Is the definition of Marriage as stated in Section 46 of the Marriage Act 1961 appropriate in today's society?
             Section 46 states: Marriage is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This is the definition adopted in Australia.
             This definition comprises four central ideas. Marriage must be a voluntary union. Both parties must freely give their informed consent to be married. The voluntary union must be intended for life "till death us do part". And finally, Marriage must be a union between a Man and a Woman to the exclusion of all others.
             The definition that a marriage must be voluntary and entered consensually is the only legally and morally sensible way of going about things. There's no other responsible option. To say that a marriage between anyone is not to be intended for life would be not much of a commitment, marriage cannot be left open ended. The concept of 'for life' is still applicable in today's society.
             The Marriage Act should reflect today's values. Values in today's society are all about equality regardless of things such as Race or religion, your country of origin or disability. Equal opportunity is all important.
             Australia in 1961 was a different place. In 1961 there wasn't Wrongful Dismissal legislation, people with disabilities had very few opportunities, and Aboriginal children were still being taken from their mothers. Very little Workplace Health and Safety legislation was in place. In 1961 you didn't even have to wear seatbelts. Today's society is all about protecting the individual and insuring the individual's rights. So much has happened since 1961 that I find it hard to believe the Marriage Act hasn't followed suit.
             This definition should be altered to more accurately reflect the values of society today. With the revolution of gay and lesbian couples I feel th...