Debate about marriage is back on the agenda, thanks to the efforts of David Leyonhjelm. The Liberal Democratic senator has vowed to introduce a private members bill aimed at rewriting the definitive bit in the Marriage Act that at present limits matrimony to couples comprising one man and one woman. If the definition of marriage in the Act was changed, as the Senator and others propose, unions between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, could be officially recognised in the same way '‘traditional'’ marriages have been, and are.

It’s a proposal born out of a modern movement proponents say is all about achieving ‘'marriage equality'’. Marriage equality – achieved when loving relationships between a couple of consenting adults are equal, regardless of whether the couple comprises two men or two women. Marriage equality provides that all Australians should expect their relationships might one day enjoy equal legal and social rights and recognition, regardless of their sexuality.

Clearly, marriage equality has a lot going for it. Marriage is a great idea. Equality is a great idea; Fairness is an Australian ideal. But the push for marriage equality is not without problems. Though redefining marriage to allow men to get hitched to other men broadens the scope for matrimony, it still restricts marriage to two people. As many people have pointed out, the popular idea of ‘'marriage equality'’ is still not relevant to all relationships – just monogamous ones. This, despite the fact that polygamous relationships have been, and are, idealised in many cultures. Just not ‘'ours'’.

This is where it gets interesting. There are those opposed to same-sex marriage, and therefore ‘'marriage equality'’, on the grounds it undermines an institution central to Australian social tradition. Yet there are few who would support marriage equality and also support polygamous relationships. Both sides seem to agree that marriage is great, but only if it is between two people. They agree on the tradition of ‘'us two'’.

Then there are those who are opposed to marriage equality because it undermines the role of religion. They see marriage as an expression of faith first, legal status somewhere second. According to this view, religious laws take precedence over Commonwealth ones – God sees marriage between a man and a woman only, and so it shall be. Conveniently, the laws of this land will make it so, largely because they were drafted by folk of Christian faith. They are opposed to the influence of faiths different to their own on society and its law. So, in a sense, they agree with those arguing for the removal of religion from every letter of the law – the same kind of people who fought to have marriages solemnised by ministers ordained by the people, not the Pope.

In short, it’s all pretty messy, complicated and contradictory.

Which is why some people are now arguing for an even simpler approach. Rather than twisting a definition in an old act, they say the time has come to scrap it altogether. Get rid of the Marriage Act, and you get rid of the problem.

Of course, it’s not quite as simple as that. Supporters of the scrapping also say something must replace it. They say a Relationships Register is this thing. A big list that would legally acknowledge committed relationships, providing all the rights currently enjoyed by married people – visitation, kinship, access to children, immigration, government benefits, and so forth. Fairly, rights that people in de facto relationships may currently claim, but only after lengthy, expensive legal battling.

The idea here is that once all the legal business was sorted – property rights, parental rights established, and so on – those within registered relationships would be free to decorate their union as per their personal religious or spiritual beliefs. A church may still marry a man and a woman, as it may have for centuries. But a church may also elect to marry a man and a man. It would be up to the people and powers directly involved, not – importantly – up to the state.

It’s an interesting idea. One that might do more for equality than the current push for ‘'marriage equality'’. But would you support it? Would you support the abolition of the Marriage Act in favour of a Relationships Register? Do you think that relationships matter more than ‘'marriage'’? Do you believe Australian society would be bettered by this broader view?

Or are you happy with the way things are? Are you opposed to marriage reform? Are you content with the way things are?