorities people priorities.

    • julia Day says:

      10:58am | 09/08/11

      Anna, thank you for reminding us gays how good we have it in our own country…otherwise, I would never had known ! Silly me ! ” A little perspective would be nice considering that same sex relationships are already recognised by this Government.” . What the majority of Australians want at this time is full equality under the law for all citizens. The law as it stands is not equal. Since we are a democracy and a first world country, we should indeed be leading the world on this issue.Instead, we are 10 years behind. Yes, death is most certainly inevitable, but I would like the basic human right of marriage and the opportunity to live as a married person before I die, I don’t think that is asking too much as a tax paying law abiding citizen.

    • Matt says:

      12:33pm | 09/08/11

      Nice Anna C, so above equality you put a tax, a country’s economy, the cost of everyday living (that also affects gay people) and infrastructure… Anything else you’d like to put above equality?  How about your grocery shopping seeing as you think so little of equality..

      And you’re one to talk about perspective - I’ve unfortunately read your comments over the last week….

    • VVS says:

      12:51pm | 09/08/11

      @ Matt

      Sex usually tops my list…. with the missus if I’m desperate and want to throw her one…

      Being smug and smarmy (and also occasionally hilarious) on online forums comes in second…

    • dazza says:

      03:27pm | 09/08/11

      @ VVS - reading your comments always manages to get a least a smile or a chuckle on a tough work day. keep up the good work.

    • Steve says:

      10:22am | 09/08/11

      WHAT a load of absolute F****N hogwash, you really think they will allow gay marriages in Australia, CAN"T SEE IT HAPPENING and hope it doesn’t because we have enough idiots in this world (seems there are most of them in Australia) let alone those who think marrying someone of the opposite sex is right and the government in Australia will n ever allow it to happen and the government will say anything at the moment to get your vote.

    • Kika says:

      10:52am | 09/08/11

      Steve what difference does it make to your individual life if other people decide to get married? I don’t recall you having an opinion as to whether my husband and I should get married. So what difference is it to you if two people want to get married?

      I don’t ‘agree’ with gay marriage either. But I am comfortable in my heterosexuality, and am not a busy body and don’t care what other people want to do with their lives because we live in a democratic free country. If two women or two men want to get married it’s absolute no skin off my nose! That’s their choice. Go ahead. Doesn’t mean I am going to marry a woman. They can. I chose to marry a man and am comfortable with that!

    • Zaf says:

      11:19am | 09/08/11

      [we have enough idiots in this world (seems there are most of them in Australia) let alone those who think marrying someone of the opposite sex is right]

      You tell ‘em!!

    • Steve says:

      10:44am | 09/08/11

      further to my previous I forgot to mention that by asking if the PERSON in Q1
      is the husband or wife of the person in Q5 IS NOT RECOGNISING your gay marriage because a PARTNER is not a marriage and the ACTUAL REAL REASON for all your happy happy they recognise us is because YOU ARE ABNORMAL TO BE GAY and this JUST MAKES YOU FEEL A LITTLE NORMAL like all us hetrosexuals.

    • Rob C says:

      11:21am | 09/08/11

      Wow, the amount of times I have heard the line “YOU ARE ABNORMAL TO BE GAY” by supposedly Straight heterosexual blokes only to be hit upon by those same people once they feel more comfortable with you. Look, if two consenting adults want to be married, so it should be. If that is the way they want to express their love then let them be. They aren’t hurting anyone!  Give the choice then all this will just blow over. Too many fanatical religious bigots in high power who want to try & keep control of their own fantasy worlds is what the problem is. Religion is fine too, just don’t shove it down my throat. Just as gay people shouldn’t shove it down someone elses throat. ‘no pun intended!’

    • Tilly says:

      11:28am | 09/08/11

      People like you make me laugh, and by that I mean people who think homosexuality isn’t normal.  I either have to conclude that you’ve been brainwashed to think it isn’t normal, or that there’s a part of you, deep down, that’s suppressing something wink

      In all seriousness, though, why is everyone so threatened by gay marriage?  It’s not like it affects you.  I agree that there’s plenty more going on to be worried about—this is why I don’t understand why the government hasn’t already granted people this basic civil right.  The sooner it’s done, the sooner we can move on to more important things.

    • Alicia says:

      11:31am | 09/08/11

      Legalising gay marriages (or not) will not reduce the number of people who think it’s right. By the way, how does gay marriage remotely affect your day-to-day life?

    • Margaret Gray says:

      01:59pm | 09/08/11

      “...People like you make me laugh, and by that I mean people who think homosexuality isn’t normal…”

      Being sexually attracted to the same gender as yourself is not “normal”.

      Stop pretending that it is.

      The human race and most other species would not have survived under circumstances so “normal”.

    • Tilly says:

      02:24pm | 09/08/11

      Margaret, homosexuality is less prevalent than the heterosexual counterpart, yes.  However, this doesn’t make it abnormal. It simply makes it less common.  This is why people like you make me laugh.  Because while you’re rambling on about how abnormal it is, you fail to realise that humans are just one of many species who have exhibited homosexual behaviour.  Humans just seem to be the most vocal about how unnatural it is (do you really think that the human species will be wiped out if gays get married?  If so, I feel a bit silly for arguing with an idiot)

    • Margaret Gray says:

      04:07pm | 09/08/11

      “...do you really think that the human species will be wiped out if gays get married?...”

      Nice Strawman.

      Let me have a go…

      ...Zoophilia is less prevalent than paedophilia, yes.  However, this doesn’t make it abnormal. It simply makes it less common.

      Or how about…

      ...If all the humans in the world suddenly turned homosexual then the species WOULD be wiped out.

      “...Humans just seem to be the most vocal about how unnatural it is…”

      Now you’ve got me intrigued Tilly. 

      Tell me which animals are slightly less “vocal” about it?

    • Kimikaze says:

      05:02pm | 09/08/11

      OK, is there a Godwin’s Law for the gay marriage=pedophilia=bestiality=incest line?  May the touch of His noodly appendage calm me. 

      Hi there Margaret.  It seems you need a refresher on a couple of facts.  Gay marriage is the joining of consenting adults.  Pedophilia and zoophilia are acts of abuse, given that the more vulnerable party lacks either the ability to consent or the ability to communicate consent or lack thereof.

    • Timmy says:

      05:05pm | 09/08/11

      abnormal:  Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable.

      I think it is the last bit of that definition is what offend people in this context. That is that normally, being abnormal is not considered good.

      Which is why there exist Gay and Lesbian lobby groups that seek to “normalise” homosexuality.

      That is the underlying reason for the push for gay marriage. It is not about equality, it is about normalisation, which is why providing legal rights to gay couples equivalent to legal rights that heterosexual couples is not enough.

    • mel says:

      05:12pm | 09/08/11

      Could someone of Margaret Gray’s ilk tell me why it would be a bad thing if the human race got wiped out? They go on (and on and on) about the propogation of the species but what difference does it make to anyone if we became extinct? Other species have died out and the world has gone on, so what does it matter if we aren’t around?

    • Tilly says:

      06:14pm | 09/08/11

      Marge, Marge, Marge…

      Where to start?

      “...Zoophilia is less prevalent than paedophilia, yes.  However, this doesn’t make it abnormal. It simply makes it less common.”

      You’re right there (hooray)!  People can’t help what gets them off.  Your examples exist within society, along with many more, albeit they are much less common than homosexuality.  However, the difference between your examples and homosexuality is consent.  Homosexual relationships, such as Jacqui’s, are between two consenting adults, and cause no harm to anyone, as opposed to your examples. So before you think that gay marriage will open the floodgates for all sorts of things, perhaps you should think about why we accept homosexuality and not pedophilia.  Hint: It’s because gay relationships are consensual!

      “...If all the humans in the world suddenly turned homosexual then the species WOULD be wiped out.”

      Luckily for the human race, a) no one can “turn” homosexual, and b) by the natural order, the rate of homosexuals to heterosexuals will always be disproportionate. The birth rate of gay kids hasn’t changed any more compared to one hundred years ago.  The number of gay people who are open about their sexuality probably has, though. And, even luckier for the human race, us dirty homosexuals also want to procreate, and when there’s a will, there’s a way.

      “Tell me which animals are slightly less “vocal” about it?”

      Pigs, chimps, dolphins, bats, penguins, dogs, so on and so forth.  None of them seem to care if two animals of the same sex mate with each other. 

      In conclusion, your ideals are dumb, and your ignorance is unfounded.

      P.S. Timmy, good definition, I do agree. grin

    • Jean says:

      10:44am | 09/08/11

      I must have a different census form. Absolutely nothing on it about gay marriages. And the religion column still does not include Jedi.

    • John K says:

      10:45am | 09/08/11

      You’ve always been able to fill out that question.  The trouble is, when they process your form and see that person 1 and 2 are both female, it will result in an error and the data will be disregarded.  This is no win at all.

    • VVS says:

      11:19am | 09/08/11

      What about if you create a “yes please” box when it comes to the sex question…?

    • Tilly says:

      01:24pm | 09/08/11

      Actually VVS, the sex question affects plenty of people.  I.e. those born Intersex (hermaphrodites) who don’t actually fit into either category.  Granted, it’s not much of the population, but more than you’d think: about 1 in 6000.  Point being that we can’t dismiss things like this, because even from a statistical standpoint, we’re not getting an accurate picture of Australia from the current census setup. 
      In relation to gay marriage, it would give a more accurate picture of gay couples who consider themselves married, as opposed to those who are simply de facto.  Perhaps they’ve updated their computers, John?

    • VVS says:

      01:44pm | 09/08/11

      My official answer is still “yes please”.

      Thanks for playing.

    • John K says:

      02:03pm | 09/08/11

      Tilly, It’s just like the JEDI region from the last census - 70,000 people put Jedi down on their form, including me, but there is still no Jedi Religion. In the eyes of the Census parameters, while it is physically possible to write Female One is Married to Female Two , it will simply be recorded as an error.  There will be no gay marriage until the government gets with the times and allows it.  You would think that Bob Brown and Penny Wong (who today announced that her and her partner are expecting) would be out there pushing for this - but no - they just prefer to tow the party line.

    • Tilly says:

      02:03pm | 09/08/11

      Aww you’re trying to be witty but you’re falling a tad short!  It’s kind of endearing to watch anyway.

    • Cat says:

      11:05am | 09/08/11

      I share your joy at this latest baby-step of progress and I share your hope that our government will finally bring about marriage equality in the near future. I cheered when I heard the census would include same-sex marriage, I can’t begin to imagine how it would feel to be in your possition of married/not married limbo and I hope the day is not to far away when that limbo ends.

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      11:19am | 09/08/11

      Jacqui,
      Exactly what do you mean by “marriage”? Silly question, you might say but think on it for a minute.
      Do you mean a Secular Marriage as performed by a “Marriage Celebrant”?
      or
      Do you mean a Religious Marriage performed by a priest in a church?
      OK! Technically & Legally for the heterosexual community they are one & the same.
      The religionists would disagree. Some religious organisations still do not recognise marriages performed by a Celebrant & insist on people having both.
      With few exceptions, for there are very, very few forward thinking religious organisations, most clergy, priests, call’em what you will, will refuse to perform Religious Marriage Ceremonies for same-sex couples even if it becomes legally possible.
      Doesn’t this mean that, just as religious organisations discriminate against heterosexual couples who go through a Secular ceremony then some have the cheek to accuse them of “Living in Sin” they will continue to discriminate against same-sex couples. The only difference is that they are discriminating against everyone so in a bizarre way there is equality.
      I am not sure if John K is right or not, (I hope he isn’t)  in what he says about how the ABS will treat the responses when both partners are of the same gender
      The Census people have done the right thing in allowing such a question however, despite the continual chatter about Australians getting older & older, the impact on the health System etc. the Census boffins do allow, in the Employment Section, for Retired People to indicate that they are just that. They have to tick the box ‘Not Currently Employed”. If these statistics are properly used then the Unemployment Figures which are used as such an indicator of the state of Australia’s economy will sky-rocket because all those millions of Old Age Pensioners - Self-funded or on a Federal Pension, including such highly paid “pensioners” such as Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Howard et al. have to be included. The result?
      Instead of 5.4% Unemployment we will probably got to 15% or more!

    • marley says:

      01:03pm | 09/08/11

      @Robert McCormick - marriage in both Canada and Australia is a secular institution.  It has no validity unless the celebrant or minister has a licence to perform marriages from the state, and the marriage is registered with the state.  So Jacqui is referring to a legal marriage in Canada.  Period.

      And as it happens, it is possible she was married by a minister, since at least some churches do perform such ceremonies there.  Whether she was married by a minister or a non-religious celebrant, however, does not matter one iota under Canadian law.  It’s a marriage.  Period.

      And, for your information, the question of whether or not to perform a religious marriage in Canada is left to the churches and their individual ministers and congregations.  Some will perform it, some won’t:  the Canadian state will not interfere in the decision of the individual church - it will simply ensure that the secular institution of marriage is open to all.

    • Kika says:

      11:25am | 09/08/11

      I don’t ‘agree’ with gay marriage. I believe in the instituion of marriage and the important place it has in our culture - which for all purposes is dying in order to cater for everybody and everyone. My personal belief is that if gay marriage should be legal it should be defined as it’s own institution that only gay couples should be entitled to - just as ‘marriage’ is for men and women, gay couples should be entitled to their own special union and ceremonies to celebrate their committment. 

      But at the end of the day, what I ‘think’ doesn’t matter. It is absolutely no issue to me who decides to get married. What matters to me is me and my life. I am not in the business of interfering with or sticking my nose into complete strangers lives. What you do in your own life is your business.

      If 2 men or 2 women decide they want to spend their lives together - so what? This makes no difference to me at all. I am completely comfortable in my marriage with my male husband. I don’t feel threatened in any way if men or women are allowed to marry each other, like some people obviously do.

    • mel says:

      12:06pm | 09/08/11

      Kika, why should there be separate unions or ceremonies for gay people as distinct from straights? Why the distinction, if you don’t feel threatened in any way? What difference does it make to your life if the union of the gay people is called a marriage?

      And one final question: why do you believe the institution of marriage is “dying in order to cater for everybody and everyone”? I don’t quite understand what that even means.

    • Kika says:

      12:59pm | 09/08/11

      No, no. Maybe I didn’t express myself properly. I meant that our culture is wearing itself down to cater for everyone (not just marriage). Look at Europe - they have watered down their own cultures and institutions in order to cater for everyone.

      My point was that whilst I don’t agree with gay marriage, I’m not going to stand in anyone’s way if they want to do it.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

    • James D says:

      12:07pm | 09/08/11

      How to answer questions

      Relationship

      Question 5 Household Form

      Mark one box for each person. If more than one response applies mark only the box that shows the relationship that most closely applies.
      Only mark ‘Unrelated flatmate or co-tenant’ of Person 1 if no other relationship exists. For example, if you are sharing a flat with your de facto partner, mark ‘De facto partner of Person 1’ rather than the flatmate category.

      Question 7 Personal Form

      Only answer this question if you live in a private home, or are visiting a private home.

      If more than one response applies to you, mark the box that shows the relationship that most closely applies.

      Marital Status

      Question 6 Household Form; Question 8 Personal Form

      This question is about the person’s registered marital status.

      Mark only the box that refers to the current situation, for example:
      If the person is divorced or widowed and has remarried, then mark ‘Married’.
      If the person is divorced and has not remarried, mark ‘Divorced’, even if the person lives in a de–facto relationship.
      If the person is in a de facto relationship and has not been in a registered marriage, mark ‘Never married’.

      ————————————————————————————————————————

    • jim morris says:

      12:15pm | 09/08/11

      Marriage has finally become meaningless. It once was about lineage and inheritance. Why anyone would need a license to play with their vibrator is anyone’s guess.

    • Tilly says:

      12:33pm | 09/08/11

      Seriously dude?  You care more about marriage being for lineage and inheritance than about love?  In that case, I’m glad marriage is now “meaningless”, as opposed to being a business proposition.  I’ll take my license to play with my vibrator if it involves a loving partner over your pathetic definition of marriage any day.

    • Aussie Battler says:

      01:24pm | 09/08/11

      Basically boils down to “Each to their own”.  If two hetero’s want to marry, good luck to them.  If two Gay people want to marry, good luck to them too.  I don’t care either way.  I have both Hetero & Gay friends who are not married, however the length of their relationships far outstrip a lot of traditionally married couples.  Both sets of friends are comfortable with their relationships, so do not believe they need “That bit of paper” as some say.  I do however have gay friends who want that “Bit of Paper”, so are looking at heading overseas to arrange it.  If that is what they want, who are we to say no?  Like most marriages/relationships, they just want their family/friends to be happy for them.

    • Ali K says:

      02:14pm | 09/08/11

      Previously ... I was I really didnt care to much about gay marriage . I thought if they really want to be married so what, let them.

      Now…...I fed up with the bombardment of blogs on the Punch with gay marriage and am sick and tired of there bleating. Come on Ms Gillard give them what they want as they are to bloody boring going and on and on. I they think this will make them equal let them have it.

      All I can see is more couple that have to have thier cases heard in divorce court like 1/3 of marriages in the country. Let gays be miserable too and give us back our rainbow…

    • Thomas Anderson says:

      02:56pm | 09/08/11

      So the good looking kind of lesbians you see in pornography are not real? My dreams are ruined!

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:02pm | 09/08/11

      If we let gay people get legally married how long is it before they start raping us ‘normal people’ in the streets legally?!?!

      Its an inevitable and logical conclusion!!!

      wink

    • Drayna says:

      03:41pm | 09/08/11

      No, it is not even close to a logical conclusion. You make the assumption that all gays are animalistic and shouldn’t be trusted with the ‘privilege’ of marriage. Straights are equally as capable of rape, so I find your ‘logical conclusion’ a little difficult to swallow.

    • Sherbie says:

      05:01pm | 09/08/11

      Oh dear Drayna, I think you walked right into his trap!

    • Lauryn says:

      05:10pm | 09/08/11

      @ Drayna - sarcasm comprehension fail.

    • Hal Jordan says:

      03:16pm | 09/08/11

      if you are using the computer to enter your census 2011, remember the two twelve digit inputs ( handwitten form number and typed ecensus number) and the one twelve digit output ( typed receipt number).
      just fill in the sixty questions any way that you wish.
      You answers are just used to orovide government infrastructure rather than announcing yourself and your values to the world.

    • Drayna says:

      03:38pm | 09/08/11

      I find it amazing how many people are up in arms about this sort of thing when in the end it doesn’t affect their day to day lives in the slightest. Australia has made a big step forward in the department of equal rights, and a large percentage of heartless gits are actually against it.

    • Reid Wright says:

      03:40pm | 09/08/11

      Let everyone get married, who cares, they’re probably going to get divorced anyway.

    • Brisbane Bryn says:

      03:58pm | 09/08/11

      Who get the kids when they divorce the female female or the male female?

      My guess it would be the Female female and the male female has to pay up .

    • Tilly says:

      06:19pm | 09/08/11

      The idea that there’s one dominant and one submissive partner in gay relationships is a fallacy. True in a few cases, not in most.  It’d go on a case-by-case basis, just like it does now.

    • Stefano says:

      07:29pm | 09/08/11

      I think you’re probably right there, BB. I suspect the babe on the left might be the one on top in this “marriage” and get to pay the child support if and when the “marriage” somehow produces heirs and then falters.The bespectacled little woman’s ties will then become more closely allied to the Child Support Agency. So, she will win. This does assume a fruitful union, of course.

    • Bloomy says:

      04:00pm | 09/08/11

      I think you have all missed the point.  It isnt about marriage for the sake of being married.  There are two fundamental issues here which I will pose as questions.
      1. Why is marriage more special between a heterosexual couple?  Is the love between a man and woman different to man and man, or woman and woman?  I’d argue the nature of love is not different, so why reserve the word marriage specifcially for man/woman unions? Take religion out of the equation. Its ok for religions to make their own rules about how they operate.  Thats what religions do.  What isnt ok is the pure legal aspect of denying formal recognition about the union of two people of the same sex, and emphasising that a cival union is ok, but not a marriage.  This is discrimination and implies that the union of man/man or woman/woman is less than that of man/woman.

      2. The formal reconition allows the couple to be able to perform certain duties without question.  Take this scenario for example: A gay couple have been in a relationship for 15 years.  One of them falls ill and is in intensive care with limited visitor access.  The hospital rules state that only immediate family or spouse may visit and denies access to the visiting partner because they are not a relative or a spouse. There is no formal evidence that the partner is in a long term (defacto) relationship.  Marriage or at a minimum the legal/formal recognition of the relationship is required here for the partner to even visit let alone carry out any other tasks the sick partner may require.  If the illness is terminal, then the problem is exascerbated further.  The partner may have some power to carry out funeral or legal tasks, but there will be many exceptions.  Water tight trustee or power of attourney papers will need to be drawn up and even these may not suffice in some circumstances.  Imagine just because you are a man, you could not visit your male partner on his death bed unless specific permission is given.

      Food for thought, no?

    • Timmy says:

      05:47pm | 09/08/11

      1. Your argument is valid for man/man, woman/woman, father/daughter, brother/sister unions. Marriage is not simply about love. It is about natural law, whether you believe that law was concocted by a deity or be random evolutionary process. This is the way our bodies work. Sex and living together has a purpose beyond love.

      2. This can be achieved in law without having a marriage, and should be enacted in my opinion.

      Reposted to be in correct spot.

    • Phil says:

      05:04pm | 09/08/11

      Great to see the ABS getting with the times - now Australia needs to catch up.

    • Timmy says:

      05:14pm | 09/08/11

      1. Your argument is valid for man/man, woman/woman, father/daughter, brother/sister unions. Marriage is not simply about love. It is about natural law, whether you believe that law was concocted by a deity or be random evolutionary process. This is the way our bodies work. Sex and living together has a purpose beyond love.

      2. This can be achieved in law without having a marriage, and should be enacted in my opinion.

    • crumpy gunt. says:

      06:54pm | 09/08/11

      So what. What’s the big deal?  Why do the homosexuals of this world feel they have to shout it from the highest hills, even tell the golden daffodils for christs sake. Just get on with it.

      And get a haircut!

    • Lloyd says:

      10:31pm | 09/08/11

      I’m a member of the gay club and I will be glad to see marriage legalised: because I, too, am sick of hearing about it. Did you know that in Ghana, the Western Regional Minister Paul Evans Aidoo just ordered the arrest of all homosexuals in the area? Why aren’t we focussing on the persecution of homosexuals overseas rather than whether we can get married? Priorities, dears.

    • SD says:

      12:50pm | 10/08/11

      Sounds like we need Minister Paul Evans Aidoo here. We can ship the gays to Tasmania which ther loopy Greens run and cut the island off from the mainland. In one generation the gay morality issue will be solved and the survivors will have returned to the natural order of life.

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      12:15am | 10/08/11

      My religion , church and culture is dictated to by the state and the marriage to my wife and birth of children are recorded and registered just short of having a bar coded chip jamed up my arse, in a so called FREE DEMOCRACY where I am also forced to vote, and participate in a census, and you want a slice of that Jacqui ? Be careful what you wish for.

    • Disraeli says:

      09:33am | 10/08/11

      Yes, yes, yes. But wait!

      You forgot
      Forced to go to school
      Forced to pay due taxes
      Forced to get a proper qualification if you’re a:
      plumber, electrician, nurse, police, doctor, dentist, lawyer .....
      Forced to get a driver’s licence to drive.
      Forced to drive on the Left (!) when you do.

      All a big plot against freedom, eh. Yes, yes, yes. Sure.

      Though how your religion, church or culture is “dictated” by the State escapes me for the moment.

      But still, you’re free enough to post your opinion, however irrational it is.

      ooroo

    • Govt@FauxCitizen says:

      12:30am | 14/08/11

      @ Disraeli,,Honest and law abiding decent peope know their moral and legal boundaries and unspoken civic obligations, how many plumbers, electricians, builders, doctors, police,nurses, drivers etc. have that all important peice of paper for wich the state gets their fees and hapily allows the incompetants to perform less than reasonably, my father was an electrician and I followed in his footsteps, our trade licences were issued for life BUT it was decided by the STATE we needed to pay a 5 yearly fee wich increases annualy, it didn’t make us better or worse at our trade, just a couple of bottles of scotch poorer, but a simple brainwashed fool like you Disraeli is one of many conditioned to accept all that is heaped apon them by the state including being forced to kill people overseas in their own country, remember Vietnam and conscription?
      How is it democracy when the state must record a marriage perfomed by a religious organisation and then be totaly instrumental in its divorce if that marriage fails thereby usurping the powers of that religious organisation by dictating the terms of thousands of years of culture and ethic.

      It is blind apathy like yours that is the states best ally, being the obedient servant of your increasingly powerful master, the state.
      As for free speech, haaa frigen haaa, even the moderators on this site dare not to allow the utterances of incitement to rebellion and anarchy for fear of being shut down in a heartbeat, a limited and false democracy is what we have, and there are quite a few blinkered fools like yourself that like it just that way, run by the NANNY STATE.

    • Disraeli says:

      08:53pm | 15/08/11

      If you cannot keep control of yourself, under fair and civil criticism of your remarks, you’re wasting your time posting.

      Having lost your self-control, you indulge in sprays of insensate personal insult and false personal assumption.  These add no weight to your opinion. They leave me utterly unmoved.

      You have advanced no rational justification for your original claim that “religion, church or culture is “dictated” by the State”. And none for any for your later wild assertions.

      Your remarks show that you have:
      no grasp of the nature of our civil democratic society; 
      no grasp of our Westminister-style responsible Government by free election of Parliament,
      no grasp of the rule of law; 
      and no grasp of the separation of the legislative, executive and judiciary powers.

      These are our democracy at work, in the way that we, a free people, long ago decided and now maintain.

      Plainly, you do not understand our democracy at all. Though - should you genuinely wish to do so - you could easily learn about it. For instance, at no cost, in any public library in the land.

      We are a free country after all.

      Goodbye.

    • Ted H says:

      12:38pm | 10/08/11

      Guess same sex marriage had to raise its head. After all, a country has to be able to clearly trend its ethical and moral degradation. It will also enable a picture of the degree of child abuse by seeing the number of children denied a normal and natural upbringing.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter