Notice how at no stage in his article does the author say
a) what "marriage equality" is
b) why some sexuality and not others should be entitled to governmental registration.

The entire article and arguments are based on the factually incorrect claim that homosexuals cannot marry. This in turn is based on the factually and legally incorrect assumption that marriage is a thing constituted by the government.

Not even the government claims that marriage is constituted by the government; and nor has the church ever claimed the same for the church.

Both the state and church have only ever claimed that they recognise for their own purposes, a marriage brought about by the actions of the parties in taking each other to spouse.

It is this exchange of vows or undertakings to be faithful and look after each other, which is the essence in fact and law of marriage; and which registration registers.

It is simply false to claim that gays are not "allowed" to marry. Gays have the same right as everyone else to exchange vows of faithfulness etc. and to celebrate the occasion however they want. And neither is the legal protection afforded to them in property and trust matters any worse than that to the legally married; in some respects its better.

What they can't do is *register* their relationship with the gubbas.

What no-one will explain is why the government should be registering people's private consensual sexual relationships in the first place?

And what the author will not explain is, if the issue is marriage "equality" then why should not every other form of sexuality have equal "rights" to have their relationship registered by the government, or why?

Unlike for gays, marriage for polyamorous really *is* illegal - it's a criminal offence.

And not only that, but merely uttering the *words* of marriage, is the crime; not just registering it merely impossible. So the discrimination is far more repressive than against gays.

Rodney, as you defending or discriminating against polyamorous marriage?

Plantagenet
"Marriage is an intrinsically dangerous and expensive occupation which should not be visited on anyone: hetero, homo, transgender, transsexual, hermaphrodites or domestic pets."

LOL.

Daniel Reid, author on the Tao, said that the ancient Taoists believed that monogamous heterosexual marriage is "mutually injurious".

The Toll of Gay Marriage on Gays by R.O Lopez
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/the-toll-of-gay-marriage-on-gays.html

The Unbearable Sleaziness of Being (a Gay Man) by R.O Lopez
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com.au/2013/12/la-joie-de-vivre-16-unbearable.html

We have had “marriage equality” for generations. All marriages are equal before the law and the two partners to a marriage are equal before the law.

There is no such thing as same-sex marriage. Marriage is and always has been in our society the union of one man and one woman. If a gay man wants to marry, he may do so, and his marriage will be equal before the law to everyone else’s marriage. If a lesbian wants to marry, she may do so, and her marriage will be equal before the law to everyone else’s marriage. If, on the other hand a gay man or a lesbian wishes to form a union with a person of the same sex, he or she may do so. But that union is not a marriage.

The High Court has amended the Constitution so that the federal parliament may create “same-sex marriage”. I expect it will eventually do so, but “same-sex marriage” won’t be marriage at all. It will just mean that marriage itself will no longer have a word to denote it.

No one argued for “same-sex marriage” 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago, including those who act now like it is a pressing human rights issues that deeply concerns them.

The most fascinating aspect of the same-sex-marriage campaign has been its success. The idea is as completely irrational as demanding that parents adopting children be called pregnant on the grounds of pregnancy equality, but by renaming the campaign as one for “marriage equality”, appealing to emotions and labelling opponents as bigots, the campaign has succeeded in having the demand for a change in the meaning of a word being taken seriously as a great question of human rights.

All campaigners for change in our society should study the “same-sex marriage” campaign as it provides a template for success. That applies to all ideas – real and completely off-the-planet ones.

Chris,
The campaigners in favour of legalising pederasty and pedophilia are doing just that and citing "evidence" such as the findings of Dr James Cantor and others as proof.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/doctor-proclaims-pedophilia-sexual-orientation/
Gay activist Michelangelo Signorile writes in the Huffington Post that only "bigots" have a problem with what he calls "intergenerational sex":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/tom-daley-is-20-years-younger-than-dustin-lance-black-so-what_b_4397666.html
Signorile wilfully distorts the widely held bias against very young people being the sexual partners of much older men, he's saying that the Dirty Old Man accusation is "homophobic" if leveled at Gays.
Do you see where this is all heading now? When this "Marriage equality" scam first became a mainstream talking point most thinking people were asking ourselves what would be the next phase of the Liberation struggle, of course it's the campaign to legalise sexual activity between adults and children, which anyone who's even looked at the issue knows has always been a part of the Gay agenda.

Jay, your comment, though apt and timely, sickened me. That there are such people in our midst is frightening.

What is even more frightening is that such people are uniting and agitating so they can get better access to kids, our kids, to fulfill their sick sexual demands.

The public is being steam-rolled by these noisy immoral creatures and sections of the Media who are into depravity.

In ten more years, what will society look like? Will parents be able to treat their children as sex objects? Will pedophiles be able to use the "I WAS BORN THAT WAY" defence? Will no animal be safe from human lust?

It has been said that Rome fell apart when it became ammoral! We seem to be walking down the same road.

Help!