well same sex marriage still hasn't past in Aus. The main reason being is that religious groups don't want the word marriage used. SO I guess you are right to some degree.

To me this issue has gone on too long fucking come up with a new word and let both groups be happy.

Yes, governments should ban religion

I've been saying for years that we should just call it "Civil Unions"... and use that word for ALL instances of legally-recognised unions. Replace all instances of "marriage" in all of our laws with "civil union", etc. Let the religions have "marriage", make "civil union" the secular term.

Hopefully, if Rudd can't convince the religious people who take issue with the use of the word "marriage" to accept same sex marriage, then hopefully he'll take this approach, and destroy that argument.

Mind you, the groups saying "calling it marriage means you're changing the definition, and we don't like that!" won't accept civil unions for all, either - their issue has always been recognition of homosexuality, as it is seen as "sinful". The "changing the definition" argument is just spin, so that rather than preventing gay marriage being "religion imposing itself on government", it becomes "government imposing itself on religion" by changing the definition. With the term changed, all that changes is the ability of religious people to spin it.

That is pretty much how I feel, as I don't think you can piss off one group in order to please another. This also applies on how we all get taxed based on how hard you worked but that is a long debate not needed for this thread lol.

However knowing Australia we will do everything to please the vocal minority jut like all the political correctness gone mad in all our nursery rhymes etc

marriage isn't something the church (or any other of our current religions) invented, there is no claim for exclusivity there

More like average Christian Americans. Surely the extremists alone cannot have that much power?

Unless of course extremism is average.

100% agree with this.  Let marriage be a religious term for a civil union conducted by clergy.  

Same sex marriage isn't legalized as a whole. Right now it's still a state-by-state issue. All the federal government did was strike down DOMA as unconstitutional (and yet Obamacare is somehow totally constitutional, go figure.)

In fact, the federal government punted on the issue of Proposition 8 in California, because striking it down would have meant they could strike down any state law banning same sex marriage.

And Christian American Extremists" aren't the reason same sex marriage wasn't allowed all these years... up until recently the clear majority of the American public was against it (and in most states they still are), and the inconvenient truth to the left wing in this country is that minority groups such as Latinos and African Americans are generally very religious, and were the main reason why Prop 8 was able to pass in a "blue" state like California in the first place.

Would you call those people extremists as well?

First, the term and concept of marriage is not exclusive to Christianity and was around long before it. So they don't own any rights to it nor should they be awarded such a thing. Then you also have to consider that being an atheist or of any religion besides Christianity is a sin as well. So are you going to start telling everyone in the nation that is not Christian that they cannot refer to it as being 'married'? Why not? You would have already prevented homosexuals from doing it. Why not go further and make sure those other heathens can't do it, too? It's ridiculous. It's just a compromise to help make Christian Americans feel like they're even more special in this world than they already believe they are and make it feel like they didn't really lose the argument.

Because most people consider marriage involving men and women, and not two people of the same gender, they hadn't considered supporting it.  It just is ot an issue.  As for most people, they likely don't care what people do on their own and what they personally call it.  But ask them to go against what is the traditional understanding, and you fight an uphill battle.  Similar would happen if someone came out and said they were marrying a videogame character.  In that, people think it is funny, and not really marriage.

Also, because it involves the use of courts and laws, it isn't about you having freedom.  What it is about is you imposing your will on others to have them give you what you want and recognize it.  This means you can fight to have people give you a child in adoption, an employer be required to give you certain benefits, and be given certain ability to visit someone in the hospital that may not recognize it as such.  All these involve you forcing others to go with your view of things.  If it was just a matter of what you wanted, then you would just say "BAM, I am married to so and so" and they agree to it also.

And there are people out there it still matters to.  A Republican member of a state legistlature where I am, lost his seat, because he supported a bill for gay marriage.  Some conservative rose up against him, and split the vote just enough for a Democrat to get in.

Now, you ask me what I think on the issue personally?  I say make it all civil unions, and require prenuptuals for any relationship involving more than 2 people, because the biggest deal here is how to divide the property up in divorce, which is yet another issue about not freedom for yourself, but having a legal system that can force others to comply with your wishes, when they disagree.