Are polls a sound representation of people's views? Put on the spot in a random situation, there can be pressure for the 'uncaring randoms', as you say, to pick the politically correct response. There's no accountability and not much thought behind a simple yes/no answer.

As you recognised, people are acting pro-actively when they submit their views to politicians. The likelihood that they're going to do that on a whim is slim, especially since they are communicating personally and identifying their name and electorate. This method is a better representation of perspectives that have been thought through.

In any case, there are likely to be many people on both sides of the argument who don't have an interest in it as a voting issue strong enough to voice their opinion. It's impossible to know which side has more silent supporters.

I support civil unions, it's a term less politically tainted than 'marriage', (because it's important to protect decent people from religious fundamentalism). Religion needs to be kept out of the politics of love.

Since I am not straight, I can't apply for a partner visa for my same sex partner. That ridiculous loophole must change too.

Today such basic concepts as "family" must now accommodate the desires of a tiny deviant minority!  The entire world's rejection for over 4,000 years of homosexuality as harmful and unnatural must be laid aside.  And the rationale is always the same: elimination of "discrimination"  Will it one day be "discrimination" to deny pedophiles their "rights"?  Are today's offending Catholic priests just slightly ahead of their time?

Marriage between one man and one woman was instituted by God.  To bless "same-sex marriages" is a travesty for this is not marriage as God established and blessed it!  There is no bottom to depravity's depths once God's Word has been abandoned as the final authority. Even normal sex outside of marriage disqualifies one from associating with other Christians  "....any man that is called a brother who is a fornicator....with such an one don't even eat....put away from yourselves that wicked person." (1 Cor 5:5-134.

Marriage is a potent symbol of Christ and His Bride the Living invisible Church.  This is a Church not made with hands, bricks and mortar it is not a Church that will fade away for it lives forever and the only entry to this Church is through Christ's body by His Holy Spirit.   On being born again the Holy Spirit-filled Believer enters Christ's body.  It is a symbol of a man entering his wife.   We are as Believers are His Bride in waiting and will one day be taken up to be with Him in the atmospheric heavens when our Bridegroom returns for His own (the Rapture or Parousia) and then to have the Marriage Supper with the Lamb of God.

Those who refuse to accept the Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) are in rebellion to God find it satisfactory to make up their own rules by which they want to live they do what feels good for them and rise above their Creator. They live their lives by a worldly value system, do not have a care for the sacrificial death of the Messiah and are not saved and the will not see the light of God and will endure separation from Christ forever.  Going to church, doing good works, holding high office is of no use to a Holy God this is all useless.  

How is it that it was 'trendy' to claim that marriage was no more than a 'piece of paper' a few years back...now the gays want it to legitimise what they are doing...it is still the same unpalatable act. For all the gay banter and snickering or 'caught in the headlights' support for homosexuality...the majority are still engaging in these practices in public toilets or other places, some as predators of small children and some confronting other non-homosexual males. I am sick of homosexual condom adverts in my face and my children's faces every time we go ont public transport, etc. The whole gay thing 'coming out' has not made society safer from the sexual predators - it has made it worse...how soon will we be asked to allow paedophiles as 'can't change who they are' or 'have to allow them to be true to who and what they are'...homosexuality is an unnatural act and so is paedophilia - some US states are already trying to argue for no age limits to sexual activity and the de-criminalising of paedophilia (as was done with homosexuality)...and so it begins!

Your commentators seem to confirm the principal thesis of the article.

I never cease to be amazed at how many Christians feel so entitled to hate and bully people unlike themselves. The degree of venom shocks.

It is an issue as to whether the State should be supporting this bigotry or whether it has a duty to treat all citizens equally, even around issuews of family formation.

I am no great supporter of marriage, either gay or straight, but I do think if you are going to have it, it should be for everyone who wants in.

The churches spend a lot of time talking about protecting the family, but then narrow the definition and attemt to deny those outside their definition any legal existence. Is it the function of the State to support this?

It is an interesting example to look at inheritence laws since they still discriminate against some children who were born out of wedlock or were rejected by their parents, especially if the estate was left to the church. What does this say about protecting the family?

Laws on family/household formation need to be recast in a way that treats citizens equally and protects them from arbitrary action and bigotry. And that's where the debate needs to be had.

I was in America when Tea Party darling Christine O'Donnell walked off an interview by Piers Morgan (former British newspaper editor) because he asked her to clarify on air her views on the issue, which she had written about in a book. In the wash-up from this it became clear that the Tea Party has realised it is no longer a vote winner for them. The religious rednecks are opposed to gay marriage, but the Tea Party has their votes anyway. For Middle America it is no longer an issue, and indeed the polling now indicates that they get turned off by pollies who rant on against it.

Pedro, clearly Graham did proper research to get his results, and just as in America, Australia no longer cares. It's a non issue, except for the religious bigots such as those we have seen above. If God exists, I doubt she cares either.

If there is no use of the word marriage then I believe support for an equal union for gays is overwhelming. Some people want the current meaning of the word marriage preserved and don't want to be in a relationship that has a shared name as the equivalent relationship of gays, but don't necessarily want gays discriminated against in civil rights.

Precisely, Mark Wagner. It isn't a big time vote changer. That's clearly what the Tea Party's polling was telling them, but they came to realise that striking a strongly homophobic note (in the way that bible-thumpers Sheila Hale and Peter Gregory have done above) will NOT resonate well with the ordinary voter of little or no religious alignment, most of whom have by now in 2011 come to accept same sex unions as a matter of free personal choice, don't remotely see them as abominations, and simply aren't that agitated about what they are called.

Let the "gay's have their "Civil Union". It will perhaps stop them from preying on older women/ or any women to get what they want - they are greedy selfish and a thoroughly obnoxios breed.

@Mark Wagner Et Al, the debate highlights to me that many opposed to same sex marraige, are simply opposed to anything same sex. The bile, and hatred, that flows is truly disgusting, definitelty not WWJD.

So I would suggest that the question could be 1. do you support same sex marriage? 2. Do you support civil unions for same sex relationships 3. do you support efforts to remove discrimination on the basis of sexuality? that would seperate the issue of Marraige from those opposed to homosexuality.

many are fighting over the definition in the Marraige Act. A definition that was only changed in 2004 when Howard decided to wedge Latham while blocking recognition of overseas marraiges. Because it was a nonissue back then as well, that happened to justify the need for an amendment.

Recently when the Aboriginals supported 40 years since the referendum that recognised them as citizens. I was shocked to realise although I was over 40, I only became a legal member of society at the age of 16, when homosexuality was decriminalised in 1984 (NSW), and federally at the age of 26, when parliament had to act to decriminalise homosexuality on the basis of a right to privacy.

Many see same sex marraige as not a priority, i admit it i am in no hurry to marry. But I understand those who do want to get married legally. Every childs tale indoctrinates marraige as an ideal expression of love and commitment.

I dont think anyone should live their entire one and only life being denied equalilty as an Australian citizen. Having being denied legal recognition for the first 26 years of my life I can assure you of its importance.

Oh, having read a few more comments, and just for the record, my aforementined views have nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality, gay-ness, sexual orientation or whatever other term is PC these days. Gay people can live together, get tax breaks and should have all the rights of any body else who is in a longstanding partner relationship..and if they are missing out on any rights that heterosexual couples (married or unmarried) have, then that should be redressed.
My perspective is from the point of view of definition (what is (a) marriage) and particularly from the point of view of children....those who truly have no voice in this debate (ethically and practically impossible but I wonder what children would respond to if asked what they would rather: two male parents, two female parents, a single parent of either gender or a mum and dad, and sorry for those who will think that the terms 'mum' and 'dad' are unfairly emotive but what would two same-gender parents be referred as (two dads...two mum...a mum and a dad...interchangeable mum and dad - one is mum one week and dad the next?).
Oh, and whlst I've met plenty of bigotted, self-important, self-opinionated Christians (and non-?Christians for that matter), and, as I believe, a fairly objective peruser of the Australian media, it seems to me that on this page of comments, and in the media and public arena generally, that the bullying and hatred, vile and invective is mostly directed against Christians rather than by them (though of course every group will have it's looney fringe).

The reporting back that the MPs did was influenced by the religious right who encouraged the flocks to write to their MPs. That biased the results. While at the same time most Australians couldn't care about same sex marriage and didn't bother to contact their MP's.

Sheila - you use religion to justify your opinions - that's what's wrong with our country. Too much irrelevant religion being used to justify inequality.

Meg77 - only a very tiny percentage of the gay community engages in sex acts in public and the rest of us shouldn't be demonised because of it. Get the police to arrest them. That's what the law is for. And you equate gay with pedophile. Most pedophilia is heterosexual and occurs in the family.

Lil J - your bigotry is showing - badly

What it comes down to is EQUALITY. We pay the same amount of taxes yet we do not have full equality; and civil unions while a step in the right direction are still less than equal. I want to be able to say to my partner - will you marry me - not will you civil union me.

And with nearly half of all marriages ending in divorce - clearly marriage means bugger all to people these days.

Serge wrote: "I am opposed to gay marriage as I believe a marriage is not only a public affirmation of one's love (one can do that in any number of civil ceremonies/unions) but the preferred precursor to having a family."
My wife and I were way beyond child-bearing age when we married, but we have been blissfully happy for three years. But by Serge's argument ours should not be called a marriage as there was no possibility of a family.