However history is littered with examples of insidious discrimination and bigotry persisting long after unjust laws have been amended, and it would be very easy to pay lip-service to same-sex marriage without renouncing the exclusionary attitudes and practices of the past.

The only way to ensure that equality ensues in the aftermath of this ugly period in Australian politics is to strip all religious organisations of their civil law functions, in line with most other civilised countries, and as a nation take heed of the valuable lesson we've just been given on the dangers of allowing the line between church and state to blur.

Unfortunately the same god-bothering moral authoritarians – frustrated by their declining relevance in the modern world and oblivious to the alienating effect of their increasingly desperate public interventions – will again attempt to foist their beliefs on the rest of us over the issue of euthanasia, will again drown out the many moderate voices of reason within their organisations, and will yet again be exposed as being out-of-touch, hypocritical and lacking empathy.

Every successive generation of Australians is more able to think for themselves, so the sooner the likes of Mark Coleridge and Anthony Fisher are replaced by the likes of Frank Brennan and Bob Maguire the better it will be for everybody.

James Allan, Narrabundah

As a committed "no" voter, while I fully respect the prevailing view of the voting public, I can't help but grieve the fact that we have now, nationally taken yet one more distinct step into the communal abyss that is the secularising of our social pillars and brazen godlessness.

Australia's enviable wealth, safety and liveability, is due, in no small way, to the fact of South Australian Federal Convention delegate Patrick McMahon's authoring of the reference in our constitution to the people of Australia, "humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God".

Indeed, it is courtesy of our distinctly Judaeo-Christian worldview, as opposed to Communism, Socialism, Asian civil codes.

Here's the rub: where people, by and large, allow their domestic affairs to be shaped by the enduring teachings of Christ, it bodes well for them.

However, where metaphorical towers of Babel are built, and we boldly declare that what God has deemed to be good for us, is actually not good enough, then we simply cannot expect to be blessed, and instead, will be given up in time to our own selfishness and sterility. Such regressive change may well take a generation or more to eventuate, but where we proudly sow the wind, we must be prepared to reap the whirlwind.

Peter Waterhouse, Craigieburn, Vic

The nation voted "yes" and only now, after the euphoria passes, will the consequences begin to be felt.

Legislative and fundamental social change must now follow.

Have we even considered the possible rise in surrogacy and the new and complex laws surrounding every aspect of it?

Have we considered the rights of surrogate parents and the future of adult children, seeking their lost parent and answers to fundamental questions regarding their identity?

Have we thought about the loss of genetically related grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins, of genetically related brothers and sisters lost to each other, of historic family lines disrupted or destroyed?

Have we even thought about the generational effects?

Someone said to me many years ago, "Australia is asleep".

Australia voted on a simple question about the rights of two people who love each other, to marry. And with hardly a thought about the enduring consequences, we clamoured to make it happen.

The sky will not fall in, but what have we really done?

It will be interesting to see if the euphoria lasts, or we repent at leisure.

Margaret Cathro, Kambah

For at least the last three months of the marriage equality vote people have been saying that they are horrified by sections of the Safe Schools Program.

I have been asking them for the exact part of the Safe Schools curriculum that they are objecting to. So far not one has actually been able to reply as to why they are offended.

The list of people includes church leaders, various politicians and vocal leaders of the "no" campaign as well as so many ordinary Australians.

I am beginning to think they are offended by the Safe Schools program because they have been told they are offended by it, not because of any actual part of the program.

Regardless of this, the "no" campaign has told us that if the "yes" vote wins then programs like Safe Schools will become more common, that would seem to be a ringing endorsement of such programs (anti- bullying and sex education) by a large majority of the Australian people.

I just hope the "no" vote supporters have the dignity to respect that decision.

Doug Steley, Heyfield

Tim Hollo of the Green Institute recently gave voice to an emergent, concerted campaign, writing of starting "a series of constitutional conventions, led by Indigenous people, in suburbs, cities and towns, to redesign ... our democracy".

Whether for inserting special rights for Aborigines, changing parliamentarians' obligations or creating a republic, we are being battered with a concerted campaign to change the constitution.

The Green Institute states its aim is "changing the system" and declares, "everything is connected".

Mr Hollo fails to recognise that this holistic maxim is a two-edged blade and that reality is not linear.

His glib, even if true, assertion about the corrupting power of multinational companies does not establish any need to include prohibition of conflicts of interests, collusion, fraud and the trilogy of feasances by politicians in the constitution.

These are properly dealt with elsewhere in the law.

Gary J. Wilson, Macgregor

E-cigarettes a health hazard

Professor Colin Mendelsohn is sadly mistaken if he believes the opposition of 23 major NSW health organisations to the use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free areas is just about "annoyance" ("e-cigarette advocate urges govt to lift ban", canberratimes.com.au, November 15).

The use of chemicals which are known respiratory irritants in e-cigarettes is a considerable concern to the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand and to the more than three in 10 Australians with lung disease.

A systematic review of the evidence by NSW Health published in 2016 concluded: "Although more research is required, current evidence regarding passive exposure to EC vapours shows the potential for health impacts.

"Those passively exposed to the vapours of EC users are exposed to numerous pollutants at levels above background and at concentrations that are associated with potential adverse health effects."

We expect the NSW government to act on the findings of its own department. Most other States — ACT, Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia — have already included e-cigarettes in their smoke-free legislation so that they cannot be used in areas which are designated smoke-free.

New Zealand, the country which supporters of e-cigarettes point to as a regulatory exemplar, is planning to ban the use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free areas with its new legislation.

Smokers have shown consideration of other people's right to safe air for the past 17 years since the Smoke-free Environment Act 2000 first banned smoking in restaurants for the Sydney Olympics.

Prof Allan Glanville, president, Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand

When our founding fathers drew up our constitution in the late 19th century radio was virtually unknown and television, satellites and wi fi were not even on the non-existent radar, so to speak.

There was no such thing as an Australian, New Zealand, Canadian or South African citizen.

Roughly speaking, those born in any of those dominions/colonies were described as "British subjects".

Conservative governments like to and have appointed "black letter lawyers" (of undoubted ability, I hasten to add) to the High Court and, lo and behold, what do they get but a black letter interpretation of Section 44 of our founding document, resulting in an almost literal decimation of our Parliament.

A more progressive court may have taken cognisance of geopolitical developments over the past century and twisted the words "foreign power" so as not to exclude those of us who would be British subjects still, if things had not been changed.

This would have saved many, but not all, of our now ex-parliamentarians. Those of more exotic ancestry may have to learn how to fill out forms properly.

However, it is obvious to any realistic observer that Section 44 needs a comprehensive overhaul.

As that can only be done using the referendum mechanism, it is now time for our pusillanimous pollies to stop wailing about how hard it is to get a referendum through, do their jobs and to get on with it.

If they unite and submit an agreed question at the next federal election it would probably cost less than the recent totally unnecessary same-sex marriage survey and have a good chance of success.

People are sick of the present shambles.

James Gralton, Garran

There are many issues affecting the decline of our education standards.

Some of these Ross Gittins addressed in his article "A lesson we must learn" (Forum, November 11, p.10).

However, it is quite inappropriate to focus on the quality of teaching as a major source of the problems.

Educating our young is a joint effort between the school and the home.

It is the latter that in many cases is not occurring because of our time-poor society.

For example, there are not many Australian families who sit around the dinner table each night and communicate with their children.

As a consequence, it is the schools that have to include "life skill" subjects in the curriculum because they are not being taught at home.

This erodes time spent on core skills such as reading, writing and arithmetic.

On the whole our teachers are extremely dedicated to teaching and learning but families must also become involved rather than leaving all aspects of education to the schools.

Yes, mortgages have to be paid but families need to spend regular "non rushed" time with their children to help promote talk, thought and values.

Helen Wade, Nicholls

Now that our elected representatives have shown willingness to spend $22 million of our tax money confirming our opinion on a matter involving social inclusion may we expect that they will spend an equal amount confirming our opinion on the important matter of medically assisted voluntary euthanasia?

The emphasis seems to have strayed from humanitarian changes to our laws to the supposed effects on our religious persuasions.

The fact the desired assistance is voluntary and does not in any way impel participation by any person not seeking such assistance or providing the assistance for religious or any other reason seems to have been lost in the hysteria.

Hopefully the majority of our elected representatives are capable of rising above this hysteria.

It's time to stop hiding behind the excuse that it is to hard.

Maxwell Lotton, ᩿Fisher

Re events in Zimbabwe.

At last Margaret Thatcher's and Malcolm Fraser's disastrous joint legacy is finally at an end.

C. Smith, Kingston

SESELJA OUT OF STEP

The very high yes vote in the ACT for same-sex marriage shows once again that we are the most progressive section of Australian society. Yet in Zed Seselja we have one of the most conservative senators. It is time for liberal Liberal voters to reject this rabid reactionary.

John Passant, Kambah

ELECTORATES SHOW WAY

Seventy-five per cent of Abbott's electorate said yes, as did Zed's ACT. Hopefully they now realise that the electorate really is much more liberal than they are.

Peter Campbell, Cook

SHAMEFUL STANCE

Peter Dutton claims allowing refugees from Manus to be resettled in New Zealand could lead boats to restart. How tragic that, despite him claiming we now have an unprecedented number of assets monitoring our maritime borders, at huge cost, it is still deemed necessary to prolong the suffering of the genuine refugees and asylum seekers on Manus Island in order to deter new boat arrivals.

How tragic, and how shameful.

Anne Aisbett, Page

OPPOSITION TO NZ, REALLY?

The Australian government would not consider the NZ government's offer to take in 150 refugees. Peter Dutton even threatens there would be consequences if NZ went ahead to make a bilateral deal with PNG. Would they have given more consideration if the offer had come from the rogue regime in Cambodia.

Rajend Naidu, Glenfield, NSW

BERNARDI ODD ONE OUT

Cory Bernardi is a conservative. But what is he trying to conserve that people cannot conserve by themselves? Has he any actual useful function in the Parliament?

Michael McCarthy, Deakin