Wisely, our politicians don't listen to surveys on that issue (and I agree with them).
They should exercise leadership, not follow opinion.
As we now understand it, marriage is not merely the expression of a love people have for each other.
It is, or is intended as, a life-long union between two people who exemplify the biological duality of the human race, with the openness to welcoming children into the world.
It won't be "marriage equality": it will be an entirely new thing.
This is where Bill Shorten again misunderstands what marriage is.
The passing of the Irish referendum on same-sex marriage has triggered a round of Australian advocates announcing that it is now "our turn".
We lag behind the UK, many European countries, some states in the US, and (perish the thought!
for me it was a combination of not being around women for a very long time and high blood pressure.It is crucial to notice that the proposed revision of marriage laws involves exactly that: a revision of marriage.In order to offer the status of marriage to couples of the same sex, the very meaning of marriage has to be changed.To remove the sexual specificity from the notion of marriage makes marriage not a realisation of the bodily difference between male and female that protects and dignifies each, but simply a matter of choice.This is precisely what many pro-revision advocates themselves argue: that a new definition of marriage would establish marriage as a new thing altogether. J Graff puts it, a change in marriage law would mean that marriage would "ever after stand for sexual choice, forcutting the link between sex and diapers".