Hypocritical Oath, hic [your honour]

The marriage act of Australia (1961, amended 2004) states that:

“Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

Well, what about these facts:

1. Any marriage is now about 50% likely to end in divorce – ‘entered into for life’, I don’t think so
2. About 50% of married people will have at least one extramarital affair – so much for ‘exclusion’
3. A man and woman can meet down at the pub and get married on the same day. Wherein the marriage act is commitment recognized and tested?

The 2004 amendment added this line:

“Certain unions are not marriages. A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia.”

What is it then, a fucking wedding? And why the ‘must’? Don’t they mean ‘is’? Does that mean a gay marriage can be solemnised in Australia?

It does seem like a lot fuss over terminology though. Gay people can have civil unions and call themselves married if they want; there ain’t no terminology police in Australia (unlike France).

I would note that same-sex couples in de facto relationships have had ‘most’ (I wonder what is missing?) of the legal rights of married couples. But there is no national registered partnership or civil union scheme. And what is the problem with that exactly? Most sensible people want to get out of government bureaucracy, not throw themselves at it…