Of the 30 submissions to the parliamentary committee, most were in support of the return to civil partnerships which were established in the dying days of the Bligh government, but changed into registered relationships in one of the first acts of the Newman government.

The Palaszczuk government legislation would alter the name and once again allow state-sanctioned ceremonies for same-sex and straight couples.

The move has won support from the Southern Queensland Anglican Church Social Responsibilities Committee, which told the committee reviewing the legislation it did so "in the belief that the bill addressed what philosopher John Rawls called a foundational principle of justice".

"That is, that each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all," the SRC wrote in its submission.

"Thus, recognising the union of same-sex couples does not reduce the liberty of other couples to enter into legally – and socially recognised partnerships – so there is an inherent injustice in preventing same-sex couples from doing so.

"... We are confident that the proposed legislation does not affect the right of churches or other religious groups to celebrate marriage according to their own understanding and religious beliefs.

"The Marriage Act clearly enables conduct of both civil ceremonies and those conducted by ministers of religion.

"We believe that the act and legitimacy of religious marriage is not denied or denigrated by enabling same sex couples – or opposite sex couples who have different or no spiritual beliefs – to publicly commit to each other in a way that is legally and socially recognised."

Retired Baptist Pastor Ron Smith expressed the same sentiment, although used shorter parlance.

"I strongly support restoring civil unions," he wrote to the committee.

"Treating everyone EQUALLY (sic) is the right thing to do."

No one identifying as Catholic responded to the call for submissions, although director of the Queensland Australian Christian Lobby, Wendy Francis, who was a key figure in the LNP's watering down of civil unions, labelled it "bad policy".

"The bill attempts to mimic marriage in all but name," Ms Francis wrote.

"It would see the reintroduction of partnership ceremonies.  At a time when a national debate is taking place on the definition of marriage, it is inappropriate for Queensland Parliament's resources to be used in this way.  Marriage is a federal issue.

"...Marriage is the natural group union of society because it is the institution through which society is naturally produced.  In this way, it is fundamental to society and is worthy of unique and special protection by the state.

"Other relationships, such as de facto relationships and same-sex relationships, are already granted the same rights in law as marriage couples. In addition, same-sex and unmarried opposite sex couples can already have their relationships registered under the Queensland relationship register.  There is no need to mirror marriage, which is a unique relationship worthy of special protection for relevant public policy reasons."

FamilyVoice Australia, which bills itself as a "national Christian voice, promoting true family values for the benefit of all Australians", wrote the bill, if passed, "would strike at the primary purpose of marriage".

"Same-sex relationships cannot naturally result in the conception and bearing of a child," they wrote.

"They cannot give a child the sense of identity that comes from knowing his or her parents, grandparents and ancestry.  They are unable to provide both male and female role models for children as they are raised.

"So-called 'discrimination' is not the issue.  Marriage between a man and a woman has existed for thousands of years.  Marriage was celebrated in ancient Egypt over 3300 years ago, as evidenced by ancient works of art, accompanied by hieroglyphic text, such as those recording the love between Pharaoh Akhenaten and Queen Nefertiti.

"Marriage is recognised by governments as a pre-existing natural social institution.  It is not something governments can presume to define differently."

But the ACL and FamilyVoice were in the minority, with most asking for the law to pass, including parents who wanted equality for their LGBTI children.

"I am a mother of six, one of whom is gay," Valerie Fjellstrom wrote.

"This son is a wonderful example of an Australian.  I am fifth-generation Australian and have been very proud of my heritage.  I am not proud of my state of Queensland and my country in the discrimination of our legal system in denying this son the same rights of marrying the person of his choice to form a stable relationship, sanctioned by not only society but also our law.

"His brothers and sisters are no better citizens than what this son is.  Why should his relationship be less than theirs in the law?

"He has already faced many difficulties unknown to 'straight' sons and daughters, as he has been treated 'less' than those of us deemed of 'normal' sexuality.

"My wish is to see our state and our country recognises that in a society where we pride ourselves on first world status, that all our sons and daughters are given equal value.

"The awful discrepancy of equal rights and freedom from discrimination based on sexuality is addressed.  This will go a long way in addressing the terrible incidence of suicide among people who identify as gay.

"I write this letter of my own right and not as part of any organisation other than a member of society."

The committee is due to report back to parliament by November 17.