There is also a passage in Matthew 22:30 that says “for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” Then Ephesians 5:22-33 states “now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.” Solomon had 700 wives and that seemed to be OK by the Bible’s standards. Is George suggesting that the Bible never changes to keep up with generational change?

B McGrath (Daily Advertiser, August 17), talks about same-sex marriage being a UN and “New World Order” (whatever that is) plot which will lead to communism/socialism. I wonder what Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland (a fervent catholic country), Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the United States, all of whom have passed legislation making same sex marriage lawful, think about this theory?

Now that it has been decided to have a voluntary postal “poll” instead of a compulsory plebiscite, may we finally have a reasoned discussion about same-sex marriage, please?

So far, all we have heard in the public domain has been emotive rhetoric from both sides of the proposition, with little or no real information. What we have not heard is exactly what changes are actually proposed to the Marriage Act of 1961 as amended? The Act defines “marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” 

Is it proposed to simply remove gender from this definition or will there be other changes? What are the practical implications of changes to the Marriage Act? For instance, what will it mean for inheritance law? I am not prepared to vote on this issue until these matters have been properly discussed.

Dual citizenship is a complex issue especially as so many Australian citizens and/or their parents were born overseas.

I vaguely remember, decades ago, when Russia announced that anyone born in any of the USSR countries would be considered as Russian citizens, no matter where in the world they happen to be living at the time.

I read reports some years ago that many Greek new Australians made every effort to organise dual citizenship for their Australian-born children so as to keep links with the old country and to make it easier for the children to visit Greece to meet their extended families. 

It is all very well to say that it is in black and white in our constitution, (written more than 100 years ago), or the holder of public office should have known in which countries he/she held citizenship, but we should not be so quick to judge.

Now that the dual citizens are being exposed at a rapid pace, the question has to be asked: “How many since 1901 have held dual citizenship?” If many have sat in parliament as dual citizens and thus illegal, is the legislation they voted on and passed null and void?

Might not this be a matter that needs to be looked at by the High Court? Talk about opening a can of worms. Where might such an investigation lead?

It’s time we took stock of parliament and parliamentarians as we have been dudded for over a century by their unlawful machinations.