That in this refusal to govern asks of the public to be judge and jury on this topic to say "yes" or "no" with funds it seems it does not have the authority to use for this purpose, ‘a $122 million dog's breakfast postal ballot,' as Bill Shorten Opposition Leader exclaims.

I write this letter for possible publication as I believe 'reflection' is possibly what we all need to indulge in to discover for ourselves where we stand with what is going on?

With a High Court challenge lodged against the government's $122 million postal plebiscite in a bid to stop the postal vote going ahead, it is perceived that it does not fall within  the power of the government to do so unless the parliament authorises it.

Forms are due to be posted to voters by September 12, to be completed by November 7 with a result to be announced on November 15. It’s a non-binding result that Government is not obliged to do anything with. My reflection is that we don't need to change our constitution we need to change the Marriage  Act and it is the parliament's job to that. Why are they asking us what to do?

I am appalled that our hard earned taxpayers dollars are being considered to fund this nonsensical drama whilst citizens in our local community can't even put their heaters on in winter to stay warm, mental health workers struggle to keep up with local demands for support due to staff shortages and in our community people struggle to make ends meet.

Why are we wasting this money instead of rising up and hold a government responsible to govern, to make a decision that we elected them to do on our behalf, and that in all other matters they duly, dutifully and happily exercise their power to govern until now, on this issue? What is going on? New Zealand demonstrated that a conservative prime minister, through a parliamentary vote, a conscience vote in the parliament, could decriminalise same sex acts and achieve marriage equality.

My reflection is that truth is stranger than fiction: is it morally wrong for same sex couples to marry? Currently the right to love and express this love in a same sex marriage has been endorsed by 760 million people across 23 countries around the world.  

What is going on in Australia that our Government  is paralysed to legislate this issue? The Catholic Church proved its utter irrelevance in the Irish Referendum result when they tried to sway the public to a "No" for same sex marriage on the basis that children had a right to a mother and a father. What about a child's right not to be molested by an ordained father or a parents’ right of a bishop not to hide a paedophile priest in their parish?  

In NSW the law was passed to accept same sex adoption so parliament agreed that children could have two mothers and or two fathers. Is the issue children can have same sex parents as long as they don't marry? What is going on?

My New Zealand partner and myself, originally from South Africa, now living in Laggan, had found our local community to be non biased, welcoming, tolerant, compassionate, loving and embracing our partnership. Is love not the glue and compassion, not the paste that holds the glue together?  

Some of our friends state that they want us to marry as long as it is not called 'marriage' but some other word as they believe the word 'marriage' belongs to the Christians and comes from the bible and is sacred to them.  

They say they respect our right to get married as I do theirs.  However my reflection is that for a marriage to be legal it does not require a religious service, so should marriage be a religious term? Is there therefore a good reason why the term cannot be used in recognition of legal unions other than that of one man and one woman? It is ironic that both myself and my partner could now  be legally married in our countries of origin?

When I first arrived in Laggan with my same sex partner the community response to us was not one of judgement for our sexual preference; they merely enquired whether I was the sculptor and my partner the writer? I found it so refreshing at the time to be defined by passion rather than my sexual preference. I felt proud to be part of a community that had its values based not on morality but creativity.

Our children proudly introduce us in public as "my two mums," they celebrate diversity with us and agree with us it is each person's right to love. It is a basic human right and never to be the subject of debate on the basis of a high moral ground.

If love is the glue and compassion the paste, who are we to judge the right to love?  My reflection is that we don't need to change our constitution, we need to change the Marriage  Act and it is the parliament's job to that. We are not meant to be judge and jury on the issue of same sex marriage due to parliament's refusal to legislate. What is going on?