It would be helpful, respectful and more credible if you started with a dictionary meaning of homophobia rather than a lazy breakdown of the word. Homophobia has the same meaning as heterosexism and is directly analogous to racism and sexism - none of which are restricted to fear. People in our society grow up in such a strongly heternormative environment with engrained homophobia that they are incapable of seeing discrimination with denial trickling right down to the meaning of words like homophobia.

And you suggest people who are ignorant and in denial of such discrimination should be able to vote in a referendum on my freedom of my biology - the expression of the sexual attraction of my brain, my sexuality. I changed my religion from fundamentalist Christianity to antitheist atheism because I could not change my sexuality and I think my fight for my survival deserves a bit more respect than is shown here. Shouldn't freedom of biology (skin colour, disability, sexual orientation, gender) have precedence over freedom of religion? If religion wasn't so greedy with other people's freedoms we would already have marriage equality.

It is against my conscience not to protest at the injustice of discrimination and stigma that is inherent in a society dominated by religious ideals but then I elicit claims of intolerance and of denying others their rights.
Re: "A vocal group of proponents of gay marriage are deliberately or unwittingly undermining three important freedoms – freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech."
I think you say this simple because it so foreign for you to think that we could stand up and exercise our own freedoms. You are so use to your own freedom you have no compassion for justice for others who are different. My religious beliefs and that of most GLBTI include the moral good of our sexuality. I don't want to have to sit at the back of the bus or wait for another bus just for gays. I want the same freedom of religion, conscience and speech as everyone else. Anything less is homophobic.

A thoughtful and constructive article, BUT, though I can agree with much of its content, I can NOT agree that Gay Marriage is inevitable - simply because I can not agree that gay relationships, as a generality, can or should be deemed to equate to genuine marriage, either on statistical or on sociological grounds.

Firstly, let's leave religious belief out of it, but look rather at the sociological implications. Gays are a small, though vocal, minority, and social constructs and norms should always be based on the general majority common good. Marriage is a construct aimed at long term overall societal stability and security (both personal and economical), with associated laws enacted to protect the rights and well-being of the partners and of any progeny or dependents reliant on that partnership. Just as we, sociologically, outlaw polygamy, polyandry, incest, pedophilia and even the union of first cousins (on medical/genetic-detriment grounds) in the interest of the long-term common good of the society at large, so we must also be hesitant about the ramifications of affording gay unions the same elevated status currently reserved, in the common interest, for genuine heterosexual marriage.

'Marriage' may not now be meeting its inherent intentions or obligations particularly well, but that is representative of a malaise and breakdown in our societal conformity with best interest and best practice, rather than through any deficiency in the concept of marriage itself. To add to current deficiencies by recognising gay unions as being the same as the genuine concept of marriage, could well be akin to deeming 'binge-drinking' to be a national pastime.

Gay unions are statistically unreliable and insecure, as a generality. Is this what we would wish for 'marriage', in a perfect world - and isn't this what we should be aiming for? Should we knowingly reduce overall societal expectations and aspirations to the lowest common denominator? I think not.

Stable heterosexual marriage is the foundation of our society, and it needs to be promoted and supported to higher levels of adoption and success, and Not to be undermined by further pot-holing of its purpose and objectives.

@ yuyutsu: actually, marriage is a legal relationship governed by Federal law.

Here's a thought: people who actually go to church are a minority today. People who think gay marriage is OK are in the majority. Maybe, as people like Jim Wallace keeps telling us, we SHOULD stop pandering to the minority. Let's keep "marriage" for purely civil and secular ceremonies. If the minority of Christians who want relationships to be defined in a particular way as fixed in a particular point in time (before the idea of LGBTI marriage came about, but presumably after women ceased to be chattels, but for some before women got equal pay and other encouragments to work - let's say about 1900 to 1950) want to have binding relationships, then OK, let's let them have a sort of special thing just for them - we could call it a "religious union" - but we ought not let them call their relationships "marriage". We must not let a minority dictate to us what the word "marriage" means.

(tongue in cheeck, of course. Well, mostly).

A solution would be for all legal marriages to be initially conducted as "civil unions".

The term "marriage" be applied to religious ceremonies following the civil union.

Thereby, gay marriage services can be conducted by those religious groups which accept it.

Saltpetre says "Gay unions are statistically unreliable and insecure, please direct us to where these statistics can be found.
I can assure you that there are a great number of same sex relationships, that are enjoying a happy and long term commitment to each other, even many in public life.
As you mention "Insecure" look at the stigma that gay people live with every day, having their being belittled, which explains why the rates of self harm and suicide is six time higher for young gay people.
Your own posting is homophobic, in that you do not consider same sex couples should have the rights that you enjoy, and live their lives only to your considered acceptance.
Love in any form, never harmed anyone.

Danielle,
That would be the logical solution , abolish the marriage act, but this "debate" isn't about marriage equality or any other sort of equality, it's an extension of class war, using the state to enforce bourgeois values upon the working classes, I get the impression most homosexuals couldn't care less.
I've asked the pro homosexual posters this question many times but they usually won't reply, so here goes again.
When do we achieve parity? What's the next big Gay campaign after the official state approved definition of marriage has been re written to your satisfaction?